Blog
Posted on August 25th, 2010 by Nathan
Following up on a previous post, Nepal celebrated its first international gay pride parade yesterday. A crowd estimated at 2,000 came from all over the world, including India, Japan, Britain, Germany, Denmark and Norway.
The Times of India reports:
“Dozens of young men and women, dressed in costumes, masks, and animal ensembles, marched in a gay pride reminding one of the Mardi Gras celebrations in Brazil. Organised under the aegis of Blue Diamond Society, Nepal’s pioneering gay rights organisation, the march, now in its ninth year, has grown from strength to strength since its inception when the participants hid their faces behind masks for fear of being identified.”
“From this year, our march has become internationalised,” said Sunil Babu Pant, BDS founder and Nepal’s only openly gay MP who successfully lobbied Supreme Court to recognise same-sex marriages and is now hosting such events for foreigners in Nepal with his gay travel agency, Pink Mountains, promising elaborate honeymoon packages. “We have the support of the Irish parliament, the American ambassador to Nepal, Scott DeLisi, has sent a message of solidarity and the march saw the participation of the British ambassador, John Tucknott. Thousands of gays die worldwide every year, some of natural causes, some due to AIDS/HIV and many due to violence. In Nepal, there were 10 known deaths last year. But no one remembers them. Our gay parade ends with a candle-light vigil in memory of those who died last year. This is about equality for all.”
Posted on August 17th, 2010 by Sean
Come to New Orleans this Labor Day weekend as the Big Easy opens its arms (and legs) to raucous gays everywhere for Southern Decadence!! From September 2-6, the French Quarter fills up with thousands of gay revelers for a bacchanal that only New Orleans could host.
Get Gay Travel has negotiated an exclusive rate with The Iberville Suites of New Orleans so you can rest your weary head after your days and nights of partying. This beautiful Old World boutique hotel is located in the heart of the French Quarter, so you won’t have to stumble home too far.
You won’t find this offer anywhere else, so give us a call today at 1-800-711-6029 to book your stay for as low as $129 a night for king suites! This exclusive offer ends August 26, so act fast.
Posted on August 12th, 2010 by Nathan
Gay marriage is legal again…next week. Judge Vaughn R. Walker has lifted the temporary stay he implemented on August 4 after invalidating Proposition 8. The stay was put in place to allow arguments for and against same-sex ceremonies being performed while supporters of the ban appealed. He declined today to extend the stay, however, allowing marriage ceremonies to begin again on August 18. Judge Walker allowed the extra week for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, where the case has been appealed by proponents of Proposition 8, time to consider the matter.
In the ruling, the judge wrote, “The evidence presented at trial and the position of representatives of the state of California show that an injunction against enforcement of Proposition 8 is in the public’s interest.”
Ari Ezra Waldman, a legal expert and faculty member at California Western School of Law in San Diego, has written a terrific analysis of Judge Walker’s ruling for Towleroad, where he weighs in as a guest blogger. For an incredibly clear and heartening overview of the days ahead, read on. Then…go get married, Gay Californians!!
Ari Ezra Waldman weighs in on the ruling handed down earlier today by Judge Walker.
Northern District of California Judge Vaughn Walker will enforce marriage equality in California…as of 5 pm Pacific on August 18, 2010. But for now, same-sex marriages will remain on hold.
But, wait a minute. If the proponents of Prop 8 lost so comprehensively on August 4, why continue the stay? In the words of Judge Walker himself, marriage equality won the day. So, why would a judge delay the enforcement of his own decision. It is really a matter of procedural fairness. Judge Walker recognizes that this is, to paraphrase Vice President Biden, a big [blank] deal and it is only fair in our system to give the parties that lost at trial the opportunity to file their papers with the court of appeals. It also is a sign of respect for the appellate court, which now has time to consider any motion for a stay that they might here in the near future. Plus, this kind of ruling is common, even in civil cases. It may be frustrating, but Rome wasn’t built in a day, and neither were civil rights.
