Ninth Circuit Court Will NOt Lift it's Stay leads into a DOMA Rant
Introduction
It's been a while since I wrote a note on Prop 8 because the arguments will begin again regarding the 'standing' of the proponents--if they have a provable interest and have suffered harm because of Judge Walker's ruling--Judge Walker has since retired and his replacement may have a chance to rule.
Background
The California State Supreme Court has said that they will expedite the arguments to September. Atty Olson asked to expedite it further but said simply: It has been expedited already, we will not do so again. The opponents council both Olson and Boies had asked the Ninth Circuit Court to lift the stay arguing that gay couples shouldn't have to wait until September and then the next year when the ruling comes out, if favorable to get married. The Ninth Circuit said no we will not lift the stay.
My Two Cents
I feel two ways about this ruling: One it is brilliant and two it is a bit of a practical move.
Why?! Are you flipping burgers Terry?! How could that be brilliant? Because of the simple fact that this case will be resolved and if unfavorable for same sex couples, like in the case of Prop 8, marriages won't be retroactively invalidated. Simply, they won't have the marriage license and then get a letter as in the case of Perry and Stier (who were parties in Perry v. Schwarzenegger) from the state that it's not legal and binding
But the fact is that the time may prove too long citing a source here: http://prop8trialtracker.com/2011/03/23/breaking-9th-circuit-denies-motion-to-lift-stay-on-judge-walkers-prop-8-ruling/
[The 9th Circuit decided that six months, likely more, to force couples to wait while the California Supreme Court drags its feet over summer recess, is acceptable. Including couples like Ed and Derence.]
When I looked into this I found out that Ed has Alzheimer's and may not be able to recognize Derence while the court decides this out and renders its verdict--thus the window of opportunity to get married is short for him. That's why I feel gay activists need to get as aggressive as our opponents and show the REAL face, the REAL harm and show that all gay couples go through isn't cheery and happy like what most people see at the Pride Parade. After the floats are put away, and the partying dies down, the vomit is cleaned up and two guys or girls are done hanging off each other--life goes on where the rent's late--AGAIN! A partner is denied visitation because they're not married and untold harm comes down the pike when a kid says to a child with gay parents: You're parents aren't a family, they can't get married, discrimination on the job, a gay kid is shoved into a locker while administrators chalk it up to boys being boys, a GSA is denied in some buttcrack Southern State and all afterschool clubs are shut down and everyone is blaming them 'fags and lezzies', a girl can't take her girlfriend to the prom in a tux, and gay kids stay home for prom because they don't want to be labeled a 'distraction' or they bring an opposite sex friend so people won't be uncomfortable. Marriage denied doesn't only affect the couples that want to marry--but the gay kids that want to marry their partners ONE DAY.
DOMA Rant
Did the sky fall down when Question 1 in ME and Prop 8 passed in CA? YES!!!! A resounding YES!!! Did the sky fall when couples' marriages aren't recognized in the eyes of the federal government? Yes! Monies that would go to surviving spouses are otherwise withheld and the survivor has to struggle to make ends meet, pay unpaid bills that otherwise be paid, pay extra for healthcare and have an undue tax burden, pay more in taxes for their home that could be used on their child's education...
For those who think they know DOMA but don't, DOMA says two things: States don't have to be 'forced' to recognize marriages between two people of the same gender (but they recognize convictions and diplomas) and that for federal purposes marriage is one man and one woman. That way states could legalize it but the federal government as regulator of death benefits, health insurances, and Social Security can say: NO, we don't recognize this.
Many people say that DOMA protects marriages but all it does is select which ones they will recognize and which ones they won't. DOMA doesn't stop gay people from marrying, it just turns a blind eye to their marital status as decided by the state thus bucking states rights as so many Repubs are asserting. This forces couples to lie on their federal taxes and other federal forms stating they are single as opposed to married--the cherrypicking has to stop
UPDATES:
Since Obama has decided he will no longer defend DOMA and Speaker Boehner has decided the House will, The Immigration department has decided to halt deportation proceedings (as Matt Baume of Stop 8.org pointed out it's ironic because you only show up in front of a judge that decide your fate) so that legally married couples can stay united. When confronted with this, I wonder if a DOMA supporter will change their mind about it.
A Personal Touch
I've heard a story where someone was in constant fear of their partner being deported back to their country where they would be shunned and maybe openly hated. In some countries, they are not safe--even killed. Immigration officials and judges have repeatedly denied requests for asylum based on sexual orientation before so even if this were brought to the attention of the Judge the Judge could still say that they haven't proven their case and off his partner goes. Next, the country where his partner would be sent back to is not in favorable standing with the US. Traveling there could be dangerous to say the least. THIS is what DOMA protects? The right to tell a couple that they don't matter, their lives, family and happiness are not valid in the eyes of their government.
Commendation
Our President has made the right choice, he hasn't done anything unprecedented by refusing to defend a law. Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and George HW Bush have all decided not to defend a law. The law that HW Bush didn't defend was defended by our Current Chief Justice John Roberts. Despite efforts to paint him as 'slacking on the job' Matt Baume in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFlMaK821Dg&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL cites many cases in which Presidents haven't defended a law.If you don't subscribe to this Youtuber--DO SO QUICK--Stop8.org is the user-name. He also rebuts a NOM ad that accuses Obama of trashing on marriage. I don't remember ANYONE tellling me of the time that George HW Bush didn't defend that law--PEOPLE I TOLD THAT TO WERE SURPRISED OF THAT FACT! I guess Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilley were stuffing their faces while that trial happened. Talk about the pot calling the Kettle Black!
