BREAKING: Supreme Court will hear DOMA discrimination case and Proposition 8 case in 2013

From Freedom To Marry:

By Adam Polaski
Dec 07, 2012 at 03:25 pm

Moments ago, the Supreme Court announced in an order that it has decided to hear the Proposition 8 case and a challenge to the so-called Defense of Marriage Act in 2013. Now, the Court must schedule the cases for oral arguments, which are likely to be heard in the spring of 2013. We should hear final news on rulings in both cases by June of 2013.

Our founder and president Evan Wolfson reflected on the news that the Supreme Court will hear Windsor v. United States, one of the key challenges to DOMA:

By agreeing to hear a case against the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, the Court can now move swiftly to affirm what 10 federal rulings have already said: DOMA’s  ‘gay exception’ to how the federal government treats married couples violates the Constitution and must fall. When it comes to the whole federal safety net that comes with marriage – access to Social Security survivorship, health coverage, family leave, fair tax treatment, family immigration, and over 1000 other protections and responsibilities – couples who are legally married in the states should be treated by the federal government as what they are: married.

With the clock now ticking on a Supreme Court marriage decision in 2013, it is more urgent than ever that we make the same strong case for the freedom to marry in the court of public opinion that our advocates are making in the courts of law. With momentum from Election Day victories for the freedom to marry in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington, the way to maximize our chances of winning in court over the next several months is to win more states and win over more hearts and minds. We can show the justices that when they do the right thing, it will stand the test of time and be true to where the American people already are.

He also commented on the Court’s decision to hear the Proposition 8 case, Hollingworth v. Perry:

Gay and lesbian couples in California – and indeed, all over the country – now look to the Supreme Court to affirm that the Constitution does not permit states to strip something as important as the freedom to marry away from one group of Americans.

Windsor v. United States dates back to November 2010, when the American Civil Liberties Union filed suit on behalf of Edie Windsor, the 83-year-old widowed lesbian from New York who sued the government for the $363,000 in estate taxes that she was forced to pay under DOMA following the death of her late partner Thea Spyer in 2010. Windsor and Spyer were together for more than 40 years and wed in Canada in 2007. Because of DOMA, their marriage was not respected by the federal government.

In June 2012, U.S. District Court Judge Barbara Jones sided with Windsor by ruling DOMA’s Section 3 – which explicitly restricts marriage to different-sex couples – unconstitutional. In October 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld that lower ruling, and the case was subsequently petitioned to be heard by the nation’s highest court.

The Proposition 8 case, Hollingworthy v. Perry (formerly Perry v. Brown) dates back to March 2009, when the American Foundation for Equal Rights filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to challenge the constitutionality of Proposition 8. Prop 8, which passed in California on November 4, 2008, is a citizens’ initiative that repealed the freedom to marry in the state, overturning a May 2008 decision from the California Supreme Court legalizing marriage for same-sex couples across the state.

You can help Freedom to Marry create the climate for pro-marriage decisions in both the Prop 8 trial and the DOMA trial. Tell us that you’re on the Right Side of History by DONATING TODAY. 

Yeah, I left the donation link in for a reason….
Help if you can.
~G

That’s a dealbreaker

Image

Earlier, Bobbie posted an update about the Helena Non-Discrimination Ordinance. And, in my first post on this blog, I’m going to strongly disagree with her on the preferred outcome related to the locker room amendment.

Bobbie believes that through compromise, this amendment could be modified to an acceptable level. I think this amendment is a dealbreaker and if it remains, is reason enough to oppose the ordinance as a whole.

Now, I want to throw a caveat into this assertion, and a little bit of wiggle room for me to admit that I might be wrong on this: I’m not a transgendered person; I will never assert that I know all of the experiences that a person goes through when dealing with the societal bias and stigma that transgendered people deal with on a daily basis.

That being said, I have a difficult time accepting an ordinance that could put any trans people in a more difficult position. Under her compromise position, Bobbie suggested,:

“the “locker room amendment” should be revised to preclude only those with socially inconsistent genitalia from revealing as much, from exposing such inconsistent genitalia.  To be clear, a pre-op transwoman could be excluded from the female locker room if she exposes her penis, and similarly a transman if he reveals the lack thereof in the male locker room.”

While I understand the sentiment that Bobbie is expressing, I don’t think this gets to the fundamental issue at hand. Currently, trans men and women often face a dilemma when deciding which locker room or restroom to use. This ordinance was introduced in order to make these sensitive situations more safe for all Helenans. I worry that this compromise amendment could leave some of our trans brothers and sisters behind.

