CA Prop 8 & DOMA

[Michael Scally MD]

Re: CA Prop 8 - District Court

Prop. 8: Quick ruling promised
A federal judge in San Francisco indicates he will rule promptly, perhaps within a day, on the plea to throw out another judge’s ruling striking down California’s Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage.
Prop. 8: Quick ruling promised : SCOTUSblog

A federal judge in San Francisco, closing a lengthy hearing on Monday on a plea that he wipe out another judge’s decision striking down California’s ban on same-sex marriage, vowed to issue a prompt decision, perhaps within 24 hours. Chief District Judge James Ware seemed troubled over what standard he should use, and what precedent he might be setting, as he prepared to rule on whether to nullify that decision against Proposition 8. He has been asked to do so on the premise that District Judge Vaughn R. Walker, the trial judge, should have disqualified himself altogether from trying the case.

 

[Michael Scally MD]

Re: CA Prop 8 - District Court

Bankruptcy Court: DOMA Unconstitutionally Limits Same-Sex Married Couples From Joint Bankruptcy Filing

Today, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California, in Los Angeles, released an opinion finding Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional in a bankruptcy filing brought by a same-sex married couple, Gene Douglas Balas and Carlos A. Morales.

The underlying basis for the challenge was described by the court:

This case is about equality, regardless of gender or sexual orientation, for two people who filed for protection under Title 11 of the United States Code (Bankruptcy Code). Like many struggling families during these difficult economic times, Gene Balas and Carlos Morales (Debtors), filed a joint chapter 13 petition on February 24, 2011. Although the Debtors were legally married to each other in California on August 20, 2008, and remain married today, the United States Trustee (sometimes referred to simply as “trustee”) moved to dismiss this case pursuant to Bankruptcy Code § 1307(c) (Motion to Dismiss), asserting that the Debtors are ineligible to file a joint petition based on Bankruptcy Code § 302(a) because the Debtors are two males.

http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/57794777-DOMA-Memorandum-of-Decision.pdf

 

[Michael Scally MD]

Re: CA Prop 8 - District Court

Prop. 8: Quick ruling promised
A federal judge in San Francisco indicates he will rule promptly, perhaps within a day, on the plea to throw out another judge’s ruling striking down California’s Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage.
Prop. 8: Quick ruling promised : SCOTUSblog

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT
https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/files/797.pdf

 

[Michael Scally MD]

Re: CA Prop 8 - District Court

New York Challenges U.S. Defense of Marriage Act
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/new-york-challenges-u-s-defense-of-marriage-act/?hp

By THOMAS KAPLAN
July 26, 2011

The New York State attorney general, Eric T. Schneiderman, acting just days after the state began allowing gay couples to wed, filed a legal brief - https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documen...nse-of-marriage-act-brief-by-schneiderman.pdf - on Tuesday challenging the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

Mr. Schneiderman asserted that the law, which prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages, violates the right to equal protection under the law for gay and lesbian couples.

The brief (attached at the bottom of the post), filed in Federal District Court in the Southern District of New York, refers specifically to New York State’s Marriage Equality Act, which was approved by lawmakers last month and took effect to great fanfare on Sunday.

“Without such equal treatment by the federal government,” Mr. Schneiderman wrote, “New York’s statutory commitment to marriage equality for all married couples will be substantially unrealized.”

Mr. Schneiderman submitted the brief in support of Edith S. Windsor, the plaintiff in Windsor v. United States. Ms. Windsor was married in Canada in 2007 to her longtime partner, Thea Spyer. The couple lived in New York City, and when Ms. Spyer died two years after their marriage, the federal government refused to recognize their marriage and collected estate taxes on her inheritance, prompting the lawsuit.

Ms. Windsor’s legal challenge was one of two lawsuits that prompted President Obama in February to direct the Justice Department to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act, which Mr. Obama determined was unconstitutional.

There are several other legal challenges to the act being considered in federal courts around the nation, and President Obama has called for the law’s repeal.

 

[Michael Scally MD]

Re: CA Prop 8 - District Court

Victory for Prop. 8 backers
Victory for Prop. 8 backers : SCOTUSblog

Giving the sponsors of California’s ban on same-sex marriage a significant legal lift, the California Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that they have a right under state law to go to court to defend the measure that the state’s voters have approved. Allowing them to take the place of state officials who refuse to provide a defense, the court said, was “essential to the integrity” of the California process that allows the voters to pass laws or constitutional amendments through the ballot box.