Regardless of the one-week extra delay in same-sex marriages in California, this decision was another momentous step forward for marriage equality. And here are five reasons why.
1. The stay was denied.
When lawyers refer to a “stay”, they mean a delay in enforcing something. Outside of one more week, which Judge Walker found necessary “to permit the court of appeals to consider the issue in an orderly manner,” the stay was denied. Prop 8 proponents had the responsibility of showing that allowing same-sex marriages would do so much harm to them that to go forward with same-sex marriage would be devastating. It’s a high hurdle to jump, and Prop 8 proponents barely got off the ground. They admitted that they could not identify any harm to them if marriages licenses were issued. In fact, they relied on apparent harm to same-sex couples, caused by any uncertainty around the availability of marriage rights between now and any appeal. I am heartened that they are thinking so altruistically about same-sex couples here. But, that’s not a harm that Prop 8 proponents will feel. In fact, it’s barely a harm to anyone at all.
To boil down Judge Walker’s ruling, he said that he looked at the possible damage to Prop 8 proponents — all of which he found hypothetical or unsupported at trial — and at the possible damage to same-sex couples — their lack of access to a fundamental right — and found that the damage to same-sex couples was considerably more substantial.
2. Prop 8 proponents may not “likely” succeed on appeal.
Prop 8 proponents had to show that their appeal had at least a “likelihood” of success. That’s a fancy way of saying that the only way a stay can be granted is if your appeal has merit. First, Judge Walker’s decision on August 4 so eviscerated every piece of the Prop 8 proponents’ case that he could not see any likelihood of success.
3. Prop 8 proponents may not even be able to appeal.
Second, and more importantly, Judge Walker notes that Prop 8 proponents may not even have the right to appeal. Lawyers call it “standing”, which is not a homage to an R.E.M. song, but rather a way to identify those parties who have been hurt by an adverse ruling at trial and, thus, can ask a court to fix it. As noted here earlier, Governor Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Brown filed papers asking Judge Walker to remove his temporary stay. They are California in this case, they are the ones that have to change their practices as a result of the ruling, and they don’t even want to wait to do so. They want to start issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Since it is the State of California and not a collection of anti-marriage equality advocates that issue marriage licenses, the only parties that may have the ability to ask the court of appeal to review Judge Walker’s decision are those representing the State of California.
Think of it this way. Let’s say the San Diego Padres win a game against the New York Mets due to a botched call by an umpire. The win propels the Padres into first place ahead of the San Francisco Giants. Who can appeal the win to the commissioner’s office? Only the Mets. The botched call directly harmed them. They were the injured party. The Giants may have also been affected, but the adverse call didn’t happen to them. To put it another way, a man is married to a woman. The man has an affair. Only the embattled wife can sue for divorce. The man’s mistress can’t ask a court to divorce the couple.
This is important for obvious reasons. The governor’s and attorney general’s decision to ask Judge Walker to lift the stay pretty much means they agree with the decision and do not want to have any part of an appeal to the Ninth Circuit. The remaining defendants in the Prop 8 case — anti-marriage equality advocates — are the only ones left. They were given a chance at trial to identify what kind of harm they would face if Prop 8 were overturned, but they failed to show any evidence of real harm. Without any harm, not only do they lose their case at trial, but also they may lack the right to appeal.
And, in 1997, the Supreme Court has indicated that they agree. It was a case that involved a vote on making English the official language in Arizona. The Supreme Court found that initiative proponents, like the anti-marriage equality advocates in this case, do not automatically have the right to appeal a court decision overturning that initiative.
So, will this case be appealed? Don’t be so sure.
