Reactions to story from The Caucus - Politics - New York Times Blog

• 

  Californian Gay Marriage Ban Overturned

  http://wickedgoodblog.blogspot.com/2008/05/californian-gay-m...
  104 days ago in The Wicked Good Blog · Authority: 1

  Not always, but sometimes, I am proud to live in California. As I understand it, this ruling specifically overrules California legislation excluding same-sex couples from eligibility for marriage licenses, claiming marriage and the legal creation of a family is a [California] constitutional right. So, any same-sex couple can be married by the state, while religious groups are free to deny marriage for dogmatic reasons. Kevin and others, feel free to weigh in a correct me if I've got some of this wrong. It's important to point out that of the seven judges who made this ruling (with a split of 4-3), six were appointed by Republican governors. Sometimes, a good idea is just a good idea. While this is a big step, it isn't big enough; not only does this just apply to California, and not the nation, but even statewide there is a disparity between the rights of heterosexual and homosexual couples. But every step forward is a good thing, and cause to be glad. Just for fun, some responses: Governor Schwarzenegger's response: I respect the Court's decision and as Governor, I will uphold its ruling. Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling. President Bush's response (via Press Secretary Dana Perino): President Bush has always believed marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. Today's decision by the California Supreme Court illustrates that a federal constitutional amendment is the best way for the people to decide what marriage means. The LA Times has a collection of extracts from numerous figures. Salon.com takes a look at the judicial press release, plus a release from conservative activist group "Concerned Women for America." Lastly, the presidential hopefuls for this coming election.
• 

  Weekly Political Roundup: California Edition

  http://www.mombian.com/2008/05/16/weekly-political-roundup-c...
  105 days ago in Mombian · Authority: 196

  The good folks at Bilerico are, not surprisingly, all over this like bridesmaids on a bouquet. Among them: Karen Ocamb has quotes from a number of luminaries, including Gov. Schwarzenegger, L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, Shannon Minter, Legal Director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, and Phyllis Lyon, one of the plaintiffs. Lyon, 83, and her partner Del Martin, 87, have been together 56 years. Ocamb also recaps the history of the case, but warns of a difficult future: “LGBT groups have to now raise between $15-20 million - during this very important election season and an economically-strapped economy - to counter the $15-20 million the Protect Marriage forces intend to shell out.” Nancy D. Polikoff, author of Beyond (Straight and Gay) Marriage: Valuing All Families under the Law also urges caution, not only because of a possible ballot initiative to change the state constitution, but also because “giving same-sex couples access to the “special rights” of marriage has a downside for those in the LGBT community who don’t marry, and we have four years of marriage in Massachusetts to prove it.” Ellen Anderson breaks down the legal reasoning of the Court, but ends her piece by noting “Right now, I’m off to celebrate the decision by picking up my daughter from her play date.” (Lambda Legal also has a legal analysis.) Elsewhere: Libertarian candidate for president Bob Barr, who authored the Defense of Marriage Act when he was a member of Congress, said “the primary reason for which I authored the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 was to ensure that each state remained free to determine for its citizens the basis on which marriage would be recognized within its borders, and not be forced to adopt a definition of marriage contrary to its views by another state. The decision in California is an illustration of how this principle of states’ powers should work.” I say that’s all well and good until a couple tries to, say, take a vacation, visit relatives, or accept new employment in another state. The LA Times says “The court’s Thursday ruling was not necessarily good news for the presidential candidates, on whom it could exert problematic pressure.” The New York Times ran statements from all three leading presidential candidates and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Slate’s Emily Bazelon compares the legal processes in Massachusetts and California, and explains why it is so much easier to overturn a court decision in the Golden State. “California is going to have a big gay-marriage fight in November,” she writes. She also quotes Yale law professor William Eskridge, who feels a high turnout for Barack Obama could boost the chances of upholding the decision. Obama pulls in the youth vote, and those voters are more likely to support marriage equality. On a hopeful yet practical note, the San Francisco Chronicle reports that same-sex couples were lining up at the city Clerk’s Office 20 minutes after the decision was released. (It took them 20 minutes?!) In truth, the decision doesn’t go into effect for at least another 30 days, but the Clerk’s Office is scheduling marriages for June 16. They say that same-sex couples who married in February 2004, during the brief period when Mayor Gavin Newsom permitted it, will have to get new licenses and marry again. A Gallup poll last week found that only 40% of Americans say marriage between same-sex partners should be legal; 56% disagree. (Actually, the poll question said “marriage between same-sex couples.” Not to quibble with semantics, but wouldn’t marriage between couples make a foursome?) Americans are split on whether to enact a federal constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, with 49% in favor and 48% opposed. Scarier? Over a quarter (26%) of those opposed to legalizing same-sex marriages say they will vote only for candidates for major office who share their view on the issue. Only 2% of those who support legal same-sex marriages define themselves as one-issue voters about it. Not that I want to encourage one-issue voting, but it’s clear this issue can mobilize the right in a way that it isn’t energizing much of the left and center. U.S. Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) says she will continue to work in Congress to achieve marriage equality as well as to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Yes: Let’s not forget that marriages are a matter of public record. Couples in Massachusetts and California with one or both members in the military may feel unable to exercise their legal right to marry for fear of outing themselves and endangering their careers. And then we ask them to risk death for their country. HRC has a few other Congressional reactions, including one from out lesbian Rep. Tammy Baldwin. Blue Jersey says the California victory negates New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine’s excuse that he doesn’t want to debate marriage equality in an election year. New Jersey Assembly Speaker Joseph Roberts (D-Camden) said marriage equality in New Jersey “is simply a question of when, not if. In the year since New Jersey’s civil union law took effect, the sky has not fallen in and the meaning of marriage for opposite-sex couples has not been eroded. Those realizations make it all the more likely that New Jersey will ultimately be the first state to legislatively reach the inevitable conclusion that marriage is a right that should be enjoyed by all residents.” Pope Benedict XVI today reiterated the Roman Catholic Church’s position “that only unions between a man and a woman are moral.” Well, the immoral is now legal, and civilization still seems to be standing. ShareThis
• 

