Sociology Group Files Amicus Brief Against Marriage Bans In Nevada & Hawaii

From their website:

The American Sociological Association (ASA) filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit today supporting efforts to overturn gay marriage bans in Nevada and Hawaii and highlighting the overwhelming body of social science research that confirms “children fare just as well” when same-sex or heterosexual parents raise them. The Ninth Circuit is scheduled to hear lawsuits challenging the bans in the coming months.

“The supporters of gay marriage bans in these cases offer no facts to support the contention that Nevada and Hawaii possess an important or rational basis for their respective state laws against marriage for same-sex couples,” said ASA Executive Officer Sally T. Hillsman. The amicus brief is part of the ASA’s ongoing effort to ensure that U.S. courts considering lawsuits to legalize gay marriage understand that social science research shows parents’ sexual orientation has no bearing on their children’s well-being.

They go on to slam Mark Regnerus.

“The Regnerus papers and other sources gay marriage opponents often rely on provide no basis for their arguments because this research does not directly examine the well-being of children raised by same-sex parents,” Hillsman said. “These analyses therefore do not undermine the consensus from the social science research and do not establish a legitimate basis for gay marriage bans in Nevada, Hawaii, or anywhere else.”

Suh-NAP.

NEVADA: Lambda Legal Takes Marriage Equality Appeal To Ninth Circuit Court

Via press release:

Today Lambda Legal filed its opening brief with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a case on behalf of eight same-sex couples challenging the amendment to Nevada's constitution and other state laws banning marriage for same-sex couples. "The world has changed dramatically since we filed this lawsuit over a year ago," said Tara Borelli, Staff Attorney in Lambda Legal's Western Regional Office. "After the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling striking down Section 3 of DOMA, Nevada's ban on marriage for same-sex couples has become exponentially more harmful to same-sex couples who are barred from a sweeping array of federal benefits as well."

The brief argues: "As the arbiter of which couples may be married in the State, Nevada thus holds the key to access for the sweeping array of spousal rights and responsibilities available under federal law, and keeps them locked away from same-sex couples under the marriage ban. By foreclosing same-sex couples from marriage, Nevada inflicts virtually the same collection of federal harms and deprivations on unmarried same-sex couples as DOMA previously did, since nearly all federal benefits are unavailable to unmarried couples, regardless of whether they are registered domestic partners."

I can't keep up any more! Who could?

CALIFORNIA: Liberty Counsel Appeals Loss Over Bill That Bans "Ex-Gay" Torture

As expected, the Liberty Counsel has filed an en banc appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court, demanding that the full Court reconsider the slap down given them by a three-judge panel of the same Court in their bid to block California's ban on the "ex-gay" torture of minors.

Mathew Staver, chief counsel of Liberty Counsel, said the minors he represents “do not want to act on same-sex attractions, nor do they want to engage in such behavior.” “They are greatly benefiting from this counseling. Their grades have gone up, their self-esteem has improved, and their relationships at home are much improved,” he said  Staver said legislators and judges in California “have essentially barged into the private therapy rooms of victimized young people and told them that their confusion, caused by the likes of a Jerry Sandusky abuser, is normal and they should pursue their unwanted and dangerous same-sex sexual attractions and behavior, regardless of whether those minors desire their religious beliefs to trump their unwanted attractions.”  The petition for rehearing notes that the circuit court judges had found that the California law banned treatment but not speech, which poses a conflict. Licensed counselors who are not medical doctors can help their clients only through speech, the petition contends.

Liberty Counsel has vowed to take the case to the US Supreme Court if necessary.

CALIFORNIA: Appeals Court Upholds Law Banning "Ex-Gay" Torture For Minors

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has rejected the attempt to block California's law that bans "ex-gay" torture for minors.

In resolving two separate legal challenges to the new law, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the arguments of a group of therapists and families who sued to block its enforcement. The three-judge panel was unanimous in upholding the statute, the first of its kind in the nation.