4. This is another well-reasoned and well-supported decision from Judge Walker.
Nevertheless, Prop 8 proponents will try to appeal. They will also try to get the Ninth Circuit to do what Judge Walker refused to do, i.e., grant the stay. But, just like I discussed after Judge Walker’s ruling last week, his decision was so well-written that an appellate court would be hard-pressed to defy him. I see that again here. Prop 8 proponents’ inability to provide any evidence that they would be harmed by marriage equality in California is all over this decision and it was the fatal flaw in their argument, both at trial and for a stay. There simply is not enough evidence of real or expected harm to justify a stay.
5. This was a reaffirmation of marriage equality.
Judge Walker said it best: “[T]he trial record left no doubt that Proposition 8 inflicts harm on plaintiffs and other gays and lesbians in California. Any stay would serve only to delay plaintiffs access to the remedy to which they have shown they are entitled.” Amen.
What happens now?
Prop 8 proponents have already stated on CNN, MSNBC and Fox News that they plan on asking the Ninth Circuit for a stay and, if necessary, the Supreme Court. But any appellate court will first have to address the threshold question of whether they have the right to ask a higher court for a stay. It is unclear whether they have standing to appeal, as discussed above. Given that, here is one possible scenario of how this will play out, step-by-step:
Motion to Ninth Circuit for stay. If denied, motion to the Supreme Court. If granted, filing papers for a substantive appeal of the decision itself. If the Ninth Circuit finds Prop 8 proponents have no right to appeal, they may appeal that ruling to the Supreme Court, or the case ends with Judge Walker’s ruling in place permanently. This may take 1-2 years.
If the Ninth Circuit finds Prop 8 proponents do indeed have the right to appeal, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit will hear that appeal. Either way, the case will probably be then heard by a larger panel — perhaps, 11 — of judges. Then, the case may go before the Supreme Court. This may take up to 3-5 years.
Ari Ezra Waldman is a 2002 graduate of Harvard College and a 2005 graduate of Harvard Law School. After practicing in New York for five years and clerking at a federal appellate court in Washington, D.C., Ari is now on the faculty at California Western School of Law in San Diego, California. His area of expertise are criminal law, criminal procedure, LGBT law and law and economics.
Posted on August 8th, 2010 by Sean
The games may be over now, but there’s still lots of footage to come! Here’s day 5 of the games including Men’s 50 meter butterfly, Men’s 800 meter dash, and the 5k road race.
Posted on August 4th, 2010 by Nathan
Before we dwell on the good news (which we will do), let’s get the inevitable backlash out of the way. In the coming days/weeks/months, you will no doubt hear plenty of variations on the following:
“Judge Walker is gay and biased and made up his mind before the trial even began!”
“An activist judge overturned the will of the people!”
“They’re changing the definition of family/we’re living in the end times/California will fall into the ocean, etc.”
You get the point. Same song, different verse. We know they’re wrong, and finally, a Federal Court decision has backed us up.
Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker has overturned California’s same-sex marriage ban (Proposition 8), finding it unconstitutional and violating the Constitution’s due process and equal protection clauses while failing “to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.”
“Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples,” the judge wrote in his 136-page ruling.
California voters passed the ban in November 2008 after the most expensive campaign over a social issue in history, five months after the state Supreme Court legalized gay marriage.
David Boies and Theodore Olson, ideological opposites who once famously sparred in the 2000 Supreme Court battle beween George W. Bush and Al Gore over the Florida recount and the presidency, brought the case — Perry v. Schwarzenegger — in May 2009. The trial, which began in January, was closely watched in the gay community, but – in a controversial decision – was not allowed to be broadcast. The plaintiffs offered two weeks of evidence from 18 witnesses, including experts on marriage, sociology, and political science, as well as emotional testimony from the two couples who had brought the case.
Defense lawyers, on the other hand, called just two witnesses, claiming they did not need to present expert testimony because U.S. Supreme Court precedent was on their side. The attorneys also said gay marriage was an experiment with unknown social consequences that should be left to voters to accept or reject.
