Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

FRC’s “Family Policy Council” affiliates to 9th Circuit: Just ignore the U.S. Constitution, mmmkay?

Right-wing Trial analysis

(We’ll be putting up some analysis posts on the 26 amicus briefs filed in the last week — mostly last night — by the Appellants to the 9th Circuit. Lurleen from Pam’s House Blend wrote up this take-down of the animus amicus brief filed by the Family Research Council’s state affiliates. With permission, we’re cross-posting it here for the P8TT community to discuss. On Friday, Alan E. wrote up his take on FRC’s national amicus brief. — Eden)

By Lurleen (of Pam’s House Blend)

As if we needed more confirmation that the anti-equality crowd is bereft of logical arguments and grasping at straws, a group of about 30 of Family Research Council’s state affiliates, called Family Policy Councils, have filed an amicus brief with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger Proposition 8 case. They’re asking the Court to overturn Judge Vaughn Walker’s well-reasoned ruling that Prop 8, which stripped gay and lesbian couples of their right to marry in California, is unconstitutional. You know that the amicus brief is a terrifically embarrassing document when a non-lawyer like me can look into it and see whole schools of red herring. Here are just a few of the keepers. From the very first sentence of the Summary of the Argument section on page 2:

The United States’ government consists of checks and balances designed to limit the power of the various parts of the government, ensuring it follows the will of the people.

Our federal government, as set out in the U.S. Constitution, uses the separation of powers principle to enforce power sharing among the three co-equal branches of government (executive, legislative and judicial). The purpose of this system of checks and balances is to prevent any one branch of government from gaining too much power, not to the protect “the will of the people”.

Apparently angling for any bottom-feeders on the Court, the FPCs actually mash these moldy old dough balls onto the hook. From page 9:

Through the initiative process, the people of California have made their will known. In their state, they want marriage to remain as it has for thousands of years. They spoke twice in eight years, and their will should not be subverted by one judge of one branch of the federal government’s redefining core institutions like marriage to follow the whims of the elite.

The FPCs are hoping you’ll buy into the notion that “the people” of California have unlimited power in the state. They don’t. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and while it establishes the federal judiciary as a co-equal arm of government, it makes no explicit provision for citizens’ initiatives. If a majority of voters passes a state constitutional amendment that violates the U.S. Constitution as Prop 8 does, the fact that those voters were in the majority is irrelevant. The FPCs don’t want you to consider the fact that a voting majority can act unconstitutionally, and that the federal judiciary has the power to strike down any unconstitutional measure they may pass.

Since when does the 52% of California voters who voted for Prop 8 represent “the people of California”? Almost half, 48%, voted against the discriminatory measure. As for marriage as it’s been “for thousands of years”, that would include plural marriage, concubinage and a prohibition on remarriage after divorce. The FPCs not only want us to ignore the U.S. Constitution, they want to create a new math (52% = 100%) and whistle past their own “Judeo-Christian” history as set down in the Holy Bible.

There’s enough red herring here for a Friday dinner fry-up. If you want seconds, there’s plenty more in the brief.

FYI here are the names of Family Policy Councils that signed onto the brief. They’re represented by Liberty Institute of Plano, TX:

Association of Maryland Families,
California Family Council,
Center for Arizona Policy,
Citizens for Community Values,
Cornerstone Action,
Cornerstone Family Council,
Delaware Family Policy Council,
Family Action Council of Tennessee,
The Family Foundation,
The Family Policy Council of West Virginia,
Family Policy Institute of Washington,
Florida Family Policy Council,
Georgia Family Council,
Illinois Family Institute,
Independence Law Center,
Iowa Family Policy Center,
Louisiana Family Forum Action,
Massachusetts Family Institute,
Michigan Family Forum,
Minnesota Family Council,
Missouri Family Policy Council,
Montana Family Foundation,
New Jersey Family First,
New Jersey Family Policy Council,
North Carolina Family Policy Council,
Oklahoma Family Policy Council,
Oregon Family Council,
Palmetto Family Council,
Pennsylvania Family Institute,
Wisconsin Family Action, and
WyWatch Family Action

80 Comments Leave a Comment

  • 1. Kathleen  |  September 25, 2010 at 5:31 am

    Just scribin…

  • 2. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 25, 2010 at 5:34 am

    Subscribing

  • 3. Ann S.  |  September 25, 2010 at 5:35 am

    scribin'

  • 4. Sagesse  |  September 25, 2010 at 5:38 am

    Just followin' along.