"(It) does not violate the free speech rights of practitioners or minor patients, is neither vague nor overbroad and does not violate parents' fundamental rights," Judge Susan Graber wrote for the court.

The therapists and families sued over the ban, arguing that it violates the free speech rights of therapists to discuss gay conversion with young patients, and families argued that the law tramples on religious freedoms to seek therapy to convert their children from homosexuality. The law barred licensed mental health professionals from using the therapy on those under the age of 18.

Another big loss for the Liberty Counsel! Stand by for the sadz AND threats about SCOTUS.

UPDATE: Courtesy of JMG reader Joe, I've posted the full 42-page ruling to my Scribd account.

UPDATE II: The National Center For Lesbian Rights responds via press release.

NCLR Legal Director Shannon Minter, who argued the case on behalf of Equality California in the Ninth Circuit, said: “This decision clears the way for this life-saving law to protect California youth from cruel and damaging practices that have been rejected by all leading medical and mental health professional organizations. The court of appeals ruled in very clear terms that state-licensed therapists do not have a constitutional right to engage in discredited practices that offer no health benefits and put LGBT youth at risk of severe harm, including depression and suicide. We thank Attorney General Kamala Harris, Deputy Attorney General Alexandra Robert Gordon, and the entire legal team at the California Department of Justice for their brilliant and tireless advocacy in defense of these vital new protections for LGBT youth.” “The court's decision today on Senate Bill 1172 is a major victory for anyone who cares about the well-being of our youth. It will directly impact the lives of thousands of young people by protecting them from this horrific practice," said John O’Connor, Equality California executive director. "We thank Sen. Ted Lieu for authoring this bill and Speaker John A. Perez for his bold leadership in getting the law passed."

Protect Marriage Files "Emergency" Petition To SCOTUS Demanding Reversal Of Lifted Stay On Prop 8 Overturn

Via press release from Protect Marriage:

Today our Prop 8 Legal Defense Team filed an emergency petition to U.S. Supreme Court to stop the Ninth Circuit's premature move requiring same-sex "marriage" licenses in California. The petition, prepared overnight by our good friends at Alliance Defending Freedom, was submitted Saturday to Justice Anthony Kennedy, the associate justice who decides such motions pertaining to the Ninth Circuit. On Wednesday, Justice Kennedy had agreed with our view that the voice of the voters must heard in a case like this challenging an initiative proposition.

When the Ninth Circuit originally put in place its stay to prevent same-sex marriage pending Supreme Court action, it stated clearly that “the stay shall continue until final disposition by the Supreme Court.” Under Supreme Court procedural rules, "final disposition" comes when the Supreme Court issues a "mandate" to the Ninth Circuit, at least 25 days after announcing its opinion in the case. The 25-day waiting period is provided to allow parties like us to petition the Supreme Court for a re-hearing of the case.

Today's petition asks the Supreme Court to find that the Ninth Circuit had no jurisdiction to order same-sex marriages on Friday, since the case had not yet come back down from the nation's highest court.

Suspiciously, the Ninth Circuit's announcement late Friday ordering same-sex marriages came as a surprise, without any warning or notice to Proposition 8's official proponents. However, the same-sex couple plaintiffs in the case, their media teams, San Francisco City Hall, L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and the California Attorney General all happened to be in position to perform same-sex marriages just minutes after the Ninth Circuit's "unexpected" announcement.

Read the full petition.

SCOTUSblog says they are wasting their time.

As a formal matter, the Ninth Circuit did not put the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Proposition 8 case into effect prematurely. The Supreme Court held that the proponents of Proposition 8 could not file appeals in federal court. That ruling says nothing about imposing or lifting a stay on same-sex marriage. The court of appeals likely has the authority to act with respect to its own previously entered stay, which is a form of controlling its own docket. Although the court of appeals had previously stated that they stay would remain in effect until the Supreme Court’s ruling was final, it presumably can change its mind.

