BREAKING: Supreme Court Lists ALL Marriage Cases For Consideration On 9/29

Via the Wall Street Journal:

Mark your calendars: the Supreme Court is scheduled to consider its next steps on gay marriage when the justices meet for the first time since their summer break. The court on Wednesday listed gay marriage petitions from five states – Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin – for consideration at its Sept. 29 private conference. Officials in those states are asking the court to decide whether state bans on same-sex marriage are constitutional. The justices use the September meeting to wade through stacks of appeals that pile up during the court’s three-month recess. The court at some point after the conference is expected to add several of those cases to its docket for the term that begins Oct. 6. Court watchers are eagerly awaiting word on whether one or more gay marriages cases will be among them. The court is under no obligation to act right away. It’s possible the court could take additional time to mull its options, particularly because of fast-moving developments in other gay-marriage litigation.

More from USA Today:

By scheduling all for consideration simultaneously, the justices gave equal footing to the Indiana and Wisconsin cases just decided last week by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. The 10th and 4th Circuits previously ruled in the other cases. The court could agree to hear one or more cases this winter; deny them all, or delay its decision for a while. In all five states, federal district and appellate judges have agreed that state bans on same-sex marriage should be struck down as unconstitutional. But those decisions are on hold pending the Supreme Court's review. Additional gay marriage cases could be added to the justices' list soon. A ruling is expected from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit on cases from Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee. And just this week, the 9th Circuit heard oral arguments in cases stemming from Idaho and Nevada. Cases from Texas and Florida remain at the appellate court level.

AFER reacts via press release:

“Gay and lesbian couples in Virginia should not have to wait another day to enjoy their right to marry,” said AFER Executive Director, Adam Umhoefer. “The distribution of our case for the Court’s consideration brings us one step closer to our mission of marriage equality for all Americans. Our Constitution’s guarantee of liberty and equality soon will be realized for all loving and committed couples, no matter what state they reside in.” The Court is expected to release an Orders List on October 6, 2014, that will indicate which – if any – marriage equality case or cases it will consider for its 2014-2015 term. If the Court denies review in Bostic, the July 2014 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit that struck down Virginia’s marriage ban will be binding and gay and lesbian Virginians will be able to marry in the Commonwealth.

NCLR reacts via press release:

The couples in the [Utah] case—Kitchen v. Herbert—are represented by Peggy Tomsic of the Salt Lake City law firm of Magleby & Greenwood, P.C., Shannon Minter of the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), Mary Bonauto of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), and former acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal of the law firm of Hogan Lovells. Said Tomsic: “The State of Utah and the plaintiff couples agree that it is important the Supreme Court take this case and settle the constitutional questions at stake, questions that matter so much to the families we represent and to so many others across the country.” Said Bonauto: “It is time to end the legal bans that keep committed couples from standing up and making the unique pledges of marriage to each other—pledges that would allow their families protection and security everywhere in this country.”

BREAKING: SCOTUS Rejects Appeal Of Anti-Gay New Mexico Photographer

The US Supreme Court today declined to hear the appeal of the New Mexico woman who refused to photograph the commitment ceremony of a lesbian couple. The case has been the linchpin of the anti-gay movement to allow businesses to turn away gay customers and was the starting point of numerous campaigns to legalize such discrimination by state law.

Chris Johnson reports at the Washington Blade:

In orders published Monday morning, the court listed the case, Elane Photography v. Willock, without comment among as the cases it won’t consider. The case was brought to the Supreme Court by Elane Photography, which was found to have violated New Mexico’s anti-discrimination law for refusing to take a photo for the same-sex wedding ceremony for Vanessa Willock and Misti Collinsworth in 2006. (The wedding was only ceremonial because the incident took place before the state legalized same-sex marriage. Elane Photography filed lawsuit in state court, alleging that its refusal to photograph a same-sex wedding is protected on religious grounds. However, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled against the claims, saying the businesses service can be regulated because it’s a public accommodation. Following that decision, Elane Photography asked the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the lawsuit based on First Amendment protections under the U.S. Constitution.

And the Alliance Defending Freedom loses AGAIN. Today's refusal may mean the end of all the similar "wedding cake" cases. Stand by for the sadz!

UPDATE: The ACLU celebrates.

