The Federal Prop. 8 Trial / Gay Marriage Catch-All

As I just said in a chat message with Phoenix Rev, I'm just horribly ashamed at how the USA treats people like him and me based on who we love. I'm ashamed that there are people like the ones on Big Brother this season who still treat people of different races as inferior, solely based on their skin color. It's 2013, and people to this day don't get the idea of "do unto others as you would have done unto you."

It's not a really difficult test. "Hey, I want to do this. Would I feel badly if this was done to me? Yes? Hmm... maybe I shouldn't do it."

Last week, I posted this story about Jim and John, a couple in Ohio who flew to Maryland to get married, but had additional problems because John has advanced ALS. (You can watch the video here.)

After the couple arrived home, they filed suit in the State of Ohio looking for an injunction to stop any enforcement of that state's constitutional ban on gay marriage because when John dies, his death certificate in Ohio will list him as "unmarried" despite the fact that they have a valid marriage license from Maryland and are legally married. Ohio simply will not recognize their marriage.

Today, a federal magistrate granted an injunction against the State of Ohio and specifically for Jim and John requiring that the constitutional ban on gay marriage not apply to Jim and John for the purposes of John's death certificate. This will allow John to be buried in Jim's family's cemetery plot next to Jim when he died (based on the terms of the family plot set down by Jim's grandfather).

There has been no response from the State of Ohio, but it could only be horrible cruel and mean-spirited to fight this injunction when John's life is rapidly ending. The injunction only applies to him and his husband, so the State of Ohio fighting this is simply spite.

But even so, Rubb Ed and I realized that this has hit us harder than expected.

Some of you may know from the "loathing" thread on Everything Else that I have been battling some health issues that may be stemming from a brain tumor. In a couple of weeks, I will be having another MRI to determine if the "problem area" is more of a problem. If it is and there is something seriously wrong, then, there is always that fear that life may be fleeting. It is gut-wrenching to think that if I died in the State of Arizona, my death certificate would list me as "unmarried" as Arizona also has a constitutional ban on gay marriage. This has made our struggle for marriage equality hit home moreso than it has been since the day we picked up our marriage license at the Santa Ana, California Courthouse back in May of 2008.

So, as much as it will tax our financial and emotional resources, Rubb Ed and I may have no choice but to sue the State of Arizona to get an injunction similar to that of Jim and John in Ohio.

And all of this because people like Maggie Gallagher and Rick Santorum get their knickers in a twist because two people of the same gender want the same thing they have.

Please keep us in the loop.

If it comes to a legal battle, I think I can speak for all of us here when I tell you that we've got your backs and we'll help in any way we can.

Rubb Ed, Phoenix Rev send me a PM if you like, and you are looking for help finding an attorney. I have a few connections with people in Arizona. I would hope you can find a pro bono civil rights attorney though.

oilypenguin wrote:

Please keep us in the loop.

If it comes to a legal battle, I think I can speak for all of us here when I tell you that we've got your backs and we'll help in any way we can.

Absolutely.

Yeah, we'll be sending good karma and lending whatever support we can.

obirano wrote:
oilypenguin wrote:

Please keep us in the loop.

If it comes to a legal battle, I think I can speak for all of us here when I tell you that we've got your backs and we'll help in any way we can.

Absolutely.

A million times over!

Also, I hate my state. Ohio continues to disappoint me on every level.

Today, a federal magistrate granted an injunction against the State of Ohio and specifically for Jim and John requiring that the constitutional ban on gay marriage not apply to Jim and John for the purposes of John's death certificate. This will allow John to be buried in Jim's family's cemetery plot next to Jim when he died (based on the terms of the family plot set down by Jim's grandfather).

I was really hoping post DOMA and Prop 8 that these bans would be lifted everywhere... instead we get one couple with extreme extenuating circumstances. Really hope this leads to more changes for my state so we can not be quite so terribad.

The California Supreme Court has told the San Diego County Clerk who wanted gay marriages stopped in the Golden State to go pound sand.

SAN FRANCISCO -- The California Supreme Court once again refused to stop gays from marrying, rejecting a bid Tuesday by a San Diego County clerk.