BREAKING: Ninth Circuit Lifts Prop 8 Stay, Gay Marriage Returns To California!!!

The Los Angeles Times reports:

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday cleared the way for gay marriages to resume in California. The court lifted its stay on an injunction which ordered state officials to stop enforcing Proposition 8. With the court's action, counties can now begin issuing same-sex marriage licenses.

A spokesman for the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had originally said it would takes the court at least 25 days to act after a Supreme Court ruling. Immediately afterward, Gov. Jerry Brown ordered his public health agency to advise the state's counties to "begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in California as soon as the 9th Circuit confirms the stay is lifted."

Happiest gay pride EVAH!

UPDATE: Cleve Jones and Dustin Lance Black are at City Hall with Prop 8 plaintiffs Kris Perry and Sandy Stier, who are getting their license right now.

UPDATE II: California AG Kamela Harris is officiating.

UPDATE III: And they are MARRIED.

UPDATE IV: Nancy Pelosi cheers.

UPDATE V: Next stop, Los Angeles.

UPDATE VI: Contrary to a couple of SF media feeds, the above photo of Kris and Sandy is of them attesting to their marriage license. Here's the wedding! "I now pronounce you spouses for life."

Federal Appeals Court Rules Customers Can Sue Stores For False Discount Claims

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that customers are entitled to sue retailers who inflate prices in order to claim massive sale discounts. The ruling came in the case of a California man who sued Kohl's over luggage and shirt prices.

“Price advertisements matter,” Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote for a three-judge panel. “When a consumer purchases merchandise on the basis of false price information, and when the consumer alleges that he would not have made the purchase but for the misrepresentation, he has standing to sue.” Antonio S. Hinojos filed the lawsuit, alleging he would not have made several purchases at Kohl's if he had known the prices did not represent actual markdowns. Hinojos said he purchased Samsonite luggage that was advertised as 50% off its “original” price of $299.99, Chaps Solid Pique polo shirts that were marked down 39% from their “original” price of $36 and other items that were advertised as being substantially reduced in price.

OREGON: Ninth Circuit Court Judge Calls Same-Sex Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

Ninth Circuit Court Judge Harry Pregerson yesterday ruled in favor of an Oregon lesbian who has been denied federal health benefits for her partner. The judge's ruling does not overturn Oregon's 2004 ban on same-sex marriage.

Pregerson ruled on a narrow personnel case in which Alison Clark appealed the denial of benefits for her partner, Anna Campbell, under the Federal Employees Health Care Benefits program. Clark, a public defender in Portland, married Campbell in British Columbia on June 23, 2012. But when the couple returned to Oregon and applied for health benefits, they were denied under the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which also defines marriage as between one man and one woman. The state of Oregon did not recognize their marriage, under Measure 36. Clark appealed the decision about her benefits, and Pregerson ruled in her favor. “The denial of Clark’s request for spousal FEHB benefits was based on Clark’s sexual orientation, and thus violates the plan’s prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.”

Activists are working place a repeal of the ban on the 2014 ballot. (Image via Memeograph)

San Francisco Asks Appeals Court For Advance Notice Of New Weddings

As we oh-so-anxiously await tomorrow's news from the Supreme Court, Buzzfeed reporter Chris Geidner notes that the city of San Francisco is asking for a 24-hour advance notice on the possible ruling that again allows same-sex weddings in California.

The city asked for the notice in a letter from Chief Deputy City Attorney Therese M. Stewart to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday. Concerned about being "deluged by same-sex couples seeking marriage licenses" and "large gatherings, including protesters" after a ruling that would allow same-sex couples to once again marry in California, Stewart asked for the 24-hour notice so the city could coordinate the "substantial" logistical efforts involved.