The state court’s unanimous 72-page ruling is http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/CA-SCt-ruling-on-Prop.-8-11-17-112.pdf

 

[Michael Scally MD]

Re: CA Prop 8 - District Court

The panel majority affirmed the judgment of the district court and held that Proposition 8, which amended the California Constitution to eliminate the previously guaranteed right of same-sex couples to marry, violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The panel majority held that by using their initiative power to target a minority group and withdraw a right that it possessed, without a legitimate reason for doing so, the People of California violated the Equal Protection Clause.

The panel majority held that in this particular case it did not need to decide whether under the United States Constitution same-sex couples may ever be denied the right to marry because under California’s statutory law pertaining to “domestic partnerships” same-sex couples had all the rights of opposite-sex couples, regardless of their marital status. Proposition 8’s only effect was to take away that important and legally significant designation of “marriage,” previously recognized by the California Supreme Court, while leaving in place all of its incidents.

The panel majority determined that in taking away the designation of “marriage,” while leaving in place all the substantive rights and responsibilities of same-sex partners, Proposition 8 could not have reasonably been enacted to promote childrearing by biological parents, to encourage responsible procreation, to proceed with caution in social change, to protect religious liberty, or to control the education of schoolchildren. The panel majority concluded that Proposition 8 served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationship and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples. The panel majority determined that it need not and did not consider whether same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry, or whether states that fail to afford the right to marry to gays and lesbians must do so.

The panel held that proponents of Proposition 8 had standing to bring this appeal on behalf of the state. The panel accepted the determination of the California Supreme Court that the official proponents of an initiative have the authority to assert the State’s interest in defending the constitutionality of that initiative, where the state officials who would ordinarily assume that responsibility choose not to do so.

The panel affirmed the denial of the motion by the proponents of Proposition 8 to vacate the judgment entered by former Chief Judge Walker, on the basis of his purported interest in being allowed to marry his same-sex partner. The panel held that Chief Judge Ware did not abuse his discretion by finding that Chief Judge Walker was not obligated to recuse himself on the basis that he could be affected by the outcome of the proceeding.

Judge N.R. Smith concurred in part and dissented in part from the majority opinion. Judge Smith agreed with the majority’s analysis that proponents had standing to bring this appeal and that the motion to vacate the judgment should be denied. Judge Smith dissented from the majority’s analysis regarding the constitutionality of Proposition 8. He wrote that he was not convinced that Proposition 8’s withdrawal from same-sex couples of the right to access the designation of marriage was not rationally related to furthering the interests of promoting responsible procreation and optimal parenting.

 

[Michael Scally MD]

Federal appeals court takes up Defense of Marriage Act
An appeals court hears arguments on whether to nullify part of the 1996 law that denies certain rights and benefits to same-sex married couples. The case is likely to head to the Supreme Court.
DOMA: U.S. appeals court takes up Defense of Marriage Act - latimes.com

WASHINGTON — A closely watched constitutional challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act went before a U.S. appeals court for the first time Wednesday, setting the stage for a possible Supreme Court decision next year on whether legally married same-sex couples are entitled to equal benefits under federal law.

At issue is not whether gays and lesbians have a right to marry, but whether the federal government can deny tax, health and pension benefits to same-sex couples in states where they can marry.

 

[Michael Scally MD]

The United States Supreme Court will review the decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that struck down Proposition 8, a 2008 law which banned gay marriage in California.

The court will also hear a challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act.

 

[Michael Scally MD]

Filings in the Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8 cases
Defense of Marriage Act and California's Proposition 8 cases - Supreme Court of the United States

 

[Michael Scally MD]

BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE KENNETH B. MEHLMAN ET AL. SUPPORTING RESPONDENTS
http://www.afer.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/12-144-bsac-Kenneth-B.-Mehlman-et-al.pdf

 

[Michael Scally MD]

Dinno A, Whitney C. Same Sex Marriage and the Perceived Assault on Opposite Sex Marriage. PLoS ONE 2013;8(6):e65730. PLOS ONE: Same Sex Marriage and the Perceived Assault on Opposite Sex Marriage

Background - Marriage benefits both individuals and societies, and is a fundamental determinant of health. Until recently same sex couples have been excluded from legally recognized marriage in the United States. Recent debate around legalization of same sex marriage has highlighted for anti-same sex marriage advocates and policy makers a concern that allowing same sex couples to marry will lead to a decrease in opposite sex marriages. Our objective is to model state trends in opposite sex marriage rates by implementation of same sex marriages and other same sex unions.

Methods and Findings - Marriage data were obtained for all fifty states plus the District of Columbia from 1989 through 2009. As these marriage rates are non-stationary, a generalized error correction model was used to estimate long run and short run effects of same sex marriages and strong and weak same sex unions on rates of opposite sex marriage. We found that there were no significant long-run or short run effects of same sex marriages or of strong or weak same sex unions on rates of opposite sex marriage.