  Weekly Political Roundup: California Edition

  http://www.mombian.com/2008/05/16/weekly-political-roundup-c...
  105 days ago in Mombian · Authority: 196

  The good folks at Bilerico are, not surprisingly, all over this like bridesmaids on a bouquet. Among them: Karen Ocamb has quotes from a number of luminaries, including Gov. Schwarzenegger, L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, Shannon Minter, Legal Director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, and Phyllis Lyon, one of the plaintiffs. Lyon, 83, and her partner Del Martin, 87, have been together 56 years. Ocamb also recaps the history of the case, but warns of a difficult future: “LGBT groups have to now raise between $15-20 million - during this very important election season and an economically-strapped economy - to counter the $15-20 million the Protect Marriage forces intend to shell out.” Nancy D. Polikoff, author of Beyond (Straight and Gay) Marriage: Valuing All Families under the Law also urges caution, not only because of a possible ballot initiative to change the state constitution, but also because “giving same-sex couples access to the “special rights” of marriage has a downside for those in the LGBT community who don’t marry, and we have four years of marriage in Massachusetts to prove it.” Ellen Anderson breaks down the legal reasoning of the Court, but ends her piece by noting “Right now, I’m off to celebrate the decision by picking up my daughter from her play date.” (Lambda Legal also has a legal analysis.) Elsewhere: Libertarian candidate for president Bob Barr, who authored the Defense of Marriage Act when he was a member of Congress, said “the primary reason for which I authored the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 was to ensure that each state remained free to determine for its citizens the basis on which marriage would be recognized within its borders, and not be forced to adopt a definition of marriage contrary to its views by another state. The decision in California is an illustration of how this principle of states’ powers should work.” I say that’s all well and good until a couple tries to, say, take a vacation, visit relatives, or accept new employment in another state. The LA Times says “The court’s Thursday ruling was not necessarily good news for the presidential candidates, on whom it could exert problematic pressure.” The New York Times ran statements from all three leading presidential candidates and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Slate’s Emily Bazelon compares the legal processes in Massachusetts and California, and explains why it is so much easier to overturn a court decision in the Golden State. “California is going to have a big gay-marriage fight in November,” she writes. She also quotes Yale law professor William Eskridge, who feels a high turnout for Barack Obama could boost the chances of upholding the decision. Obama pulls in the youth vote, and those voters are more likely to support marriage equality. On a hopeful yet practical note, the San Francisco Chronicle reports that same-sex couples were lining up at the city Clerk’s Office 20 minutes after the decision was released. (It took them 20 minutes?!) In truth, the decision doesn’t go into effect for at least another 30 days, but the Clerk’s Office is scheduling marriages for June 16. They say that same-sex couples who married in February 2004, during the brief period when Mayor Gavin Newsom permitted it, will have to get new licenses and marry again. A Gallup poll last week found that only 40% of Americans say marriage between same-sex partners should be legal; 56% disagree. (Actually, the poll question said “marriage between same-sex couples.” Not to quibble with semantics, but wouldn’t marriage between couples make a foursome?) Americans are split on whether to enact a federal constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, with 49% in favor and 48% opposed. Scarier? Over a quarter (26%) of those opposed to legalizing same-sex marriages say they will vote only for candidates for major office who share their view on the issue. Only 2% of those who support legal same-sex marriages define themselves as one-issue voters about it. Not that I want to encourage one-issue voting, but it’s clear this issue can mobilize the right in a way that it isn’t energizing much of the left and center. U.S. Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) says she will continue to work in Congress to achieve marriage equality as well as to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Yes: Let’s not forget that marriages are a matter of public record. Couples in Massachusetts and California with one or both members in the military may feel unable to exercise their legal right to marry for fear of outing themselves and endangering their careers. And then we ask them to risk death for their country. HRC has a few other Congressional reactions, including one from out lesbian Rep. Tammy Baldwin. Blue Jersey says the California victory negates New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine’s excuse that he doesn’t want to debate marriage equality in an election year. New Jersey Assembly Speaker Joseph Roberts (D-Camden) said marriage equality in New Jersey “is simply a question of when, not if. In the year since New Jersey’s civil union law took effect, the sky has not fallen in and the meaning of marriage for opposite-sex couples has not been eroded. Those realizations make it all the more likely that New Jersey will ultimately be the first state to legislatively reach the inevitable conclusion that marriage is a right that should be enjoyed by all residents.” Pope Benedict XVI today reiterated the Roman Catholic Church’s position “that only unions between a man and a woman are moral.” Well, the immoral is now legal, and civilization still seems to be standing. ShareThis
• 