"No court has ever held that businesses have a First Amendment right to discriminate, and it is no surprise that the Supreme Court has denied this attempt to overturn settled law," said Joshua Block, staff attorney with the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Project. "Selling commercial wedding photography services, like selling a wedding cake or a flower arrangement, does not mean that a business owner endorses a customer's marriage. The business is simply providing a commercial service. Everybody has the right to express their views on whatever subject they wish, and that includes business owners. But every business has to play by the same rules to protect customers from discrimination in the marketplace."

Live Nativity Scene At Supreme Court

NEW MEXICO: Anti- Gay Wedding Photographer Petitions US Supreme Court

The New Mexico state Supreme Court ruled against them in August, but the wedding photographer whose case has inflamed the wingnuts for years is heading to the US Supreme Court with the backing of Alliance Defending Freedom. SCOTUSblog reports:

An Albuquerque couple who operate their commercial photography business on Christian religious principles will ask the Supreme Court to give them constitutional protection for their views favoring traditional marriage, their lawyers said on Wednesday. The case, if accepted by the Court, would give the Justices a chance to sort out how gay rights laws passed by states are enforced against those who hold the view that marriage is only for a man and a woman. Although the case does not involve state authority to allow or deny same-sex marriage, it could be the first new case related to that issue to reach the Court since its first foray into that constitutional controversy last Term. The case, from the New Mexico Supreme Court, is Elane Photography v. Willock.

Their planned petition to the Supreme Court will seek to convince the Justices that their photographic work is a form of artistic expression that conveys messages, and it will argue that enforcing the New Mexico “public accommodation” law in ways contrary to their views compels them to express messages they do not embrace and interferes with the free exercise of their religious beliefs.  The state law at issue in the case bars discrimination against sexual orientation in providing access to businesses that are open to the public in general.

MSNBC has more:

“We have to guard the right to not be compelled to speak for everyone, especially those who have disfavored points of view, or else the government can compel people to advance messages they don’t agree with,” said Jordan Lorence, an attorney with the Alliance Defending Freedom, the conservative law firm representing Elane Photography. “They also couldn’t force a gay photographer to photograph a wedding at Westboro Baptist.” Could they also refuse to photograph an interracial marriage for religious reasons? “I think that they could,” he added, “because the government cannot force people to communicate messages they don’t agree with.”

Antonin Scalia: The Courts Should Not Invent New Minorities With Special Rights

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia blathered his usual crapola before a room packed with wingnuts in Montana yesterday.

“It’s not up to the courts to invent new minorities that get special protections,” Scalia said to the audience at a Federalist Society event in Bozeman, Mt., presumably talking about the Court’s recent rulings on marriage equality. When the Court ruled against the Defense of Marriage Act, which had prohibited married couples from receiving federal marriage benefits, Scalia wrote a scathing dissent, in which made a similar argument. Scalia also noted during Monday’s address to the Federalist Society that while changes were made to the Constitution to give greater civil rights to minorities and voting rights to women, that the court shouldn’t operate that way today, according to the AP’s account.

Priest Son Of Justice Antonin Scalia: Homosexuality Does Not Actually Exist

"In this regard we must note the unfortunate title The Homosexual Person (and therefore also the unfortunate title of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith document). In short, we should not predicate 'homosexual' of any person. That does a disservice to the dignity of the human person by collapsing personhood into sexual inclinations.  The chronology of the books helps us to see the development in this area of language. Indeed, the Church is still trying to find the right vocabulary to speak about this modern phenomenon.

"Thus in his last book, Father Harvey ceased using the term 'homosexual' or 'homosexual person.' His thought and ministry brought him to realize that it is better to speak of someone with 'same-sex attractions.' Although lacking brevity and ease of speech, this phrase has the virtue of precision. It acknowledges both the person/attraction distinction and the complexity of the condition – not fairly summarized as an 'orientation.'" - Father Paul Scalia, son of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, in a review of three books written by the founder of Courage, the Catholic "ex-gay" group for which the younger Scalia works.

LGBT Rights Groups Denounce Supreme Court's Ruling On Voting Rights Act

LGBT Rights Coalition

We, America’s leading LGBT advocacy organizations, join civil rights organizations – and indeed, all Americans whom this law has served to protect – in expressing acute dismay at today’s ruling. Not only had Congress repeatedly reaffirmed the need for this bedrock civil rights protection, but authoritative voices from across America had filed amicus briefs urging the court not to undermine the law: the NAACP; the American Bar Association; the Navajo Nation; the states of New York, California, Mississippi and North Carolina; numerous former Justice Department officials charged with protecting voting rights; dozens of U.S. senators and representatives; and many others.

