Reactions to story from Pam's House Blend ...always steamin'!

• 

  California’s Supreme Court rules state’s same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional

  http://bisexuality.wordpress.com/2008/05/15/californias-supr...
  104 days ago in Bisexuality Revamped · Authority: 3

  Posted by Jenna Leng on May 15, 2008 WASHINGTON (CNN) — In a much-anticipated ruling issued Thursday, the California Supreme Court struck down the state’s ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional. (Ya think?) Several gay and lesbian couples, along with the city of San Francisco and gay rights groups, sued to overturn state laws allowing only marriages between a man and a woman. “There can be no doubt that extending the designation of marriage to same-sex couples, rather than denying it to all couples, is the equal protection remedy that is most consistent with our state’s general legislative policy and preference,” said the 120-page ruling. This is fantastic news. We (as a proud Californian, I get to say We) are the second state in the United States to allow same-sex marriage. It’s about damn time! I first heard about it on the radio. Then I got a few exuberant calls. Then I made a few ebullient calls. Posted it to Twitter. Sent a few e-mails and a link to the CNN article. Seems like everyone’s a-twitter about it: iRobyn: Court overturns same-sex marriage banLife, Law, Gender: California allows same-sex marriage! Pam’s House Blend: California Supreme Court Ruling: Thumbs UP On Marriage EqualityRadical Atheist » California Supreme Court overturns gay marriage banThe Republic of T: Speechless This entry was posted on May 15, 2008 at 10:56 am and is filed under Sexual Politics, civil rights, gay rights, gender, marriage, news. . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
• 

  The Fundamental Freedom To Marry

  http://transadvocate.com/autumnsandeen/archives/2051
  6 days ago in The View From (Ab)Normal Heights · Authority: 40

  This is a clear violation of the fundamental rights of individuals to live and practice their faith. –Attorney Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute, in OneNewsNow The “gay” movement is in the vanguard of destroying religious freedom in this nation — even as “queer” activists (and their attorneys) continue to play the victim card. Homosexual “Rights” vs. Religious Freedom is a zero-sum game: when “gay” lawyers win, as in this case, look for freedom to lose. What further proof do we need that “rights” based on sexual perversion are themselves a perversion of genuine civil rights? The lesson for pro-family advocates and lovers of liberty is clear: in states where there are no ’sexual orientation’ laws, they must never be passed. In states where pro-homosexual laws are on the books, they must be repealed to preserve freedom. And God help us if the Gay Lobby and its (mostly) Democratic allies in Congress succeed in their goal of creating federal “rights” based on homosexuality. That would be a homosexual lawyer’s dream come true. –Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth About Homosexuality In these two quotes above, “Christian” conservatives have spoken about fundamental freedoms in relation to public accommodation…in relation to Benitez v. North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group. Some, like Don Wildmon of the American Family Association (AFA), are linking the Benitez v. North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group ruling to Proposition 8: The California Supreme Court has ruled that doctors in a private clinic, based on their religious beliefs, cannot withhold unnecessary medical care to homosexuals and lesbians. A San Diego area lesbian claimed that a private fertility clinic refused to inseminate her because of her sexual orientation. The Court’s decision means that California’s civil rights law barring sexual orientation discrimination trumps religious freedom laws. Here is another reason to vote YES on Proposition 8 and work to get others to do the same. Little by little our religious freedom laws are being lost because of activist courts and anti-Christian individuals. Fundamental freedoms. These do include freedom of speech and freedom of religion. But, fundamental freedoms also include the fundamental freedom to marry: The first state marriage law to be invalidated was Virginia’s miscegenation law in Loving v Virginia (1967). Mildred Jeter, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, had been found guilty of violating Virginia’s ban on interracial marriages and ordered to leave the state. The Court found Virginia’s law to violate the Equal Protection Clause because it invidiously classified on the basis of race, but it also indicated the law would violate the Due Process Clause as an undue interference with ‘the fundamental freedom” of marriage. Here in California, the California’s Supreme Court ruled in mid-May that the fundamental freedom to marry includes gays and lesbians: [A]ffording same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the designation of marriage will not impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official, or any other person; no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs. –From In re MARRIAGE CASES Our federal constitution guarantees everyone equal treatment under the law — this is what gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people have been asking for. Nothing more; nothing less. The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections. –West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) 319 U.S. 624, 638 When it comes to fundamental freedoms, our federal and state constitutions shouldn’t treat people differently than other people. Both the federal and the state Constitutions guarantee to all the “equal protection of the laws” (U.S. Const., 14th Amend.; Cal. Const., art. I, § 7), and it is the particular responsibility of the judiciary to enforce those guarantees. The architects of our federal and state Constitutions understood that widespread and deeply rooted prejudices may lead majoritarian institutions to deny fundamental freedoms to unpopular minority groups, and that the most effective remedy for this form of oppression is an independent judiciary charged with the solemn responsibility to interpret and enforce the constitutional provisions guaranteeing fundamental freedoms and equal protection. –From In re MARRIAGE CASES Regardless how many feel about marriage for gay and lesbian couples, it’s absolutely wrong to vote on the rights and fundamental freedoms of others. If we were voting on the fundamental freedoms of people due to immutable characteristics — such as if one were black, Latina, or disabled — or if we were voting on the fundamental freedoms of people due to mutable characteristics — such as on one’s religious creed or veteran status — it would be wrong. To vote on the fundamental freedoms of others based on sexual orientation, or based on gender identity or expression, is just as wrong. If anyone asks me about Proposition 8 while I’m at the Democratic National Convention, this will be my message: Marriage for gays and lesbians really is about a fundamental freedom, and about how wrong it is to vote on — to vote against — other people’s fundamental freedoms. All Americans, especially those of us who will be voting in California this coming November, really should respect the fundamental freedoms of all of our fellow citizens, and vote No on Prop 8. ~~~~~ Related: * AFA President Don Wildmon: Culture War Lost If Prop 8 Doesn’t Pass * California Supreme Court Ruling: Thumbs UP On Marriage Equality * Marriage Equality Beyond Just Gays And Lesbians
• 