The request went to the Ninth Circuit, and not the Supreme Court, because of the specific procedures involved in ending an appeal. If the Supreme Court announces that it is denying the request of the backers of Proposition 8 to hear an appeal of the case, then the Ninth Circuit's ruling striking down the law will stand. The Ninth Circuit mandate has been stayed, or put on hold, while the request to the Supreme Court, called a petition for a writ of certiorari, is pending. If the petition is denied, the appeals court then will issue a mandate to return the case to the district court, which will enable its final judgment in the case to take effect.

See San Francisco's full letter at the link above.

GOP Senators File DOMA Amicus Brief

Yesterday ten GOP Senators filed an amicus brief is support of the DOMA case currently before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Throwing a party for Orrin Hatch and other GOP U.S. senators? Better not invite U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White of San Francisco. Hatch and nine other senators who voted for the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 filed an amicus curiae brief Monday in a constitutional challenge to the law before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In it they have a bone to pick with White — and not just because they disagree with his ruling. In striking down DOMA in February, White had observed that "the legislative history is replete with expressed animus toward gay men and lesbians." Specifically, White noted that some congressmen during floor debate had called homosexuality "immoral," "depraved," "unnatural," "based on perversion" and "an attack on god's principles." Quoting Justice Anthony Kennedy, White said prejudice may be caused by "simple want of careful, rational reflection," among other things.

BREAKING: Ninth Circuit Court Of Appeals DENIES Rehearing Of Proposition 8

Here's the ruling:

The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. A judge requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. The matter failed to receive a majority of the votes of the non-recused active judges in favor of en banc consideration. Fed. R. App. P. 35. The petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED. The mandate is stayed for ninety days pending the filing of a petition for writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court. If such a petition is filed, the stay shall continue until final disposition by the Supreme Court.

Reactions and analysis to follow shortly....

Ninth Circuit Likely To Rule Tomorrow On Rehearing Prop 8 With More Judges

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has issued an alert that a ruling will come tomorrow on whether to rehear Prop 8 with a larger panel of judges. Insiders speculate:

KQED's Scott Shafer said this is almost surely the decision on whether to rehear the case en banc. An en banc panel is made up of 11 judges, chosen at random from the circuit. If the 9th Circuit denies the request, Prop 8 supporters will almost certainly ask the United States Supreme Court to hear the case. Proponents of Prop 8, California's same-sex marriage ban, asked the 9th Circuit for the en banc review in February, after a ruling by a three-judge panel upheld Judge Vaughn Walker's 2010 decision striking down the law as unconstitutional.

Prop 8 Trial Tracker has more on what could happen.

If that happens, Judge Reinhardt’s narrow opinion stands, and the proponents of Proposition 8 can then petition for certiorari at the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court were to deny review, the Ninth Circuit’s decision would stand, and Proposition 8 would be struck down. Gay and lesbian couples would be allowed to marry in California. If the Supreme Court grants review, there will be briefing and oral argument and a decision next year.

DOJ Demands Faster Action On DOMA

In what is being described as a highly unusual request, the Department of Justice has asked the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to speed up its review of the constitutionality of DOMA, a move that may see the critical Section 3 of the bill completely overturned by the November election. Chris Geidner reports at Metro Weekly:

Calling the resolution of the case a "constitutional question of exceptional importance and urgency," DOJ lawyers -- with Golinski's support -- are seeking to speed up the appeal with the aim of resolving whether Section 3 of DOMA, which defines "marriage" and "spouse" as pertaining only to opposite-sex couples, unconstitutionally discriminates based on sexual orientation. If DOJ lawyers have their way, an 11-judge en banc panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit will be considering the case of Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management well before the presidential election this November. Additionally, even as the appeal is pending, OPM has directed Golinski's insurer to begin providing equal coverage for her wife, Amy Cunninghis.

Hit the link for a more detailed analysis.

Boehner Appeals Latest DOMA Ruling

On Wednesday a federal court struck down Section 3 of DOMA as unconstitutional. Today GOP House Speaker John Boehner ordered that ruling appealed.