  • 5. Ronnie  |  September 25, 2010 at 5:38 am

    The Family Restriction Council knows nothing about Family…..This is family…this is love…this Equality….THIS IS AMERICA…..<3…Ronnie:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cw6CYHpYLk

  • 6. Alan E.  |  September 25, 2010 at 5:39 am

    Ditto. Back to making cookies and salsa for tonight's party.

  • 7. Sagesse  |  September 25, 2010 at 5:45 am

    Thanks Ronnie. I luv that song… pun intended. The video would make a great ad, almost just the way it is.

  • 8. Richard  |  September 25, 2010 at 5:47 am

    Did anybody file for our side?

  • 9. Alan E.  |  September 25, 2010 at 5:49 am

    Richard,

    The briefs for the Proponents side were due yesterday. The ones for our side are not due for a while. First due is the brief submitted by the attorneys, then amicus briefs are due 7 days later.

  • 10. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 25, 2010 at 5:49 am

    Oh a happy day…Oh happy day!

    CA-Gov: Bad day for Meg Whitman

    Meg Whitman didn't have the happiest Tuesday ever in her quest to buy the Governorship of California. First and foremost, it doesn't seem like $120 million buys what it used to these days. PPP released it's poll in the race, which finds Brown with a 47-42 lead:

    More: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/9/24/90401

  • 11. Ann S.  |  September 25, 2010 at 5:54 am

    Happy day, indeed! I can't wait for my ballot to come so that I can vote against Whitman and Cooley!

  • 12. Ķĭŗîļĺę&  |  September 25, 2010 at 5:57 am

    So, gays are the elite?
    What is elite?

    Elite — a group of people considered to be the best in a particular society or category, esp. because of their power, talent, or wealth.

    Mmmkay?
    If we were elite, we wouldn't have those problems now, methinks…

    Since when the will of the people decides if laws are constitutional?  Since when those people replaced judges and became so well-educated that we do not need the judicial system anymore?  Are we going back in time when a group of angry villagers could gather on the street to stone someone to death (you know, like the Bible describes those good ol' days)?

    Proposition 8 is exactly why we have judicial system — to protect the oppressed minority from the tyranny of the majority.  They can cry “Activist judges!” all they want; we have legal rulings in our hands with abundance of evidence that supports our case, and they've got nuthin’ but their bigotry rooted in religious prejudices rooted in ignorance and groundless fear.

    – ♂KF
    (my beloved Felyx succumbed to weariness after yesterday's brief-a-palooza… sigh)

  • 13. Richard  |  September 25, 2010 at 5:58 am

    Thanks. I wasn't sure. I'm a legal secretary but have never worked in the Federal system.

  • 14. Chris in Lathrop  |  September 25, 2010 at 5:59 am

    "…their will should not be subverted by one judge of one branch of the federal government’s redefining core institutions like marriage to follow the whims of the elite."

    So, FRC believes either these federal judges are either such right-wing cowards that they'd deny due process in favor of an ad hominem attack, or that they're simply idiots. I'd love to see the look on the judges faces as they read this one!

  • 15. Sagesse  |  September 25, 2010 at 6:03 am

    Wouldn't it be grand if you couldn't fool enough of the people, no matter how much money you spend?

  • 16. Jonathan H  |  September 25, 2010 at 6:09 am

    "This video contains content from Sony Music Entertainment. It is restricted from playback on certain sites."

    That's the second time I've seen a message like that here. It seems really weird to me, the choice of words suggests that P8TT is specifically excluded.