In a closed session, the state high court turned down a request by San Diego County Clerk Ernest J. Dronenburg Jr. for a temporary hold or “stay” on same-sex marriages. The court rejected a similar request last week by the sponsors of Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that banned gay marriage.

Dronenburg asked the court Friday to stop the marriages while it considers whether a 2010 federal injunction required him and other county clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. He noted that the California Constitution continues to define marriage as an opposite-sex union.

ProtectMarriage, the sponsor of Proposition 8, has argued that the injunction by a San Francisco trial judge was limited at most to two counties, Los Angeles and Alameda, the homes of the two same-sex couples who challenged the marriage ban in federal court.

So far, clerks from about 24 of the state’s 58 counties, including Los Angeles, have opposed the attempt to revive Proposition 8.

Perhaps Mr. Dronenburg will now go back to doing his job.

Phoenix Rev wrote:

Perhaps Mr. Dronenburg will now go back to doing his job.

In related news, I have a bridge you could buy. Don't worry, we can relocate it to California for you.

The race for Governor of Virginia is quite tight. Current VA Attorney General and gubernatorial hopeful Ken Cuccinelli has decided to take a stand, by pushing to reinstate the old "Crimes Against Nature" law which criminalizes oral and anal sex between consenting adults, even if they are married.

In March, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals deemed the law invalid in connection with a 2003 Supreme Court ruling that struck down anti-sodomy laws across the country.

Cuccinelli unsuccessfully attempted to challenge the ruling, taking the case to the full 15-judge appellate court and asking the Supreme Court to step in.

The website goes on to state that the law would only be applied "to sodomy committed against minors, against non-consenting adults, or in public," but the law itself states that "if any person carnally knows in any manner any brute animal, or carnally knows any male or female person by the anus or by or with the mouth, or voluntarily submits to such carnal knowledge, he or she shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony."

Dimmerswitch wrote:

The race for Governor of Virginia is quite tight. Current VA Attorney General and gubernatorial hopeful Ken Cuccinelli has decided to take a stand, by pushing to reinstate the old "Crimes Against Nature" law which criminalizes oral and anal sex between consenting adults, even if they are married.

In March, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals deemed the law invalid in connection with a 2003 Supreme Court ruling that struck down anti-sodomy laws across the country.

Cuccinelli unsuccessfully attempted to challenge the ruling, taking the case to the full 15-judge appellate court and asking the Supreme Court to step in.

The website goes on to state that the law would only be applied "to sodomy committed against minors, against non-consenting adults, or in public," but the law itself states that "if any person carnally knows in any manner any brute animal, or carnally knows any male or female person by the anus or by or with the mouth, or voluntarily submits to such carnal knowledge, he or she shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony."

Dan Savage tweeted (and retweeted other people's comments) about this yesterday. His language is very colorful, but to clean it up a bit, he said that reporters should be asking Cuccinelli about the details of his sex life. Since Cuccinelli is trying to pass laws governing other people's sex lives, then the public has a right to know if he ever indulges in the things that he wants to make illegal.

Also, if you haven't listened to it yet, the latest Savage Love podcast is awesome. Instead of the usual format, it is just Dan and Ari Shapiro (of NPR) sitting onstage and having a conversation. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

Dimmerswitch wrote:
The website goes on to state that the law would only be applied "to sodomy committed against minors, against non-consenting adults, or in public,"...

So sex with minors, rape, and public indecency aren't already crimes in VA?

I think it's time for a new ad campaign: "Guys, Cuccinelli is trying to take away your BJs."

What about accidents? You are making vigorous love, slip and then poke her in the bum?

KingGorilla wrote:

What about accidents? You are making vigorous love, slip and then poke her in the bum?

That would only happen if you were using a non-government approved sexual position.

Seth wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

What about accidents? You are making vigorous love, slip and then poke her in the bum?

That would only happen if you were using a non-government approved sexual position.

Like in the back of a Volkswagen?

Bloo Driver wrote:
Seth wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

What about accidents? You are making vigorous love, slip and then poke her in the bum?

That would only happen if you were using a non-government approved sexual position.