These varied and powerful voices attest to the self-evident reality that racial protections are still needed in voting in this country. As recently as last year’s elections, political partisans resorted to voter suppression laws and tactics aimed at reducing the votes of people of color.  Voting rights protections, which have long served our nation’s commitment to equality and justice, should not be cast aside now. The court has done America a grave disservice, and we will work with our coalition partners to undo the damage inflicted by this retrogressive ruling.

The above was co-signed by Lambda Legal, Freedom To Marry, National Center for Lesbian Rights, HRC, Pride At Work, GMHC, GLAD, National Black Justice Coalition, Family Equality Council, The Task Force, PFLAG, and several others.

And Still They Danced

At tonight's gala fundraiser marking the 30th anniversary of the NYC LGBT Community Center, the headlining honoree was DOMA plaintiff Edie Windsor. Upon taking the stage, Edie led us through her 42-year relationship with her late wife, Thea Spyer, starting with their closeted courtship and through the decades until their 2007 wedding in Toronto.

During her speech, Edie spoke of how even though her late wife's MS progressively got worse, they continued to go dancing. When Thea first needed a cane, they danced.  When Thea worsened and needed a walker, they danced. Then came the day that Thea needed a wheelchair. And still they danced. The first time they wheelchair-danced was at a women's party at the Limelight in 1982. That first wheelchair-dance song? Edie smiled. "It was a disco version of If My Friends Could See Me Now."

For Edie and Thea.

Log Cabin Members At SCOTUS

It's Snowing On The SCOTUS Line

The top photo from today's Washington Post front page shows John Millet and Jason Wonacott as they wait for seats at tomorrow's Supreme Court hearing.  Wonacott tweeted the second photo early this morning and in response to requests on his live-blog, he has posted his Starbucks card number in case supporters want to help keep those in line supplied with hot coffee. As far as we know, the enemies of equality are not yet in line. (Tipped by Str8Grandmother)

NY Sen. Ruben Diaz: We Will Pray All Night On The Way To The Supreme Court

"You should know that on Monday, March 25, 2013 at 12:00 midnight, the New York Hispanic Clergy Organization will hold an all-night vigil on buses bound to Washington, D.C., to join the National Organization for Marriage who is organizing a demonstration on Tuesday, March 26, 2013 at 9:00 AM in front of the United States Supreme Court.

"You should know that the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) has always been in the forefront, throughout the nation, in the struggle to stop same sex marriage. It is also a fact that for many years, NOM has been raising funds, and coordinating every march and demonstration in the state of New York and everywhere else." - NY Sen. Ruben Diaz, posting on his official state government webpage.

You should ALSO know that it was a member of the New York Hispanic Clergy Organization who stood on the steps of the Bronx Courthouse with Diaz and Brian Brown to scream that gay people are worthy of death.  I wonder if THAT guy will do the same on the steps of the US Supreme Court.

NOM's Hate March: A Cavalcade Of Crackpottery And One Catholic Drunk

NOM today published the above list of speakers scheduled for their hate march on the Supreme Court.  Hopefully there'll be an open bar for busted drunk driver Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone and an emergency Botox station for Concernstipated Women head Penny Nance.  And we can only presume that New York state Sen. Ruben Diaz will bring along the same speaker who told attendees at the last NOM hate march that homosexuals are "worthy of death."  As for "Bishop" Harry Jackson, let's just hope he doesn't curse the Washington Blade into bankruptcy, as he claims to have done with other "Satanic gay publications."  DC police should also keep an eye on Jim Garlow, who has called on pastors to emulate to the Founding Fathers and "pick up a musket" against evil homosexuals.

Bishops Order Priests To Encourage Attendance At NOM's Hate March

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has issued a letter to all American dioceses that orders every parish to consider encouraging parishioners to attend NOM's hate march on the Supreme Court.

We are grateful for this opportunity to express support for the Marriage March and to encourage participation in this event. We realize that the march will occur during the solemn days of Holy Week, but we ask that you consider promoting this event in your diocese and parishes and encourage participation where possible.  The march will be a significant opportunity to promote and defend marriage and the good of our nation, to pray for our Supreme Court justices, and to stand in solidarity with people of good will. It also complements well the bishops’ Call to Prayer for Life, Marriage, and Religious Liberty (http://www.usccb.org/life-marriage-liberty) that was approved last November. This is a decisive time for marriage in our country. We are deeply grateful for any support you can offer for this march.