  • 17. Ann S.  |  September 25, 2010 at 6:16 am

    I could view it, though. I don't think it's P8TT.

  • 18. Sheryl Carver  |  September 25, 2010 at 6:28 am

    Played OK just now on my iPhone.

  • 19. Tomato  |  September 25, 2010 at 6:31 am

    Played fine for me, too.

  • 20. Michelle Evans  |  September 25, 2010 at 6:34 am

    This will be slightly OT, but I want to share some very sad news with our P8TT community. Some of you may recall that I am a transgender female and I have also been with my wife for 29 years, and married for over 23 years. We were originally married as a heterosexual couple, long before I was able to transition.

    Once I transitioned (which was long before Prop 8), our marriage (and any others in California created by transitioned transsexuals) was now considered a legal and valid same gender marriage. After Prop 8, things are different.

    In the wake of Prop 8 (and also because of DOMA), we wanted to get absolute verification of our marriage so that there would never be a question of our rights, especially if something were to happen to either of us. In fact, we were required to get this clarification because of certain benefits from the state.

    Last March we filed to receive the clarification, never expecting anything different than what everyone has always said: we have been, are, and always will be legally married because the state cannot undo a legal and binding contract such as a marriage certificate. (Look at the 18,000 couples allowed to stay married.)

    A few days ago we got our ruling. The state of California has officially now certified that my wife and I–married for 23 years–must be considered as separate individuals, not as a married couple.

    We've always had friends and family members who have questioned our zeal for political and judicial action against Prop 8, and when I told them it was not just the right thing to do for marriage equality on behalf of everyone, but because it was personal to our situation, they scoffed and said California would never not recognize us as a married couple. Well, guess what. It is personal.

    All of these anti-equality laws must go, and they must go now!!

  • 21. Jonathan H  |  September 25, 2010 at 6:34 am

    Ok, I guess Sony just hates me, personally.

    Well, fine! HD-DVD was better than BluRay, and the PS3 is overpriced crap, so there!

  • 22. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 25, 2010 at 6:44 am

    I posted this buried in another thread…but seriously, I would think we would use this as a citation against the Catholic Church's brief:

    Always Our Children: A Pastoral Message to Parents of Homosexual Children and Suggestions for Pastoral Ministers
    A Statement of the Bishops’ Committee on Marriage and Family

    The meaning and implications of the term homosexual orientation are not universally agreed upon. Church teaching acknowledges a distinction between a homosexual “tendency,” which proves to be “transitory,” and “homosexuals who are definitively such because of some kind of innate instinct”(Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics, 1975, no. 8).

    In light of this possibility, therefore, it seems appropriate to understand sexual orientation (heterosexual or homosexual) as a deep-seated dimension of one’s personality and to recognize its relative stability in a person. A homosexual orientation produces a stronger emotional and sexual attraction toward individuals of the same sex, rather than toward those of the opposite sex. It does not totally rule out interest in, care for, and attraction toward members of the opposite sex. Having a homosexual orientation does not necessarily mean a person will engage in homosexual activity.

    There seems to be no single cause of a homosexual orientation. A common opinion of experts is that there are multiple factors—genetic, hormonal, psychological—that may give rise to it. Generally, homosexual orientation is experienced as a given, not as something freely chosen. By itself, therefore, a homosexual orientation cannot be considered sinful, for morality presumes the freedom to choose.

    Always: http://www.usccb.org/laity/always.shtml

  • 23. Ann S.  |  September 25, 2010 at 6:51 am

    Michelle, I'm so sorry — that's horrible! I hope you will be able to fight this ruling, and I hope that Prop 8 will be gone for good, and soon!

  • 24. Neil Hunt  |  September 25, 2010 at 7:02 am

    These stupid Breeders should worry more about THEIR overpopulation problem and Octomonster getting cash for her litter of children from welfare!!! IDIOTS!!!

  • 25. Elizabeth Oakes  |  September 25, 2010 at 7:04 am

    !!!! Who made this ruling, was it a court or a CA agency? Are you planning any further action? That determination is completely unconscionable.