Like in the back of a Volkswagen?

37!?

Dr.Ghastly wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:
Seth wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

What about accidents? You are making vigorous love, slip and then poke her in the bum?

That would only happen if you were using a non-government approved sexual position.

Like in the back of a Volkswagen?

37!?

Try not to commit any crimes against nature on the way to the parking lot!

muttonchop wrote:
Dr.Ghastly wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:
Seth wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

What about accidents? You are making vigorous love, slip and then poke her in the bum?

That would only happen if you were using a non-government approved sexual position.

Like in the back of a Volkswagen?

37!?

Try not to commit any crimes against nature on the way to the parking lot!

I'm sorry, none of you are expressing yourselves monosyllabically enough for me to understand.

I love how the virulently anti-abortion people are also against the best way of preventing babies in the first place: putting it somewhere else!

Two couples getting married in the Pottstown area of PA (outside of Philadelphia) as the Register of Wills bucks the state:

The licenses were issued a day after Register of Wills D. Bruce Hanes said he would grant them to gay couples because he wanted to come down "on the right side of history and the law."

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...

The ACLU is also fighting the law through normal legal channels.

IMAGE(https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/7688587264/h02309717/)

A part of me genuinely wonders how that might lower the resale value. Like how does a gay hand print stack up to a spotty service history?

Man, that "we want a mommy and a daddy" sticker is so stupid.

KingGorilla wrote:

IMAGE(https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/7688587264/h02309717/)

A part of me genuinely wonders how that might lower the resale value. Like how does a gay hand print stack up to a spotty service history?

I would have put the Demos in my pants on the car for maximum effect. Probably on the door handle.

KingGorilla wrote:

A part of me genuinely wonders how that might lower the resale value. Like how does a gay hand print stack up to a spotty service history?

More importantly, doesn't teh gay touch completely void that DoD vehicle registration tag?

McIrishJihad wrote:

Man, that "we want a mommy and a daddy" sticker is so stupid.

The part that is really annoying me is that "and" is capitalized.

obirano wrote:
McIrishJihad wrote:

Man, that "we want a mommy and a daddy" sticker is so stupid.

The part that is really annoying me is that "and" is capitalized.

Well, when you hit enter in a word processor, it usually thinks you're starting a new sentence and auto-capitalizes for you.

Jolly Bill wrote:

Two couples getting married in the Pottstown area of PA (outside of Philadelphia) as the Register of Wills bucks the state:

The licenses were issued a day after Register of Wills D. Bruce Hanes said he would grant them to gay couples because he wanted to come down "on the right side of history and the law."

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...

The ACLU is also fighting the law through normal legal channels.

As much as I support gay marriage, I'm against this. This is the same thing as the nutjobs who refuse to hand out marriage licenses to gay couples where it is legal because of their religious beliefs. You aren't elected to that position to promote your ideals; your job is to process legal paperwork.

I wholeheartedly support where he's coming from, but yeah, those marriage licenses will be declared invalid the second someone challenges them.

A few posts late, but PhoenixRev, my thoughts are with both you and RubbEd. I'm not sure what I can do for you two all the way from Ohio, but whatever I can, just ask.

On another note, the Dictionary of Dictionaries, the Oxford English dictionary, is changing the definition of marriage.

Nevin73 wrote:
Jolly Bill wrote:

Two couples getting married in the Pottstown area of PA (outside of Philadelphia) as the Register of Wills bucks the state:

The licenses were issued a day after Register of Wills D. Bruce Hanes said he would grant them to gay couples because he wanted to come down "on the right side of history and the law."

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...

The ACLU is also fighting the law through normal legal channels.

As much as I support gay marriage, I'm against this. This is the same thing as the nutjobs who refuse to hand out marriage licenses to gay couples where it is legal because of their religious beliefs. You aren't elected to that position to promote your ideals; your job is to process legal paperwork.

But it isn't quite the same thing.

In one case you have a clerk denying a couple a marriage license they are legally able to obtain because of the clerk's religious beliefs. In this scenario, couples are being granted licenses because their state constitution and federal law says it's illegal to discriminate against them.