Pretending that he himself is not a defacto Vatican employee, Brian Brown reacts: "We welcome the active participation and support of the Catholic Church in the march."

Dozens Of Major Corporations To File Supreme Court Brief Against Prop 8

Later this week dozens of major corporations will file a joint Supreme Court brief in support of the overturn of Prop 8.  The names are huge, people. Fortune Magazine reports:

On Thursday, dozens of American corporations, including Apple, Alcoa, Facebook, eBay, Intel, and Morgan Stanley will submit an amicus brief in the landmark Hollingsworth v. Perry case broadly arguing to the U.S. Supreme Court that laws banning same-sex marriages, like California's ballot initiative Proposition 8, are unconstitutional under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.

According to a draft copy obtained by Fortune, the companies argue that such laws "send an unmistakeable signal that same-sex couples are in some way inferior to opposite-sex couples, a proposition that is anathema to amici's commitment to equality and fair treatment to all."

At least 60 companies had committed to signing the brief as of Tuesday evening, according to Joshua Rosenkranz, who is counsel of record on the brief and head of the Supreme Court and appellate litigation practice at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe. That number is expected to rise by Thursday, however, according to Rosenkranz. Others who have already committed to sign include AIG, Becton Dickinson, Cisco, Cummins, Kimpton, Levi Strauss, McGraw Hill, NCR, Nike, Office Depot, Oracle, Panasonic, Qualcomm, and Xerox.

An excerpt from the brief declares that Proposition 8 "leaves companies in the untenable position of being compelled implicitly to endorse the second-class status to which their gay and lesbian employees, clients, customers, and business associates are relegated. Until the law no longer relegates same-sex couples to second-class status as inferior 'domestic partnerships,' our adherence to the law compels us to abide by a distinction that stigmatizes and dehumanizes gay men and lesbians."

Harry Jackson Files Prop 8 Brief

"Bishop" Harry Jackson has filed a Supreme Court brief against the overturn of Proposition 8. Jackson is being represented by Brian Brown's ActRight Legal Foundation, which is headed by Tea Party lawyer Cleta Mitchell, who in 2011 argued NOM's battle to evade financial disclosure in Minnesota. You may recall that Mitchell told Minnesota's election board that rabid homofascists will physically attack innocent Christians should their anti-gay donations be made public.   Jackson's SCOTUS brief mostly treads his tired "don't compare your sin to my skin" tropes.

PREVIOUSLY ON JMG: Harry Jackson speaks in tongues against gay perversion.  Harry Jackson puts a gay newspaper out of business by the power of his prayers. Harry Jackson blames the bad economy on lack of love for Jesus.  Harry Jackson says God has been against gay marriage since the creation of the universe.  Click on his name in the labels for much much more crazy.

"Ex-Gays" File DOMA Brief

Parents & Friends Of Ex-Gays (PFOX) have filed a Supreme Court brief against the overturn of DOMA. The group is headed by lifelong homosexual Greg Quinlan, who also chairs the anti-gay New Jersey Family Policy Council. In the brief PFOX cites the 2009 DC Superior Court ruling that "ex-gays" are to be afforded anti- discrimination protection as a distinct sexual orientation. The brief goes on to declare that nobody is born gay, that homosexuality is "chosen," and that all the members of PFOX can be found trolling the glory holes at dirty bookstores and truck stops with Eugene Delgaudio on any given night.*

PFOX goes on to cite NARTH, whose co-founder was busted for hiring lithe young Latino prostitutes, and JONAH, who is being sued for asking male clients to expose their genitals and grope themselves in order to "get in touch with their masculinity." Also cited is "ex-gay counselor" Richard Cohen, who asks clients to beat a pillow with a tennis racket while screaming, "Why, Mommy? Why did you make me gay?"  Hit the first link and read all the delusions. (Tipped by JMG reader Str8Grandmother)

*Not really, but probably true anyway.