  • 26. Elizabeth Oakes  |  September 25, 2010 at 7:08 am

    Well, don't get happy yet. It ain't over, and numbers can reverse themselves within days–just like with Prop 8. Get a stack of voter reg forms from the library or post office and hand them out, STAT.

    And nag your friends. A lot of them will tell you they don't bother to vote for some pathetic reason like, "it doesn't make any difference." Kick their butts or cajole them with pizza or something, but MAKE THEM GO VOTE.

  • 27. jayzee  |  September 25, 2010 at 7:09 am

    Why do they call themselves the Family RESEARCH Council when they don't actually conduct any research?

    You don't conduct research by starting with a premise such as "homosexuality is a bad thing" and then trying to cobble together a load of completely unrelated scientific threads is a bid to prove your point.

    Notice how many of the amici call themselves the LIBERTY this or the FREEDOM that. These people are deluded.

  • 28. draNgNon  |  September 25, 2010 at 7:25 am

    Your situation is EXACTLY EXACTLY EXACTLY the foundation argument I used for why Prop 8 should be opposed. "what happens to a couple when one changes gender?"

    I am so angry reading what has happened to you that I don't even have any other words to express myself further.

    Well, other than, get a lawyer, and file a case as well. The state does not have the power to dissolve your marriage like that. OMG so angry. I wish I had the money to bankroll the case!

    my partner is reading over my shoulder. "that sucks. that sucks so f***ing much!"

  • 29. draNgNon  |  September 25, 2010 at 7:28 am

    I wish I could link to this comment

  • 30. Felyx  |  September 25, 2010 at 7:29 am

    Michelle,

    I am begin to draft out an Amicus Brief for our side. I am hoping to get in touch with you as this would be pertinent. I am also looking to see if the trans couple who did indeed procreate would like to be referenced in the brief.

    Please send us a message via our facebook page so that I can get in contact with you.

    Love,

    Felyx

  • 31. Felyx  |  September 25, 2010 at 7:30 am

    http://bit.ly/Kevyn-Felyx-FB

    Sorry, here is the link.

    Felyx

  • 32. Jonathan H  |  September 25, 2010 at 7:36 am

    If I'm understanding the code correctly, this should link to Michelle's comment.
    http://prop8trialtracker.com/2010/09/25/frcs-fami

  • 33. Straight Ally #3008  |  September 25, 2010 at 7:37 am

    Family Research Council
    Focus on the Family
    Family and Spam
    Family Values and Spam
    Tradition Spam Family Spam and Values
    Spam Family Spam Spam Family and Spam
    Spam Spam Spam Family Spam Spam Values and Traditional Spam
    Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam…..

  • 34. Joel  |  September 25, 2010 at 7:39 am

    Heinous. You and your wife MUST fight this, Michelle! Bring it to the media's attention! Call Lady Gaga!

    This is the nastiest piece of news I've seen all week. I feel for you and your wife, and wish you the very very best.

    Stay strong. Love strong. Live strong.

    Shalom

  • 35. Joel  |  September 25, 2010 at 7:45 am

    I think it's curious that they call themselves the FAMILY Research Council, since it's families that they are out to destroy.

  • 36. Ķĭŗîļĺę&  |  September 25, 2010 at 7:47 am

    I wish I could link to this comment

    Here is the short link to Michelle's comment: http://wp.me/pLuL9-1sy#comment-72474

    Michelle, I am very sorry and disappointed in this ruling!
    Have you considered contacting any gay rights organizations that primarily deal with marriage equality?  Maybe they can offer some financial support to build a case against whoever made that ruling?  AFER?
    Tell us about your plans, please!

    Others: spread the word!

    – ♂KF

  • 37. Kathleen  |  September 25, 2010 at 7:59 am

    LOL.

  • 38. Elizabeth Oakes  |  September 25, 2010 at 8:04 am

    BUT I DON'T…LIKE…SPAM!!!

  • 39. Jonathan H  |  September 25, 2010 at 8:05 am

    Michelle I keep trying to think of something to say and failing. So just imagine a big warm hug, ok?