In an usual move (or as I like to think of it, a further show of no confidence in the moral legitimacy of Proposition 8), the original defendants, California Attorney General Jerry Brown and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, refused to support Proposition 8 in court.
While today is a historic day and celebration is certainly called for, this is still only the beginning of a long legal battle over Proposition 8, as proponents of the ban have vowed (they always do) to appeal the decision to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and eventually the Supreme Court.
Walker has temporarily stayed his order until Friday, giving Prop. 8 backers time to file appeals and seek a long-term stay. The decision would appear to delay any resumption of gay marriage in the state. Officials in L.A. County and West Hollywood said they were studying the ruling before deciding whether to begin issuing same-sex marriage licenses again.
So let’s keep a collective level head and clear focus as this issue marches on, but today a battle has been won in our war for equality and the significance should not be underestimated. A heartfelt thank you is owed to the plaintiffs and their attorneys for a battle hard fought, and to Judge Vaughn R. Walker for a decision soundly made.
Grab your gay husband or wife (or the ones soon to be) and give them a big kiss. August 4, 2010 is a good day.
Posted on August 3rd, 2010 by Nathan
At the USA Pavilion at the World Expo in Shanghai, Annise Parker, the openly lesbian mayor of Houston, praised the city for its LGBT inclusiveness and its entrepreneurial spirit.
“Shanghainese and Houstonians are similar,” Parker said in an Aug. 3 address. “They care about what you do, not who you are.”
Shanghai is among the more accepting cities of China’s LGBT population, which is not legally discriminated against, but which still suffers from social stigma. In June 2009, the city hosted China’s first gay pride festival.
Houston made history in December 2009 when it became the largest U.S. city to elect an openly gay mayor.
“What Houston and Shanghai have in common is the growth-oriented entrepreneurial altitude,” said Parker, who is leading a 60-member delegation of Houston business leaders. “To boost development, a city needs to be open to a full range of people, especially the innovative ones who break barriers, like people of the gay community.”
Here here!
Posted on August 1st, 2010 by Sean
Gutten Tag! I’m in Cologne, Germany for the Gay Games 2010! Over 10,000 GLBT athletes from all over the world are competing in the games in every event you can imagine. From July 31st to August 7th athletes will be giving it their all to compete fro bronze, silver and gold.
I’m extremely happy to be here and to be competing in the Olympic Distance Triathlon! This is only my second Triathlon after the NYC Triathlon only 2 weeks ago! This course was flatter, but a bit longer. Still so much fun.
I’ll be going around to different sporting events, cultural presentations, and festivities to give you the inside perspective of the Gay Games as the week goes on. Now that my event is over, it’s to the beer garden for celebration!
For more information on the Gay Games, please visit: gaygamescologne.com
Posted on July 31st, 2010 by Nathan
On August 25th, Kathmandu, Nepal will hold the nation’s first Gay Pride parade, says Sunil Babu Pant, Nepal’s first publicly gay lawmaker and a leading gay rights activist in South Asia.
Pant said he hopes up to 3,000 gays, lesbians, transvestites and transsexuals from Nepal and neighboring countries will march through the streets of the capital Kathmandu on August 25. The date has been chosen to coincide with a centuries-old Hindu festival when Nepalese men traditionally dress up in women’s clothing, and which has in recent years been adopted by Nepal’s increasingly vocal gay community.
‘We want to make this a truly international event,’ said Pant.’ ‘Nepal has made so much progress on gay issues in the last few years, and we hope to spread hope and inspire others.’
The parade will feature live music and include elephants and horses dressed in bright colors, and will culminate with a candle-lit memorial service for victims of HIV and violence.
