Leave a Comment Sagesse
DOMA: Updates on Golinski v. OPM and McLaughlin v. Panetta
April 11, 2012
By Scottie Thomaston
As usual, huge thanks to Kathleen for this information
In Golinski v. OPM, a Ninth Circuit challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act by a federal employee of the circuit court, BLAG, the defenders of the Act, filed a document on April 5 that is a combination of several briefs and motions. It’s a response to DOJ’s motion to consolidate and expedite the challenge, as well as a motion to stay pending a decision on whether or not the court will hear the case en banc as requested by the Justice Department late last month, and a motion to dismiss a separate appeal by the DOJ.
Today the court issued an order in Golinski:
(1) Motion to consolidate and expedite is granted; sets briefing schedule
(2) BLAG’s request to stay denied: sets May 2 deadline for BLAG response to petition for en banc hearing
(3) Motion to dismiss DOJ’s appeal denied; jurisdictional issues may be addressed in briefing.
(4) If initial en banc hearing not granted, arguments will be scheduled for week of September 10-14, 2012, in San Francisco
The case will proceed on a faster track than it would have otherwise. There is not yet a decision on whether the en banc hearing will be granted, so the timeline depends on what happens there.
In McLaughlin v. Panetta, challenging DOMA as it applies to military servicemembers (and also challenging a similar law specifically related to military benefits), a motion was filed by plaintiffs to reopen the case temporarily so that BLAG can intervene. The judge had granted a 60 day delay back in February to give the government time to respond to the challenge. That means the case is on hold until April 28th at this point. This filing is asking the court to move the time for intervention up so that a decision to intervene is made by April 20.
Having technical problems? E-mail equalityontrial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!
20 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
Sagesse | April 11, 2012 at 3:03 pm
@
2.
Kathleen | April 11, 2012 at 3:12 pm
A bit of clarification of the procedural stuff in McLaughlin:
The court wasn't delaying to give the government time to respond; it was actually a joint request of all the parties to put the case on hold to allow for a possible ruling from the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals in the Massachusetts DOMA cases. McLaughlin is filed in Massachusetts District Court thus is w/in the 1st Circuit's jurisdiction, and any ruling from the 1st Circuit will impact this case. And this petition from Plaintiffs is asking that the court set a April 20 deadline for submission of motions to intervene (not a deadline for court's order on any possible motions).
BTW, I've never read this April 28 date as meaning that parties necessarily expect a 1st Circuit decision in the DOMA cases by then. More likely, it was the amount of time all the parties were willing to agree to and if there isn't a decision by April 28, we might see a request for additional delay.
3.
Kathleen | April 11, 2012 at 3:14 pm
Sorry, I just re-read what Scottie wrote and he said "This filing is asking the court to move the time for intervention up so that a decision to intervene is made by April 20," which is consistent with the filing. I misread the sentence to mean something else. Apologies.
4.
Scottie Thomaston | April 11, 2012 at 3:28 pm
It's okay! Good thing I read this second comment before I went and corrected.
5.
Kathleen | April 11, 2012 at 3:58 pm
It's been a rough day for parsing language. Didn't mean to cause undue alarm. Again, my apologies.
6.
Rich | April 11, 2012 at 4:03 pm
I wonder if I have it figured out. NOM is desperate for money. They came up with a two pronged attack to get it. Stage a mock hacking of their sites and open the portals in the blog site, all on the same day. The first riles up the minions who will scream "Those gay militants did this!" and the second allows a short window of reasonable response from those heathen gay people. Then, attach a feverish plea for money while you have your NOMbies all lathered up.
7.
Kate | April 11, 2012 at 4:19 pm
Yep. They've already posted a plea for money to battle the evil SSM advocates that they are blaming for the hack. Lots of mileage, as planned.
8.
Rich | April 11, 2012 at 5:53 pm
Yep, absolute shut down….the communist state of NOM is in full lock-down. So much for openness.
9.
Gregory in SLC | April 11, 2012 at 6:01 pm
thx for any/all info!
10.