  • 40. draNgNon  |  September 25, 2010 at 8:12 am

    reply to my own comment. in case none of you believe me.
    http://drangnon.livejournal.com/928561.html dtd 18th-Oct-2008 04:57 pm

    first of all, I disagree with the sentiment of the law. but even more compelling than that, I am mindful of how this law would affect a couple were one of them to undergo a gender change. for all that I'm considering a very small minority of the population, I think that the burden this law places on them is disproportionately large, for it would force a divorce on them or conversion to DP at the same time the relationship was undergoing the enormous stress of such a transition.

  • 41. Carol  |  September 25, 2010 at 8:19 am

    Michelle,

    That is shocking, and I am so sorry for you and your wife of many, many years! I'm guessing that your "clarification" came from a bureaucrat and not a court – is that right? In that your marriage was in existence during the period the California Supreme Court held such marriages were valid despite Prop 8, I would think you have a strong legal argument that yours is one of those 18,000, if you were to litigate the matter.

    Good luck to you, whatever you decide to do about it!

  • 42. Kathleen  |  September 25, 2010 at 8:21 am

    Oh, Michelle this is horrible news. (and not OT at all!). I reiterate Elizabeth's question – where did this ruling come from? You absolutely should pursue this. Have you contacted Lambda Legal?

  • 43. Michelle Evans  |  September 25, 2010 at 8:23 am

    For all my friends out here, Thank you. This is a tough time for all of us and it certainly took on a new dimension this week in our personal case.

    For Felyx, unfortunately I do not have access to Facebook, but I can be contacted through my web site at:
    http://www.mach25media.com/company.html

    Thank you all again for your thoughts on this.

    Take care,

    Michelle

  • 44. Michelle Evans  |  September 25, 2010 at 8:25 am

    Yes, our marriage was supposedly considered valid during June to November 2008, however, after Prop 8 passed the court said that same gender couples who were married during that time were considered valid. Since our marriage took place in 1987, it did not fall within that short window of time, and thus is not considered a valid same gender marriage.

  • 45. Michelle Evans  |  September 25, 2010 at 8:26 am

    It was a California agency.

  • 46. draNgNon  |  September 25, 2010 at 8:27 am

    thanks you guys, I have linked to it.

    …I can entirely see a lawsuit for this situation certifying a class…

    but there I go, thinking of technicalities when this is a real and serious harm imposed on very real people. Michelle I really hope this gets reversed.

  • 47. Michelle Evans  |  September 25, 2010 at 8:31 am

    I wish we could file a case, but we don't have any money for anything like that. And we already have a case going on what our health care insurance did to me last year when they almost killed me in a nursing home with blood clots in the leg and lung. It was directly related to my being transgender that this happened. Luckily because of the nature of the case we do not have to pay anyone up front costs. I fear we would have to pay with pursuing a case like our marriage.

    And trying to take on two cases simultaneously is just not something we have the strength to do at the moment. We are obviously hoping this will all become a mute point if the court makes a final ruling overturning Prop 8.

  • 48. Don in Texas  |  September 25, 2010 at 8:35 am

    Michelle, I first want to thank you for your comments in the El Paso Times regarding the religion-backed proposition on the November ballot to overturn an ordinance passed earlier this year by the City Council to extend health benefits to unmarried domestic partners of municipal employees.

    Second, the American Civil Liberties Union's address in Northern California (I think that's where you live) is 39 Drumm Street, SFO, CA 94111, telephone 415-621-2488.
    It's website is http://www.aclunc.org. Perhaps they can refer you to an attorney who would take your case.

    If you are in SoCal or San Diego, let me know and I'll provide contact information in those locations.

  • 49. Chris in Lathrop  |  September 25, 2010 at 8:51 am

    Michelle, my heart goes out to you. I cannot imagine how any state agency could decide to void your marriage because you transitioned. Perhaps you can rectify this without having to go through some costly trial. After all, this sounds like some post hoc (sorry if I have the legal terms wrong, as IANAL) punishment for your transition.

