Gay Day!

I can't say that I was awake all night wondering what was coming down the pipe from SCOTUS today. Good sex makes for good sleep. But after a little coffee I'm now sufficiently on edge. I began my gay rights activism over 20 years ago and I've had two primary focuses ~ the military ban on gays and the glaring marriage inequality. One down, one to go.

Whatever the court decides today, the battle for human rights is not yet over. So long as the rights of any group are diminished, all humanity suffers. While I hope for a big step forward today, I'm troubled by the step backwards that we took yesterday. I have friends who waited 8 hours to vote in the last election. Surprise, they lived in minority neighborhoods. Those who think that racism is fixed because we have a black president are as naive as are those who believe homophobia will end when LGBTQ folks have legal equality. Justice is not a light switch. It's slow and painful, and it takes generations.

Racism, sexism, homophobia and religious intolerance all stem from the same defective thinking, and even if I get mine today I wont be happy until everyone gets theirs. Given the level of injustice in the world, I guess that means on some level that I'll never be completely happy. And that's OK. At least the sex is great!

SCOTUS Bans Broadcast of Proposition 8 Trial

More or less agreeing with Ed Whelan, a divided Supreme Court upheld its temporary ban on any broadcast of the Proposition 8 trial before ND CA Judge Vaughn Walker.

You can read the opinion here and Scotusblog's roundup here.

The per curiam opinion was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito.

A very sharp dissent by Justice Breyer was joined by Justices Sotomayor, Stevens and Ginsburg.

It strikes me as a highly unusual and ideologically-driven opinion, not unlike Bush v. Gore.

Indeed, I would say this does not bode well at all for same-sex advocates if and when this case hits the Supremes on the merits.

Ted Olsen will have his hands full.

Now Here's How You Criticize A Federal Judge.

Noted conservative lawyer and NRO legal contributor Ed Whelan tears into the Chief Judge of the Northern District of California, Vaughn Walker (a Bush I appointee), who is about to begin trial on the same-sex marriage case brought by Ted Olsen and David Boies.

Let's see --

1. He calls it a "show trial."

2. He says Judge Walker just wants publicity and is seeking to convert the proceedings into a

"high-profile, culture-transforming, history-making, Scopes-style show trial of Proposition 8’s sponsors. Specifically, Walker is rushing to override longstanding prohibitions on televised coverage of federal trials so that he can authorize televised coverage of the Proposition 8 trial. Televised coverage would generate much greater publicity for ringmaster Walker’s circus."

3. He says Judge Walker "wants to stack the deck against Proposition 8" and "has resorted to procedural shenanigans and outright illegality."

4. He says Judge Walker's acts are "in plain violation" of the rules prohibiting broadcasting federal trials and the "obvious purpose" of Judge Walker's actions is to subvert those rules (even though Whelan concedes that Judge Walker may be in "technical compliance" with the relevant federal statute).

5. He calls Judge Walker's actions "kangaroo-court procedures."

6. Whelan says "[o]nly an idiot or a hardened ideological advocate for same-sex marriage — and Walker is no idiot — would imagine that the Proposition 8 case is a good candidate for the program."

7. Whelan concludes that "[i]f Judge Walker persists in failing to recognize that elementary fact, the national civics lesson that he will be providing is yet another reminder that too many of our federal judges willfully abuse their authority in order to advance their own political agendas."

8. For good measure, Whelan did a follow up post, lamenting that "[t]here’s no end to Judge Vaughn Walker’s shameless procedural shenanigans" and that "the only 'immediate need' is for Walker to disqualify himself for his patent lack of impartiality — or for some higher court to step in."

You know, just to be safe, I'm gonna take another long look at Judge Zloch's order.

We're All Pinkos Now.

You know I am so sick of these liberal activist judges, imposing their "east coast" values, inspired by Hollyweird and Barbara Streisand, why don't they go back to their Ivory Towers and have lunch with Teddy Kennedy and Ward Churchill all day already.

Wait a minute -- Iowa?

The Iowa Supreme Court announced its ruling in a landmark same-sex marriage case Friday morning. Read Court's Ruling On Same-Sex Marriage (pdf)

The justices ruled unanimously in favor of six same-sex couples who sought to get marriage licenses, but were denied.

The 69 page ruling means same-sex couples in Iowa can now get married under state law. The ruling said that the Iowa statute limiting civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution.

The decision strikes the language from Iowa Code section 595.2 limiting civil marriage to a man and a woman. It further directs that the remaining statutory language be interpreted and applied in a manner allowing gay and lesbian people full access to the institution of civil marriage.

Same-sex couples will be allowed to get married under Iowa law in 21 days.

Doesn't anyone know the history of civil rights movements in America?

Come on Florida, what are we waiting for?