Eugene Delgaudio Files Prop 8 Brief

Today Eugene Delgaudio joined a large coalition of anti-gay, Christianist, and gun groups in filing a Supreme Court brief against the overturn of Proposition 8. Sadly, the brief does not open with "It was a dark and stormy night." It does, however, cite that bit in the Bible that calls for homosexuals to be put to death. And there's this:

Gay men and lesbian women have not been treated to a history of discrimination based on a “trait.” There is no evidence that such people have been discriminated against on the basis of a characteristic or a propensity. For example, in the enforcement of the criminal law prohibiting sodomy,there must be proof of an actus reus. Likewise, in the enforcement of the law of marriage, a homosexual pair is being denied a marriage license on the ground of sexual behavior, not sexual orientation. In short, Respondents have cited not law prohibiting homosexuality, that is, being sexually attracted to a person of the same sex. Homosexuals are discriminated against not because of who they are, but only for what some may choose to do.

Get it? You're not discriminated against for being gay, just for living as a gay person. There's a difference, people! The brief also delves into Loving at some length. Hit the link and give us your thoughts.

UPDATE: Via a commenter, I'm reminded to point out that the above-listed Western Center for Journalism is the parent company of World Net Daily.

Mixner & Jones: LGBT Community Should Also Demonstrate At Supreme Court

As we learned on Saturday, the National Organization for Marriage is planning a "march on the Supreme Court" on the day the Justices begin hearing arguments on their two same-sex marriage cases. Legendary gay activists David Mixner and Cleve Jones are suggesting a demonstration for the LGBT community too. The pair has co-authored a column for The Advocate.

We have discussed this with some of the smartest and most dedicated activists we know, and, based on those conversations, we offer the following recommendations for action as the court considers our aspirations for equality.  We do not believe it makes sense to attempt a mass march on Washington at this moment, given the short amount of time remaining, the cost, as well as the uncertainty of weather in Washington, D.C., in March. We do believe it makes sense to push hard on many fronts in the weeks and months ahead.

As we are on the verge of victory, our tone and actions are critical.

President Obama himself set the tone for this effort in his inaugural address when he spoke so movingly of Seneca Falls, Selma, and Stonewall, linking forever the struggles for women’s rights, civil rights, and LGBT rights. We encourage all LGBT advocates and all fair-minded Americans who believe in equality and justice to take part in public actions during the last week of March.

- If you can be in Washington, D.C., there will be peaceful and civil demonstrations of support for the cases at the Supreme Court on March 26 and 27. While there, you can also visit your members of Congress to lobby for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and Uniting American Families Act as well as marriage equality. Our opponents will be marching — ignore them.

- For those who cannot travel, there will be local organizing opportunities and plans under way in all 50 states that will mirror the events before the Supreme Court. Stay tuned. Visit your representatives' local district offices. Hold teach-ins, campus rallies and town halls. Involve our allies in women’s organizations, the labor movement, racial and ethnic minorities and immigrant communities.

Read the full article.

Homocons File Prop 8 Brief

Self-loathing homosexuals David Benkof, Doug Mainwaring, and Robert Oscar Lopez have jointly filed a Supreme Court brief against the overturn of Proposition 8.  Here's an excerpt:

Note that this repulsive trio cites several articles from fellow homocon writer Jonathan Rauch as well as the French homocon group HomoVox, whose videos have been posted by NOM.  If you are unfamiliar with any of these guys, hit their name in the labels of this post.

UPDATE: Jim Burroway has more at Box Turtle Bulletin.

Catholic Group Files Prop 8 Brief

Catholics for the Common Good has filed a Supreme Court brief against the overturn of Proposition 8, claiming that doing so constitutes "an attack on religion." Here's an excerpt from their summation:

When the courts below held the People of California violated the Constitution when they voted to reaffirm the unique biological and cultural status of the only civil institution that unites male-female couples with each other and any children that might be born from their union, they rejected the central premise of this Court’s jurisprudence of the Equal Protection Clause. Unlike the “socially-constructed” classifications that the Court now rightly views with suspicion, such as race, illegitimacy and alienage, “physical differences between men and women . . . are enduring” and a “cause for celebration”.

Not in the Ninth Circuit. A majority of that court has held that the views of voters who relied on this view of human sexuality are “so far removed” from reality that the court found “it impossible to credit them.” The trial featured a sustained attack on “religion [as] the chief obstacle for gay and lesbian political progress” that also raises a profound First Amendment question: Does the Equal Protection Clause authorize federal courts to order the People themselves – and, by implication, individuals and associations – to provide homosexual persons with precisely the same “official recognition and societal approval of their committed relationships that the State makes available to opposite-sex couples”?