    After you finish wrangling with your insurance, of course. Best of luck with your bureaucratic nightmares!

  • 50. Kathleen  |  September 25, 2010 at 8:54 am

    Michelle, under SB 54 (Leno), signed into law by the governor on Oct 11, 2009, says that a marriage between 2 persons of the same sex contracted outside this state that would be valid by the laws of the jurisdiction in which the marriage was contracted is valid in this state if the marriage was contracted prior to November 5, 2008.

    It makes no sense to me that the state would be willing to recognize marriages entered into in other jurisdictions prior to Nov 5, 2008, but not those entered into in this state during the same time period.

    There are a number of things you might want to do that wouldn't cost any money: contact your state reps. If they're unhelpful, contact Leno's office and tell them your own rep is unresponsive to your plight, contact Lambda Legal.

    I'm willing to help with this if I can get more information about specifics. But I don't want to impose. If you'd like to discuss this, I'll be glad to drop you an email (you might already have my email addy from a prior email I sent you).

  • 51. Michelle Evans  |  September 25, 2010 at 9:03 am

    Don, I am in the South Orange County area.

    This whole thing has been such a roller coaster ride for us all, but it has probably taken a toll on Cherie more than anyone I know. Even though she know about me being trans since the first day we met, putting her in the situation of changing her marriage has put her in a position she never thought she would face. She is absolutely supportive, and in fact I wouldn't be here today without her support, but the external forces that harp at us every day are taking a huge toll on her. I try to remain strong and reassuring, but that is difficult for me as well in these circumstances.

  • 52. Michelle Evans  |  September 25, 2010 at 9:09 am

    I hope that if we do push the issue with the state further than it already is, we may get our marriage back. But then going through that whole process is just beyond us right now. We will fight this, but it will take some time to regroup. And, as I've said, we're hoping that it will become mute if the Prop 8 unconstitutionality is upheld in the near future. In addition, it is not fair for us to be recognized and other loving couples to not be so.

    So, in our case-and I hate to seem selfish in any way–I hope that the case is decided with no standing for the proponents, and we are done for the moment. I know this is a point of contention here on the P8TT site, as we all want to see marriage equality as the law of every state and territory. However, for the sake of what Cherie is going through right now, I want it to end positively as soon as possible because I am very afraid of what continuing this fight will do to her. I have never seen her depression so horrible.

  • 53. JonT  |  September 25, 2010 at 9:16 am

    Following the pack.

  • 54. Sagesse  |  September 25, 2010 at 9:29 am

    UAFA news

    UAFA's Record Number of Cosponsors
    http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/09/2

  • 55. Rhie  |  September 25, 2010 at 9:38 am

    *narrows eyes at the FRC*

  • 56. Ed Cortes  |  September 25, 2010 at 9:44 am

    IIRC, that happened when some rich person tried the same approach for a US Senate seat – was it Huffington?

  • 57. JakeInPhx  |  September 25, 2010 at 9:53 am

    Lurleen, Eden, and all:

    A very LARGE though belated thank-you to all who have kept us up to date for the past several months!

    Jake
    SF expat

  • 58. Carol  |  September 25, 2010 at 9:55 am

    Michelle,

    Here is a link to the actual statute authored by Sen. Leno, mentioned by Kathleen: http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0051-

    The Legislative Counsel's statement for SB 54 (Family Code section 308) unequivocally establishes the validity of your marriage: "Existing case law provides that, while on and after November 5, 2008, only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California, marriages of same-sex couples that were performed prior to November 5, 2008, are valid."

    I hope you and Cherie can get this mess resolved without much more trouble. In any event, comments in this thread suggest some of the resources to turn to.

    Carol

  • 59. Kate  |  September 25, 2010 at 10:09 am

    Kathleen and other legal folks — What can we as a group do to help Michelle and Cherie? I cannot remember the name of the poster here whose partner was FTM and together they conceved and birthed a child. Any chance he is still around????