  The Fundamental Freedom To Marry

  http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=6595
  6 days ago in Pam's House Blend ...always steamin'! · Authority: 80

  This is a clear violation of the fundamental rights of individuals to live and practice their faith. --Attorney Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute, in OneNewsNow The "gay" movement is in the vanguard of destroying religious freedom in this nation -- even as "queer" activists (and their attorneys) continue to play the victim card. Homosexual "Rights" vs. Religious Freedom is a zero-sum game: when "gay" lawyers win, as in this case, look for freedom to lose. What further proof do we need that "rights" based on sexual perversion are themselves a perversion of genuine civil rights? The lesson for pro-family advocates and lovers of liberty is clear: in states where there are no 'sexual orientation' laws, they must never be passed. In states where pro-homosexual laws are on the books, they must be repealed to preserve freedom. And God help us if the Gay Lobby and its (mostly) Democratic allies in Congress succeed in their goal of creating federal "rights" based on homosexuality. That would be a homosexual lawyer's dream come true. --Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth About Homosexuality In these two quotes above, "Christian" conservatives have spoken about fundamental freedoms in relation to public accommodation...in relation to Benitez v. North Coast Women's Care Medical Group. Some, like Don Wildmon of the American Family Association (AFA), are linking the Benitez v. North Coast Women's Care Medical Group ruling to Proposition 8: The California Supreme Court has ruled that doctors in a private clinic, based on their religious beliefs, cannot withhold unnecessary medical care to homosexuals and lesbians. A San Diego area lesbian claimed that a private fertility clinic refused to inseminate her because of her sexual orientation. The Court's decision means that California's civil rights law barring sexual orientation discrimination trumps religious freedom laws. Here is another reason to vote YES on Proposition 8 and work to get others to do the same. Little by little our religious freedom laws are being lost because of activist courts and anti-Christian individuals. Fundamental freedoms. These do include freedom of speech and freedom of religion. But, fundamental freedoms also include the fundamental freedom to marry: The first state marriage law to be invalidated was Virginia's miscegenation law in Loving v Virginia (1967). Mildred Jeter, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, had been found guilty of violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriages and ordered to leave the state. The Court found Virginia's law to violate the Equal Protection Clause because it invidiously classified on the basis of race, but it also indicated the law would violate the Due Process Clause as an undue interference with 'the fundamental freedom" of marriage. Here in California, the California's Supreme Court ruled in mid-May that the fundamental freedom to marry includes gays and lesbians: [A]ffording same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the designation of marriage will not impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official, or any other person; no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs. --From In re MARRIAGE CASES Our federal constitution guarantees everyone equal treatment under the law -- this is what gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people have been asking for. Nothing more; nothing less. The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections. --West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) 319 U.S. 624, 638 When it comes to fundamental freedoms, our federal and state constitutions shouldn't treat people differently than other people. Both the federal and the state Constitutions guarantee to all the "equal protection of the laws" (U.S. Const., 14th Amend.; Cal. Const., art. I, § 7), and it is the particular responsibility of the judiciary to enforce those guarantees. The architects of our federal and state Constitutions understood that widespread and deeply rooted prejudices may lead majoritarian institutions to deny fundamental freedoms to unpopular minority groups, and that the most effective remedy for this form of oppression is an independent judiciary charged with the solemn responsibility to interpret and enforce the constitutional provisions guaranteeing fundamental freedoms and equal protection. --From In re MARRIAGE CASES Regardless how many feel about marriage for gay and lesbian couples, it's absolutely wrong to vote on the rights and fundamental freedoms of others. If we were voting on the fundamental freedoms of people due to immutable characteristics -- such as if one were black, Latina, or disabled -- or if we were voting on the fundamental freedoms of people due to mutable characteristics -- such as on one's religious creed or veteran status -- it would be wrong. To vote on the fundamental freedoms of others based on sexual orientation, or based on gender identity or expression, is just as wrong. If anyone asks me about Proposition 8 while I'm at the Democratic National Convention, this will be my message: Marriage for gays and lesbians really is about a fundamental freedom, and about how wrong it is to vote on -- to vote against -- other people's fundamental freedoms. All Americans, especially those of us who will be voting in California this coming November, really should respect the fundamental freedoms of all of our fellow citizens, and vote No on Prop 8. ~~~~~ Related: * AFA President Don Wildmon: Culture War Lost If Prop 8 Doesn't Pass * California Supreme Court Ruling: Thumbs UP On Marriage Equality * Marriage Equality Beyond Just Gays And Lesbians .
• 