In court papers, a group of congressional Republicans defending the federal gay marriage ban revealed they are appealing the ruling to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The 9th Circuit will become the second federal appeals court to now consider the legality of the Defense of Marriage Act, a 16-year-old law known as DOMA. The Obama administration has sided with Golinski in the case, arguing that DOMA is unconstitutional. Republicans, led by House Speaker John Boehner, have jumped in to defend the law, filing the notice of appeal on Friday. With cases unfolding in several federal courts, many experts predict the issue will wind up in the U.S. Supreme Court.

RELATED: Helping to raise money for Boehner's reelection campaign are Log Cabin Republicans head R. Clark Cooper and former RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman, two out gay alleged activists who will co-chair Boehner's high-ticket Washington DC soiree.

Prop 8 Backers Want En Banc Review

The proponents of Proposition 8 intend to appeal for an en banc ruling from the full Ninth Circuit Court. Earlier this month a three-judge panel of Ninth Circuit members voted to uphold the overturn of Prop 8.

Chris Geidner explains at Metro Weekly:

Usually, en banc review involves all of the active judges on the court, but the Ninth Circuit -- due to the more than 20 active judges on the circuit -- has adopted a unique "limited en banc" procedure in which all the active Ninth Circuit judges vote whether en banc consideration will be given. That will be the request made by today's filing.

If a majority of the court supports en banc consideration, then the chief judge of the circuit, Judge Alex Kozinski, and 10 randomly selected appellate judges from the circuit will hear the en banc appeal, which can involve briefing and oral arguments.

After that decision is reached, theoretically, a party dissatisfied with an en banc ruling of the Ninth Circuit can ask for the full Ninth Circuit to review the en banc panel's decision, but the court has not agreed to do so since adopting the "limited en banc" procedure.

On and on and on and on....

LIVE VIDEO: Prop 8 Press Conference

Scheduled start is 10:30AM Los Angeles time. UPDATE: It looks like AFER is having some problem with their UStream feed. Stand by...

Read The Full Prop 8 Decision

(Via - AmericaBlog Gay)

Prop 8 Stay Remains In Place

Prop 8 Reactions

Former SF Mayor Gavin Newsom

Today’s decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stands as a victory for the fundamental American principle that all people are equal, and deserve equalrights and treatment under the law. This is the biggest step that theAmerican judicial system has taken to end the grievous discrimination against men and women in same-sex relationships and should be highly praised. "Proposition 8 has done nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that same-sex couples are inferior to heterosexual couples. These men and women are our firefighters, our paramedics, our law enforcement, our service-members, and to treat their relationships differently is unfair, unlawful, and violates the basic principle of who we are as a nation.

Mayors For Freedom

As Mayors for the Freedom to Marry, we know how important marriage is to our neighborhoods, our cities, and our nation. When committed couples are able to pledge their love to one another and share in the responsibilities and protections of marriage, our communities flourish and our cities are more competitive. Today’s decision by the 9th Circuit reaffirms that the American Dream is possible for everyone and brings us one step closer to ending marriage discrimination once and for all. We look forward to a day when all of our citizens will be able to share fairly and equally in the freedom to marry

Freedom To Marry

This monumental appellate decision restores California to the growing list of states and countries that have ended exclusion from marriage, and will further accelerate the surging nationwide majority for marriage. As this and other important challenges to marriage discrimination move through the courts around the country, Freedom to Marry calls on all Americans to join us in ensuring that together we make as strong a case in the court of public opinion as our legal advocates are making in the courts of law. By growing the majority for marriage, winning more states, and tackling federal discrimination – Freedom to Marry’s ‘Roadmap to Victory’ – we maximize our chances of winning when one case or another finally reaches the U.S. Supreme Court.”