    Does this type of suit require a large up-front fee payment? Isn't there a way that Michelle and Cherie can do something the way the Perry plaintiffs have? Surely they're not having to pay up-front….

    Even at this horrid time, Michelle, please know that you are in the perfect place for finding help and advice. Folks here know SO MUCH about the law, and those of us who don't are willing to jump in and follow their orders to get something working for you.

  • 60. Kate  |  September 25, 2010 at 10:25 am

    PS — I am a good proofreader and definitely know my A$$ from a semicolon.

  • 61. Kathleen  |  September 25, 2010 at 10:32 am

    This may well be able to be resolved without a court case. It's highly likely that this is simply a bad interpretation of the law from a state agency. There are a number of contacts that could be pursued that would cost only time and I'm willing to offer mine to the extent someone other than Michelle and her wife can act. But I don't want to intrude, so I await instruction from Michelle.

  • 62. Kate  |  September 25, 2010 at 10:34 am

    OK. Standing down. If Michelle wants our help, do you think the documents would be available on PACER? Believe it or not (long story), I do have a PACER account…..

  • 63. Stephen Thewlis  |  September 25, 2010 at 10:35 am

    I am struck by the latest turn in FRC's on-going demonization of gay people:
    demanding my equal rights (accdording to me) is now (according to them) "the whim of the elite"
    What demonic fundamentalist focus-group came up with that new tactic??
    Puh-leeeeeeeeze!!!

  • 64. Elizabeth Oakes  |  September 25, 2010 at 10:52 am

    Unless this determination came straight from the AG's office I would fight it, and I'd start by notifying Jerry Brown's staff as well as taking it to the ACLU and LAMBDA Legal. Unless there's a specific CA law that automatically invalidates marriages when one partner changes gender, I'd wager you can get that determination reversed (especially if you mention the financial harm you're enduring as a result.)

    Bureaucrats tend to say no to anything they're afraid of, and they're afraid of anything they don't see a lot of. Generating a little heat in the press might be a good idea down the line too, if you don't get what you want. Good luck–keep us posted and let us know if we can help.

  • 65. Richard A. Walter (s  |  September 25, 2010 at 11:05 am

    Will read this thoroughly later. This week has been very busy, so rather behind on everything.

  • 66. Eden James  |  September 25, 2010 at 1:09 pm

    Michelle, if you would like to have this posted on the front page for a larger audience to to read about, please let
    me know by emailing me at "prop8trial AT couragecampaign DOT ORG."

  • 67. AndrewPDX  |  September 25, 2010 at 2:01 pm

    Subscribing… late to the party (been moving all day)

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
    Andrew

  • 68. Kate  |  September 25, 2010 at 2:02 pm

    This is absolutely atrocious. Michelle and your wife, you will make the perfect faces to put on this issue in court. My thoughts are with you.

  • 69. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 25, 2010 at 2:03 pm

    Equality California condemns NOM bus tour supporting Carly Fiorina’s bid for U.S. Senate

    –The homophobic National Organization for Marriage (NOM), which fights legalizing marriage for same-sex couples across the nation, is co-sponsoring a bus tour with the Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles, to build support for Carly Fiorina’s bid for U.S. Senate in Latino communities across the state.

    In response, Equality California Executive Director Geoff Kors issued the following statement:

    “At a time when our state most needs jobs and economic reform, Carly Fiorina is aligning herself with NOM, an extremist group whose sole purpose is to take away fundamental rights and protections from lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Californians. It’s a desperate, unconscionable move that shows how truly out of touch she is. In addition, she has publicly stated her support for the draconian Arizona immigration law that would legalize racial profiling and threaten the well-being, dignity, and livelihood of immigrant families. That’s not what we need here in California.

    Full Story: http://sdgln.com/news/2010/09/25/equality-california-condemns-nom-bus-tour-supporting-carly-fiorina-s-bid-us-senate

  • 70. Lora  |  September 25, 2010 at 4:37 pm

    Great news! Just yesterday it was tied 41-41!