  Marriage Equality Beyond Just Gays And Lesbians

  http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=6384
  23 days ago in Pam's House Blend ...always steamin'! · Authority: 80

  For me, this past weekend was a real marriage equality weekend. My Saturday was spent dress shopping for my best friend Vicki's wedding, and my Sunday was spent cold calling voters to identify that extremely small percentage of Californians that haven't yet made up their minds as yet on Proposition 8. Our broad and diverse coalition of fair-minded people want California voters to Vote No On Prop 8. For simple messaging on these Sunday cold calls, the first question we ask voters is: Have you heard about Proposition 8 -- the Constitutional Amendment that will ban marriage forever for California's gay and lesbian couples? And yet, on a personal level, I very much know that marriage equality goes beyond just the G and the L of LGBT. Vicki identifies as transsexual and transgender, and a few years ago had her gender marker changed from M to F on both her driver's license and birth certificate. So, Vicki's now legally female in California. Because Vicki is legally female, prior to California Supreme Court ruling sanctioning same sex marriages,Vicki and her partner Lynda weren't allowed to marry. Now, of course, they may marry. And, that's what Vicki and Lynda are going to do on August 23rd -- the weekend before the Democratic National Convention. As Vicki's best friend, I'm the "Party A" maid of honor. I know first hand that there are trans people like Vicki who also identify as lesbian; I know first hand that achieving marriage equality goes beyond obtaining equal marriage rights and responsibilities for just gays and lesbians. [Below the fold; more on Vicki's and Lynda's wedding, and on the Vow To Vote No On Prop 8 campaign.] So as I stated above, this past Saturday was shopping day for our wedding and wedding party dresses. Lynda will be in a deep maroon dress; her "Party B" maid of honor Stephanie will be in a lavender dress; Vicki will be in a white dress; I'll be in a deep violet dress. (I know I'm not supposed to outshine Vicki, but damned if I don't look hot in my formal! ) On Sunday, I volunteered with Equality For All to make sure California broad, LGBT community will still have access to equal marriage after this November. As the No On Prop 8 website states: Our California Constitution -- the guiding document of our great state -- promises the same basic rights and freedoms to everyone. In our Constitution, no one group can be singled out for unfair treatment. Equal protection under the law is a founding principle of the United States of America. Prop 8 undermines that principle, and singles out a single group of people -- gays and lesbians -- for unequal treatment under the law. Like the freedom of religion and the freedom of speech, the freedom to marry is fundamental to our society. Marriage allows couples to make legal their lifetime commitment to one another, and gives couples the opportunity to fully take responsibility for each other. Regardless of how you feel about marriage -- for straight or gay and lesbian couples -- it's wrong to single out one group of Americans and prevent them from having access to the same rights and responsibilities as their fellow citizens. I know I'm supporting marriage equality on the micro level by being a part of Vicki's marriage ceremony; I know I'm supporting marriage equality on the macro level by devoting time and treasure to preserve the California Supreme Court ruling granting equal marriage rights for all Californians. Vicki and Lynda can get married now -- but what about the Vickies and Lyndas who want to marry next year, or the year after? For LGBT Californians and their friends and allies, continued access to the same marriage rights and responsibilities as our fellow heterosexual citizens is going to take more than just voting No On Prop 8 this November. It's going to take commitments of time and treasure. ~~~~~ Related: * Pam's House Blend: Equality For All * Pam's House Blend tag: Marriage Equality .
• 