Sunil Babu Pant, Nepal’s first openly gay MP
Photo Credit: Blue Diamond Society
This is progress on hyper speed for a country that only decriminalized homosexuality in December 2007. (That ruling, by the Nepali Supreme Court, also brought recognition of transgendered individuals as a “third sex”.) Less than a year later on November 18, 2008, the Supreme Court directed the government to enact laws granting equal rights to LGBT citizens, including same-sex marriage. The court ordered the government to form a seven member committee to formulate laws similar to European countries that recognize same-sex marriage. The constitution of Nepal, which is expected to be completed in May of 2011, will include same-sex marriage and protection for sexual minorities.
Pant, apparently a very busy man, is also a leading advocate of making Nepal a new LGBT tourism destination and the founder and chairman of Pink Mountain Travels & Tours, which is welcoming gay, lesbian, and transgendered tourists into Nepal with open arms, showing what a LGBT friendly country Nepal can be and, of course, showing off his beautiful country at the top of the world.
The website is very new, so keep checking back as they develop more. http://www.pinkyatra.com/
It’s the dawn of a new age for Nepal and LGBT people in South Asia, so grab your hiking boots and make a visit to the gay-friendliest place in all the Himalayas.
Posted on July 28th, 2010 by Nathan
Finally, some non-discriminatory news out of Arizona!
AP 7/23/10 – U.S. District Judge John Sedwick issued a preliminary injunction blocking Arizona from implementing a cutoff of domestic partner benefits for gay and lesbian state employees.
The state is still required to still make family health insurance available to gay and lesbian state employees who have established relationships that meet residency and other standards under state administration rules.
Domestic partner benefits were approved in late 2008 by state officials under rule changes proposed by then-Gov. Janet Napolitano. But after Napolitano, a Democrat, left office in January 2009, the Republican-led Legislature included the prohibition — which applied to all unmarried couples — in a budget law that Gov. Jan Brewer signed last September.
The preliminary injunction issued Friday by Sedwick only applies to unmarried gay and lesbian state workers, which it called “a small fraction” of the 800 employees who receive domestic-partner benefits.
The prohibition still takes effect Jan. 1 for heterosexual domestic partners.
Sedwick’s 33-page order said heterosexuals may become eligible for family coverage under the state plan by marrying. But because employees in same-sex relationships cannot marry in Arizona, the law “has the effect of completely barring lesbians and gays from receiving family benefits,” Sedwick wrote.
Consequently, the prohibition against domestic-partner benefits “burdens state employees with same-sex domestic partners more than state employees with opposite-sex domestic partners,” denying them “a valuable form of compensation,” Sedwick added.
That leaves the plaintiffs with a good chance of being able to prove at trial that the prohibition violates their rights for equal protection under the law, and they would face irreparable harm in the meantime if the prohibition were allowed to take effect, he said.
Sedwick rejected the state’s arguments that the prohibition was justified by cost savings, administrative efficiency and the state’s interest in favoring marriage and families with children.
He also said the state’s argument that gay and lesbian workers could get coverage elsewhere for their partners amounted to “back of the bus” treatment.
The ruling “removes the sword that’s been hanging over” gay and lesbian state workers, said Tara Borelli, a Lamba Legal attorney who worked on the case.
A big thanks to the Honorable Judge Sedwick!
Posted on July 27th, 2010 by Nathan
New Jersey’s Supreme Court has refused to hear a case on gay marriage, telling supporters to pursue it through the lower courts.
The state currently has civil unions but gay campaigners are pushing for full marriage equality.
They hoped to persuade the Supreme Court to look at the issue but the judges split 3-3 on hearing the case. Four votes are needed for a motion to pass.
Chief Justice Stuart Rabner and Justices Roberto Rivera-Soto and Helen Hoens said that the issue “cannot be decided without the development of an appropriate trial-like record”.
However, they did not say that the case was without merit.
Justices Virginia Long, Jaynee LaVecchia and Barry Albin, who all voted to hear the case, said they hoped that proceedings in a lower court, the Superior Court, would be conducted “with all deliberate speed”.
Silver linings, people, silver linings…
Categories
Archives
Blog Roll
We're Social
 |
 |