  Post-Religious Right Politics: Gay Rights

  http://acandidworld.wordpress.com/2008/05/15/post-religious-...
  106 days ago in Submitted to a Candid World — Democracy in America · Authority: 61

  Color me optimistic. My earlier post, which assumed McCain would stridently oppose the California Supreme Court’s pro-gay rights ruling, and that the Democrats would keep silent, assumed that we were still in a religious-right dominated nation, and therefore a religious-right dominated campaign. Based on their reactions, my assumption could be wrong. The McCain campaign voiced their candidate’s support for states’ rights to decide the issue (while subtly commenting on “judicial activism”), while Obama and Hillary both suggested that they would fight for civil unions on the national stage. These are bold moves from all the candidates. Nothing less than outright condemnation from McCain could appease the religious right, but McCain’s response was slightly more than “neutral” on the issue. Anything more than silence from the Democrats could be damaging, but they boldly lent their voices to the cause for equality. Apparently none of the candidates are willing to foster or suborn bigotry just to win.  The tide may be turning.  I’m very proud of our country today. Add to: | del.cio.us | digg
• 

  California: gay people have right to marry

  http://headoflegal.blogspot.com/2008/05/california-gay-peopl...
  106 days ago in Head of Legal · Authority: 32

  California: gay people have right to marry I'm blogging lite, as you know, but must while in the U.S. of A. mention the decision of the California Supreme Court, which has ruled that gay people have a constitutional right to marry their same-sex partners, just as opposite-sex couples do. The responses of the candidates for the White House are interesting: I have sympathy for McCain's view that this should be a matter for political decision, not for judges; but also for the view of Obama and Clinton, that civil unions equivalent to marriage would be a good way forward, as the UK and many other European countries have already found. The difference between them is subtle, but clear - while McCain would simply leave this to the States (a much more liberal position than many Republicans would take, many of them wanting a constitutional amendment to prohibit gay marriage), his Democratic opponents would encourage civil unions. The question for social liberal is, how hard would they encourage them? Posted by Head of Legal

Advertise on Technorati

Advertise on Technorati