  Marriage Equality Beyond Just Gays And Lesbians

  http://transadvocate.com/autumnsandeen/archives/1971
  23 days ago in The View From (Ab)Normal Heights · Authority: 40

  For me, this past weekend was a real marriage equality weekend. My Saturday was spent dress shopping for my best friend Vicki’s wedding, and my Sunday was spent cold calling voters to identify that extremely small percentage of Californians that haven’t yet made up their minds as yet on Proposition 8. Our broad and diverse coalition of fair-minded organizations and people want California voters to Vote No On Prop 8. For simple messaging on these Sunday cold calls, the first question we ask voters is: Have you heard about Proposition 8 — the Constitutional Amendment that will ban marriage forever for California’s gay and lesbian couples? And yet, on a personal level, I very much know that marriage equality goes beyond just the G and the L of LGBT. Vicki identifies as transsexual and transgender, and a few years ago had her gender marker changed from M to F on both her driver’s license and birth certificate. So, Vicki’s now legally female in California. Because Vicki is legally female, prior to California Supreme Court ruling sanctioning same sex marriages,Vicki and her partner Lynda weren’t allowed to marry. Now, of course, they may marry. And, that’s what Vicki and Lynda are going to do on August 23rd — the weekend before the Democratic National Convention. As Vicki’s best friend, I’m the “Party A” maid of honor. I know first hand that there are trans people like Vicki who also identify as lesbian; I know first hand that achieving marriage equality goes beyond equal marriage rights and responsibilities for gays and lesbians. [Below the fold; more on Vicki's and Lynda's wedding, and on the Vow To Vote No On Prop 8 campaign.] So as I stated above, this past Saturday was shopping day for our wedding and wedding party dresses. Lynda will be in a deep maroon dress; her “Party B” maid of honor Stephanie will be in a lavender dress; Vicki will be in a white dress; I’ll be in a deep violet dress. (I know I’m not supposed to outshine Vicki, but damned if I don’t look hot in my formal! ) On Sunday, I volunteered with Equality For All to make sure California broad, LGBT community will still have access to equal marriage after this November. As the No On Prop 8 website states: Our California Constitution — the guiding document of our great state — promises the same basic rights and freedoms to everyone. In our Constitution, no one group can be singled out for unfair treatment. Equal protection under the law is a founding principle of the United States of America. Prop 8 undermines that principle, and singles out a single group of people — gays and lesbians — for unequal treatment under the law. Like the freedom of religion and the freedom of speech, the freedom to marry is fundamental to our society. Marriage allows couples to make legal their lifetime commitment to one another, and gives couples the opportunity to fully take responsibility for each other. Regardless of how you feel about marriage — for straight or gay and lesbian couples — it’s wrong to single out one group of Americans and prevent them from having access to the same rights and responsibilities as their fellow citizens. I know I’m supporting marriage equality on the micro level by being a part of Vicki’s marriage ceremony; I know I’m supporting marriage equality on the macro level by devoting time and treasure to preserve the California Supreme Court ruling granting equal marriage rights for all Californians. Vicki and Lynda can get married now — but what about the Vickies and Lyndas who want to marry next year, or the year after? For LGBT Californians and their friends and allies, continued access to the same marriage rights and responsibilities as our fellow heterosexual citizens is going to take more than just voting No On Prop 8 this November. It’s going to take commitments of time and treasure. ~~~~~ Related: * Pam’s House Blend: Equality For All * Pam’s House Blend tag: Marriage Equality .
• 