Lambda Legal

This ruling foreshadows the ultimate fate of other states in the Ninth Circuit like Washington, Oregon, Nevada, and Hawaii that refuse to recognize the equal dignity of same-sex couples and their families by shunting them off into second-class statuses like domestic partnerships or civil unions. The tide is not turning; it has turned; and we are glad to see the Ninth Circuit join the right side of history. This is an exciting day for all of us, and especially for those of us at Lambda Legal who have been fighting for marriage equality for decades, from our efforts in Hawaii almost 20 years ago to our victories before the California Supreme Court in 2008 and the Iowa Supreme Court in 2009, to our ongoing lawsuit in New Jersey. It is inevitable that marriage equality will be won across the nation through either the legislative or judicial processes.

Empire State Pride Agenda

It is very heartening that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California agrees that all loving committed couples should be able to marry and their families offered the same legal protections as others. “In New York State, more than a decade of work resulted in our marriage win, and we have seen only positive effects from loving same-sex couples being able to marry - from the income generated by their weddings to the legal protections afforded to these families to the outpouring of joy as New Yorkers have seen their friends, family and neighbors publicly declare their love and commitment to each other. “We must be vigilant in defending our victory here in the Empire State. All of the New York State legislators – Democrats and Republicans, Senators and Assemblymembers -- who voted for marriage are up for election this November. As a community, we must flex our political muscle in standing by those who stood by us.

Human Rights Campaign

Today’s decision affirms what we all know to be true – our Constitution protects the basic civil rights of all Americans, including lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people,” said HRC President Joe Solmonese. “Proposition 8 does nothing to strengthen or protect any marriage. Instead, it singles out thousands of loving California families for different treatment, simply because they are gay and lesbian couples. We applaud the Ninth Circuit for recognizing that our Constitution cannot tolerate such egregious discrimination.” “We thank the courageous plaintiff couples, the American Foundation for Equal Rights, and attorneys Ted Olson and David Boies for their years of work leading to today’s decision. This is not the end of the road, for this case or for the larger struggle for marriage equality. We must all continue our work – in courthouses and statehouses, in church pews and living rooms – until equality is reality for LGBT people and our families everywhere."

People For The American Way

Today’s ruling is a major victory for equality and for the thousands of California couples who saw their marriage rights disappear four years ago.Proposition 8 hurt Californians. It took away the freedom of committed couples to legally marry, to raise children in security, to visit each other in the hospital and to provide for each other in old age. It hurt gay and lesbian Californians, and it hurt their friends and families. Proposition 8 wasn’t just unconstitutional – it was simply wrong. “I congratulate all the Californians who have regained their freedom to marry, and hope that that freedom will soon be extended to every American.

GLAAD

"Today's historic decision reflects the growing support for marriage equality among a majority of Americans who believe all couples should have the same opportunity to take care of and be responsible for each other," said GLAAD's Acting President Mike Thompson. "Though the road to securing full equality for every American remains long, we are deeply encouraged by today's ruling."

Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders

Same-sex married couples still face federal discrimination against their marriages because of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). GLAD’s two federal court cases challenging DOMA are also on track to be heard at the Court of Appeals level, and then likely the U.S. Supreme Court. Gill v. Office of Personnel Management is on appeal in the First Circuit following a district court ruling that DOMA is unconstitutional. GLAD is awaiting a district court ruling in the Second Circuit case Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management. In both cases, GLAD is representing same-sex married couples and widowers who were denied federal rights in Social Security, tax filing, family medical leave, employee benefits and pension protections because of DOMA.

National Center For Lesbian Rights

"It is a unique and honored position to be an eyewitness to history. The Ninth Circuit’s ruling finding that Proposition 8 violates the Constitution of this nation marks the first time a federal appellate court has held that a law excluding same-sex couples from the right to marry runs counter to our highest ideals of equality and fairness. 　With today's ruling we are a giant step closer to the day when the promise of our Constitution squares with the lived reality of LGBT people." - Kate Kendell.

More reactions will be added here as they come in....

Outside The Ninth Circuit Courthouse

Source.