Furthermore, there currently is no prohibition on trans people using their self-identified restroom or locker room. I worry that this amendment would codify a law which would leave some trans people in a worse position than when this debate started more than a year ago.

I want to restate though, I am not a trans person, so I’m not going to claim to understand the experiences they’ve been through. But, as a cisgendered homosexual person, I can’t handle the thought of knowing that my rights are being advanced, while the rights of others are being restricted in city code. That’s why, this amendment is a deal-breaker no matter your gender identity.

I hope that Commissioner Haque-Hausrath and Mayor Smith continue to oppose this amendment, and Commission Thweat changes his opinion on this measure.

Boise Approves Transgender-inclusive Non-Discrimination Ordinance

Boise just did something Helena was terrified to do – made discrimination against anyone because of sexuality and gender identity illegal.

From the Idaho Press-Tribune:

The Boise City Council unanimously approved a nondiscrimination ordinance for the city of Boise Tuesday evening.

“… Big win for equality in Boise,” the city tweeted Tuesday.

The ordinance, proposed by Council President Maryanne Jordan and Council member Lauren McLean, prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity/expression in employment, housing and places of public accommodation in the city.

There are exceptions for religious corporations, associations, education institutions and societies. The U.S. Government and state of Idaho and any of their departments or agencies except the city of Boise are also exempt.

During a packed public hearing on the ordinance in November, the Council heard from 60 people (who) supported it and 12 opposed.

The new law takes effect Jan. 1, 2013.

Read the full ordinance here.

It includes perceived sexuality and gender identity. Which is amazing for any city.

I just can’t believe Boise beat Helena to the punch…. Or maybe I can.

Sigh.

 

 

Anti-Discrimination Law Passed in Missouri County

From The St Louis Post-Dispatch:

In one of the longest and most emotional meetings in the St. Louis County Council’s history, an ordinance was narrowly passed Tuesday night that adds gender identity and sexual orientation to the county’s anti-discrimination regulations and hate crimes law.

An overflow crowd of more than 250 people spilled out of the council chambers in Clayton; 92 of them signed up to address the council, and most took advantage of that opportunity in a public comments segment that lasted more than two hours.

And as could be expected on an issue that involved religion and civil rights, most of them spoke fervently.

The ordinance adds protections for people in employment, housing and public accommodations in unincorporated areas, regardless of their sexual orientation. It also expands protections on the basis of gender and disability.

Are you watching Helena? It can be done.

Full story here.

Pew: Marriage Equality Approval Rises Across U.S.

(click for link to story)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(click for link to story)

 

 

Montana Group Petitions for Secession

These “patriots” would rather withdraw from the Union than recognize the reality of a lawfully elected democratic government. I’m having visions of cranky children taking their toys and going home, telling their parents that they’d rather move than play with the other kids in the neighborhood….

Crazy.



shrugged header
PUT THE WHITE HOUSE ON NOTICE 
Enough is enough!
 
WE PETITION THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION
 
TO:Peacefully grant the State of Montana to withdraw from the United States of America and create its own NEW government.

As the founding fathers of the United States of America made clear in the Declaration of Independence in 1776:

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

“…Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and institute new Government…”

 

PLEASE VISIT THIS WEBSITE 
AND SIGN THE PETITION TODAY!
~
Seriously? This is the complete opposite of patriotism which is defined as “love for one’s country”. These folks have no love for country. Their love is for their exclisivistic, twisted ideology….

If Only White Men Could Vote

Click pic for source- and more interesting maps…

Just Marriage

I’m really proud of my dear friend Drew Emery and his film. His passion and vision were priceless in the approval of this measure to legalize Marriage Equality in Washington State- and all around the country. From him and our friends at The True Stories Project:

We can think of no better way to celebrate this amazing day than by releasing our latest video: Just Marriage: from Outlaws to Inlaws.

For a long time, our audiences have been asking for an update on the lives of our storytellers. When we we were invited to bring Inlaws & Outlaws to public television, we decided this was the perfect time to do just that.

So enjoy. And as you reflect on how far we’ve all come these past eight years, give a moment of thanks to the thousands of people from all walks of lives who set the ball rolling but stepping up and telling their stories.

Note: If you haven’t yet seen Inlaws & Outlaws, be warned; this update is chockfull of spoilers!

A Hope Fulfilled

My Message to the White House

Mr Obama,

This HIV-positive gay man in a rural state fought for you- because you fought for him.

Let’s get to work.

~Greg