  Hartline Not Tipping Hotel Workers Because Californians Against Hate & Union Local Support Boycott Of Same Hotel

  http://transadvocate.com/autumnsandeen/archives/1803
  47 days ago in The View From (Ab)Normal Heights · Authority: 40

  He says it’s a boycott. The San Diego Union-Tribune is reporting that ex-gay/former homosexual/alleged mouthpiece of God James Hartline is planning to organize his thousands of followers into not tip employees of the Manchester Grand Hyatt. We have to back up a little, so here’s the story. Doug Manchester is a large shareholder of the Manchester Grand Hyatt, which is named for his family. He contributed $125,000 to Proposition 8 — also known as the California Marriage Protection Act — which is the ballot measure that would undo the California Supreme Courts’ marriage equality ruling. LGBT civil rights activists and union leaders have organized a boycott of the Manchester Grand Hyatt because of the $125,000 donation. The Unite Here Local 30 is supporting the boycott; Unite Here Local 30 turns out to be the local that represents workers at the Manchester Grand Hyatt. Fred Karger, Public Relations Chair and founding President of Californians Against Hate organized a news conference about the LGBT boycott of the hotel. From a Union-Tribune article entitled Gay-rights supporters to boycott Manchester Grand Hyatt: Fred Karger, who is helping to organize the boycott and is running an organization opposed to Proposition 8, said he is also urging the public to boycott Manchester’s other hotel, the Grand Del Mar. “This is someone who is giving an exorbitant amount of money to write discrimination into the constitution for the very first time,” he said. Karger said he hopes the boycott will send a message to other potential contributors to the Proposition 8 campaign. “Our goal is to create a business loss for people who contribute,” he said. “We want to make it a little uncomfortable.” From the Californians Against Hate website: [More after the fold] As gay and lesbian couples express their love and commitment through weddings, an extremely well funded campaign has placed an initiative constitutional amendment on the November 4th ballot to define marriage as only between a man and a woman. They spent millions to qualify this amendment, and have vowed to raise in excess of $20 million to remove marriage equality in California. Much of the money to qualify the initiative constitutional amendment came from within our own San Diego County. We feel that if these individuals, businesses, and organizations so adamantly desire to take away our right to marry, then the LGBT community, our families and our friends should fight back against these purveyors of hate. Therefore, we will wage a campaign to disseminate the truth about who funded the qualification of the initiative and who is funding the campaign itself. We propose to take action against the businesses of those who fund the effort to harm us. We will identify these individuals and companies on this web site as soon as their names become available to us. We will broadcast the information all over the country to make sure that our friends and allies throughout the United States know the identity of those who have contributed vast sums of money to oppose our freedom to marry. Californians Against Hate is organized as a California nonprofit public benefit corporation, exempt from taxation under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. It is completely independent and not affiliated with Equality for All, which is the official campaign committee opposing the amendment in November. Our funding will come from individuals who believe that the truth should be known about those funding the campaign of hate. So in response to this boycott, James Hartline is now planning to use his 20,000 circulation newsletter, the California Christian News, to attempt a tip boycott of hotel workers. From th Union-Tribune’s Conservative Christians launch a tip boycott: “Since you have decided to make your line of work a political issue in opposition to our views on homosexuality and marriage than we can no longer support giving your workers extra money,” wrote Hartline, who supports the ban, in an e-mail to the president of Unite Here Local 30. “We are much bigger than you and will follow through with this stand,” Hartline wrote. Okay then. Time to watch the competing boycotts to see which one has more effect on business. Oh… In April, once Manchester’s contribution became widely known, two gay rights organizations, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation and PlanetOut Inc., moved events they had scheduled at the Manchester Grand Hyatt. I guess we know which boycott is already starting out with more significant financial consequences.
• 

  Yes!!!

  http://www.LeftInAlabama.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1747
  104 days ago in Left In Alabama Connecting Progressive Voices in Alabama Politics · Authority: 189

  The California Supreme Court has overturned the state's ban on gay marriage. I'm grinning so much I can barely type! This is a huge win, and I know my brother is smiling today. Read around the blogosphere: Pam's House Blend - California Supreme Court Ruling: Thumbs UP on Marriage Equality Shakesville - California Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban! Deborah at Property of a Lady - The Radio News Kind Of Makes It Up To Me Catherine at Poverty Barn - CA Supreme Court Lets Freedom RingGenerik - Pride In California and more to come as I find them.

Advertise on Technorati