MightyAcorn | April 11, 2012 at 9:42 pm
Ditto, it's appreciated.
11.
Str8Grandmother | April 12, 2012 at 2:59 am
Off Topic but good news. There is a Catholic Parish in the State of Washington that is refusing to have any petition signing or distributing. WOW! http://www.stjosephparish.org/
12.
grod | April 12, 2012 at 6:23 am
Str8Grandmother – Archbishop Sartain would be most unhappy with Father Whitney SJ and Fr O’Leary SJ. Their actions have caught your attention! He could ask their Jesuit superiors to reassign them. Earlier this year, his Grace had warned the diocesan priests that if any had difficulty towing the official position, to see him, not subvert a unified message. As can be seen in the following news article, the message & petition are in place in most parishes. – http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/04
13.
Alessip | April 12, 2012 at 7:02 am
does that mean that a verdict from the 1st Circuit of Appeals in Massachussets is expected as soon as the end of April?
14.
Rich | April 12, 2012 at 7:16 am
grod, isn't this how the Reformation started? The Church fell out of step with the masses and it took leadership from within to deliver a new message. Change is a powerful force, as is the push for equality.
15.
Kathleen | April 12, 2012 at 9:16 am
I don't think so. Read my comments above.
16.
Kathleen | April 12, 2012 at 9:18 am
Update in McLaughlin: The judge has denied the request to set a deadline for intervention.
"ELECTRONIC ORDER entered denying Motion to Set a Deadline for seeking intervention in this case. In light of the current posture of the case, the court sees no reason to set such a deadline."
17.
Walter | April 12, 2012 at 10:25 am
In Seattle, St. James Catholic Cathedral is, also, not circulating petitions for Referendum 74. This is the seat of the Archdiocese of Seattle. It is located on First Hill next to Capitol Hill where the St. Joseph Parish mentioned above is found. Both areas are very gay friendly. In fact, Capitol Hill could probably be described as equivalent to Castro, at least it was when I lived in Seattle some years back.
http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/categor…
18.
Bob | April 12, 2012 at 10:38 am
GAY MARRIAGE Seattle Priests Buck Church's Anti-Gay-Marriage Campaign
posted by DOMINIC HOLDEN on WED, APR 11, 2012 at 11:19 PM
Several Seattle priests have refused to allow anti-gay petitions inside their parishes, despite the the fact that the Catholic hierarchy invited petitioners into local churches as part of a campaign to repeal the state's marriage-equality law.
News first broke this afternoon when St. James Cathedral pastor Michael Ryan said he refused to circulate the petitions because it would "prove hurtful and seriously divisive in our community." That bucked Seattle Archbishop, J. Peter Sartain's recent invitation to run a signature drive for Referendum 74 in all local Catholic churches.
But Father Ryan is not alone in drawing the line—more Catholic churches are also resisting Sartain's political dictates and, apparently, hewing more closely to the city's progressive Catholic laity.
"You may have heard about a petition drive concerning Referendum 74, which will be gathering signatures at a number of parishes in Seattle," says a statement on the home page of St. Joseph Catholic parish on Capitol Hill. "Please be aware that Fr. Whitney has decided that no petitioning will be permitted anywhere on the campus of St. Joseph. Please contact Fr. Whitney with any concerns."
Sources tell us that other parishes—while I have not confirmed, because it's just after 11:00 pm—are also bucking the hierarchy's invitation to run the anti-gay signature drive in the parishes. My own alma matar and former parish, St. Therese, has reportedly rejected invitations to circulate petitions for Referendum 74. St. Mary in the Central District and St. Patrick on north Capitol Hill have also taken the stand.
19.
grod | April 12, 2012 at 3:21 pm
Add to the list Christ Our Hope in downtown Seattle not allowing petitions
20. Prop 8 Trial Tracker &raq&hellip | May 22, 2012 at 2:01 pm
[...] in April, we wrote about the latest developments in Golinski, noting that the motion to expedite the case was granted, and a briefing schedule was set, pending a possible decision on initial en [...]
Leave a Comment
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.