  • 71. Michelle Evans  |  September 25, 2010 at 5:47 pm

    Hi all. Sorry to be gone so long, but Cherie and I have been out since this afternoon and just returned home.

    The thoughts from everyone here on what has happened means so much to us. As for going forward with anything else at the moment, I think we are both sort of drained after the fight we've had even getting this far (working on this since March). I wish we could just keep pounding away at this, but I think we need to wait a bit before deciding on our next step.

    Being trans has shown me the need to be extra cautious in pretty much everything I do. To put it bluntly, I even have to wonder if the decision that was handed down to us this week was made because of the fact I am trans and a lot of people react very negatively to that fact, no matter the legalities of it.

    To put it bluntly, I guess I'm still stunned over the whole thing and not really sure if my head is even in the right place on making any decisions on where to go from here. So please forgive me if I don't respond fully coherently about all this yet.

  • 72. Jonathan H  |  September 25, 2010 at 6:50 pm

    Michelle,
    I'm pretty new to this community, and I can't speak for anyone else, but I very much doubt that anybody is going to expect you to make any big decision this weekend. I don't know Eden James at all, but if that offer to put your story on the front page expires this week then I am a very poor judge of character indeed. And finally I am not a lawyer, but I know that government bureaucracy takes a long time to do anything and it's not going to matter if you take a week off to consider your options. Heck if you waited til Halloween to file paperwork I doubt you'd raise an eyebrow.

    So take your time. Catch your breath. Revel in your family for a bit. When you're ready to think about this again, there are many people who are willing to help you.

    Lastly, I saw several comments to the effect that you'd make a good face for the case, or similar. I don't know how true that may be, but I think it's important for you to remember that you do not owe us anything. Seriously, if you and your family decide that the best thing for you is to quietly accept the situation for now, then do that. Don't feel that you have to martyr yourself.

    Take care of yourself and your family.

  • 73. Ann S.  |  September 26, 2010 at 1:15 am

    Jonathan, those are wise words, and I second them. Michelle, our thoughts are with you. When you are ready to decide, please let us know if we can help. Hugs to you.

  • 74. Steve  |  September 26, 2010 at 1:38 am

    That argument came up in the trial. The judge rejected it.

  • 75. Chris in Lathrop  |  September 26, 2010 at 1:49 am

    Hugs and cookies for you and Cherie! You are beautiful, deserving people, and I think you've got everyone her at P8TT at your side.

    I know regrouping is hard and takes time, and sometimes you just don't feel like there's anything left for it. I hope, when other troubles subside enough, you find your strength renewed and can go for it. Or, better yet, that one way or another the Perry vs. Schwarzenegger trial resolves in such a way that Judge Walker's ruling is entered and puts you back to good on its own.

    Hang in there, it will get better.

  • 76. Chris in Lathrop  |  September 26, 2010 at 1:51 am

    How 'bout a nice Spanish Inquisition?

  • 77. AndrewPDX  |  September 26, 2010 at 3:01 am

    @Chris in Lathrop, Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition

    [youtube

    78. Luke  |  September 26, 2010 at 9:35 am

    okay so anyways, I wanted to find out exactly how many people voted yes for prop 8 and how many didnt and figure out the difference, becasue as anyone knows the only thing that matters is the difference as most of the votes cancel each other out when it is a yes or no vote. Anyway,
    7,001,084 voted yes, while 6,401,482 voted now, now the difference between the votes was 599,602, that is hardly the will of the people. Also only 13,743,177 people voted on this, this represents 79.42% of all registered voters in california, again not exactly the will of the people.

  • 79. Michael  |  September 26, 2010 at 6:34 pm

    "The people" cannot pass unconstitutional amendments. We have to be like broken records and keep saying over and over and over until they get it, "What part of 'the people can't pass unconstitutional amendments' don't you understand?"

  • 80. elliom  |  September 27, 2010 at 2:02 am

    It happened to Ross Perot.

Leave a Comment

(required)

(required), (Hidden)

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

TrackBack URL  |  RSS feed for comments on this post.

Having technical problems? E-mail equalityontrial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!