Conclusion - A deleterious effect on rates of opposite sex marriage has been argued to be a motivating factor for both the withholding and the elimination of existing rights of same sex couples to marry by policy makers–including presiding justices of current litigation over the rights of same sex couples to legally marry. Such claims do not appear credible in the face of the existing evidence, and we conclude that rates of opposite sex marriages are not affected by legalization of same sex civil unions or same sex marriages.

 

[Mike Oxbig]

The fact that the government is involved in marriage to begin with shows just how much they've been able to successfully invade their way into every facet of our personal lives. At most they should recognize civil unions for tax purposes.

 

[nuncaquite]

This is one of those divisive subjects that politicians, media, and lawyers love.
Dont hold my stats as exact, but, 20% all for-20% all against-60% dont want to think much about it. Stir the pot, stir some more, workup the zealots on both sides. Distract from real issues at hand and pass the law allowing drones to overfly our airspace when nobodies looking. David Copperfield kind of act.
It will never go completely away because it serves as such a good diversion.
Im tired so maybe I didnt explain to well, but you guys have the smarts to see my point............................................I think

 

[Mike Oxbig]

This is one of those divisive subjects that politicians, media, and lawyers love.
Dont hold my stats as exact, but, 20% all for-20% all against-60% dont want to think much about it. Stir the pot, stir some more, workup the zealots on both sides. Distract from real issues at hand and pass the law allowing drones to overfly our airspace when nobodies looking. David Copperfield kind of act.
It will never go completely away because it serves as such a good diversion.
Im tired so maybe I didnt explain to well, but you guys have the smarts to see my point............................................I think

This is the exact reason why irrelevant social issues dominate politics, to divert attention away from the fact that we're getting fucked by our corrupt government every single day.

 

[Kamala]

This is the exact reason why irrelevant social issues dominate politics, to divert attention away from the fact that we're getting fucked by our corrupt government every single day.

Good post.

Social issues is where the political right completely loses me....... Stuff like bringing religion into politics makes me crazy.
I've heard people say that when Kennedy ran for President the fact he was a Catholic was a big deal, these days it seems like if your not a vocal born again Christian you won't even get nominated.

 

[Stretch]

Good post.

Social issues is where the political right completely loses me....... Stuff like bringing religion into politics makes me crazy.
I've heard people say that when Kennedy ran for President the fact he was a Catholic was a big deal, these days it seems like if your not a vocal born again Christian you won't even get nominated.

I dont remember Clinton or Obama being vocal born again types. Do I miss it when Obama does it?

Religious beliefs assist in determining morality for many. And morality determines laws. So religion and government are unfortunately inseparable. As long as the people are religious there will be pressure on politicians to provide a mirror image of those beliefs.

I know this. My generation will break this. My generation is almost devoid of religion IME. Church is a punchline if youre under 30.

 

[Kamala]

I dont remember Clinton or Obama being vocal born again types. Do I miss it when Obama does it?

Religious beliefs assist in determining morality for many. And morality determines laws. So religion and government are unfortunately inseparable. As long as the people are religious there will be pressure on politicians to provide a mirror image of those beliefs.

I know this. My generation will break this. My generation is almost devoid of religion IME. Church is a punchline if youre under 30.

I guess what I should have said was you need to be born again to be a candidate for the right..... Romney being an exception, but he wasn't really accepted by his own party.
I'd like to see religion not even be an issue, but I just don't know it seems to be creeping back in..... Rove courted them when he was running Bush's team, and now that its known how powerful that vote is I don't think the right can resist going after it.
Obama had to proclaim his Christianity, because the right was accusing him ( and still do ) of being a closet Muslim as a smear tactic.

Far as the laws, yeah I agree to a point...... Where it gets scary to me is when they start pushing for creationism to be taught in schools as a rebuttal to evolution....... I don't want my tax dollars paying for religious doctrine that I don't agree with........ I really hope that our generation can put the sky fairy myth to rest, but then I see polls that suggest 50% of the people think that creationism is real and the earth is 5k years old.

 

[Michael Scally MD]

THE SUPREME COURT OPINION STRIKING DOWN DOMA
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_g2bh.pdf

 

[Michael Scally MD]

COVER STORY: BERT AND ERNIE’S “MOMENT OF JOY”
Cover Story: Bert and Ernie Celebrate Gay Marriage : The New Yorker

 

[Michael Scally MD]

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVnMCguL04k[/ame]