Love You All
Until The Pen Strikes Again
It's been a while since I wrote a note on Prop 8 because the arguments will begin again regarding the 'standing' of the proponents--if they have a provable interest and have suffered harm because of Judge Walker's ruling--Judge Walker has since retired and his replacement may have a chance to rule.
Background
The California State Supreme Court has said that they will expedite the arguments to September. Atty Olson asked to expedite it further but said simply: It has been expedited already, we will not do so again. The opponents council both Olson and Boies had asked the Ninth Circuit Court to lift the stay arguing that gay couples shouldn't have to wait until September and then the next year when the ruling comes out, if favorable to get married. The Ninth Circuit said no we will not lift the stay.
My Two Cents
I feel two ways about this ruling: One it is brilliant and two it is a bit of a practical move.
Why?! Are you flipping burgers Terry?! How could that be brilliant? Because of the simple fact that this case will be resolved and if unfavorable for same sex couples, like in the case of Prop 8, marriages won't be retroactively invalidated. Simply, they won't have the marriage license and then get a letter as in the case of Perry and Stier (who were parties in Perry v. Schwarzenegger) from the state that it's not legal and binding
But the fact is that the time may prove too long citing a source here: http://prop8trialtracker.com/2011/03/23/breaking-9th-circuit-denies-motion-to-lift-stay-on-judge-walkers-prop-8-ruling/
[The 9th Circuit decided that six months, likely more, to force couples to wait while the California Supreme Court drags its feet over summer recess, is acceptable. Including couples like Ed and Derence.]
When I looked into this I found out that Ed has Alzheimer's and may not be able to recognize Derence while the court decides this out and renders its verdict--thus the window of opportunity to get married is short for him. That's why I feel gay activists need to get as aggressive as our opponents and show the REAL face, the REAL harm and show that all gay couples go through isn't cheery and happy like what most people see at the Pride Parade. After the floats are put away, and the partying dies down, the vomit is cleaned up and two guys or girls are done hanging off each other--life goes on where the rent's late--AGAIN! A partner is denied visitation because they're not married and untold harm comes down the pike when a kid says to a child with gay parents: You're parents aren't a family, they can't get married, discrimination on the job, a gay kid is shoved into a locker while administrators chalk it up to boys being boys, a GSA is denied in some buttcrack Southern State and all afterschool clubs are shut down and everyone is blaming them 'fags and lezzies', a girl can't take her girlfriend to the prom in a tux, and gay kids stay home for prom because they don't want to be labeled a 'distraction' or they bring an opposite sex friend so people won't be uncomfortable. Marriage denied doesn't only affect the couples that want to marry--but the gay kids that want to marry their partners ONE DAY.
DOMA Rant
Did the sky fall down when Question 1 in ME and Prop 8 passed in CA? YES!!!! A resounding YES!!! Did the sky fall when couples' marriages aren't recognized in the eyes of the federal government? Yes! Monies that would go to surviving spouses are otherwise withheld and the survivor has to struggle to make ends meet, pay unpaid bills that otherwise be paid, pay extra for healthcare and have an undue tax burden, pay more in taxes for their home that could be used on their child's education...
For those who think they know DOMA but don't, DOMA says two things: States don't have to be 'forced' to recognize marriages between two people of the same gender (but they recognize convictions and diplomas) and that for federal purposes marriage is one man and one woman. That way states could legalize it but the federal government as regulator of death benefits, health insurances, and Social Security can say: NO, we don't recognize this.
Many people say that DOMA protects marriages but all it does is select which ones they will recognize and which ones they won't. DOMA doesn't stop gay people from marrying, it just turns a blind eye to their marital status as decided by the state thus bucking states rights as so many Repubs are asserting. This forces couples to lie on their federal taxes and other federal forms stating they are single as opposed to married--the cherrypicking has to stop
UPDATES:
Since Obama has decided he will no longer defend DOMA and Speaker Boehner has decided the House will, The Immigration department has decided to halt deportation proceedings (as Matt Baume of Stop 8.org pointed out it's ironic because you only show up in front of a judge that decide your fate) so that legally married couples can stay united. When confronted with this, I wonder if a DOMA supporter will change their mind about it.
A Personal Touch
I've heard a story where someone was in constant fear of their partner being deported back to their country where they would be shunned and maybe openly hated. In some countries, they are not safe--even killed. Immigration officials and judges have repeatedly denied requests for asylum based on sexual orientation before so even if this were brought to the attention of the Judge the Judge could still say that they haven't proven their case and off his partner goes. Next, the country where his partner would be sent back to is not in favorable standing with the US. Traveling there could be dangerous to say the least. THIS is what DOMA protects? The right to tell a couple that they don't matter, their lives, family and happiness are not valid in the eyes of their government.
Commendation
Our President has made the right choice, he hasn't done anything unprecedented by refusing to defend a law. Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and George HW Bush have all decided not to defend a law. The law that HW Bush didn't defend was defended by our Current Chief Justice John Roberts. Despite efforts to paint him as 'slacking on the job' Matt Baume in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFlMaK821Dg&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL cites many cases in which Presidents haven't defended a law.If you don't subscribe to this Youtuber--DO SO QUICK--Stop8.org is the user-name. He also rebuts a NOM ad that accuses Obama of trashing on marriage. I don't remember ANYONE tellling me of the time that George HW Bush didn't defend that law--PEOPLE I TOLD THAT TO WERE SURPRISED OF THAT FACT! I guess Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilley were stuffing their faces while that trial happened. Talk about the pot calling the Kettle Black!
Love You All
Until The Pen Strikes Again
Comments
Post a Comment