In a ruling that dooms the efforts of the Prop h8 proponents to get California’s Attorney General to defend Proposition 8 in federal court, or get the Governator to make AG Brown defend it in federal court, the California Supreme Court on Wednesday denied without comment the appeal of the Pacific Justice Institute from the local court’s decision that state officials cannot be forced to defend laws they choose not to defend.

The National Organization for Marriage launched a bus tour earlier this summer to convince people that same-sex marriages are terrible. Problem is, around the world, courts and legislatures are finding the exact opposite.

The right-wing is in overdrive attacking Judge Vaughn Walker’s bias, since they say he is ‘openly gay.’ Of course, Walker isn’t openly gay by any stretch of the imagination. But Michaelangelo Signorile perpetuates a dangerous stereotype, difficult to shed for men of my generation and Vaughn Walker’s, by calling these lies ‘smears’ in his otherwise excellent HuffPost article today. It’s not a smear to call someone openly gay, since there’s nothing wrong with being gay in the first place.

Roman Catholic Cardinal Roger Mahony, the soon-to-be-retired Archbishop of Los Angeles, is of the opinion that Judge Vaughn Walker was wrong in his ruling on Prop 8, because he failed to make his decision based upon religious beliefs that bless only male-female relationships.

Mahony ends up proving Walker’s point, that the only basis for the kind of discrimination that Prop 8 sought to enshrine in law grows out of certain religious and moral positions.

Cardinal, you may be free to discriminate against gays and lesbians within the Catholic church as a matter of faith, but the state of California is not free to do the same as a matter of law.

Depending on what study and what definitional criteria one wants to use the number of LGTB citizens is between 4% and 20%. It does not matter at all to me what this number is as I have had gay and lesbian family members, close (best) friends and acquaintances all my life. They were never “my lesbian friend” or “my gay cousin” they were just the people in my life and that they were family or a good friend has always been a hell of a lot more important than who they liked to frolic under the sheets with.

Still the fact of their sexuality was always an issue. Even if I didn’t care, the rest of the world seemed to and this made them have to lead their lives differently for fear of being attacked or just legally discriminated against. It still breaks my heart on a daily basis to see good people who just want to live their lives like every other citizen having to hide or downplay what and who they are because of the irrational prejudice against them.

"Originally posted at Squarestate.net"

Yesterday Judge Vaughn Walker brought down a decision that goes a long way (but not all the way) to addressing one of starkest bits of inequality, namely the denial by popular vote of the right of California gay citizens to marry. The ruling is only the first step as the intent of the lawyers filing it has always been to get to the Supreme Court of the United States and get a firm decision that all such bans are unconstitutional.

Today in California the closing arguments in the Proposition 8 trail will be heard. After nearly five months of reviewing the evidence presented in the case Judge Vaughn Walker is ready to hear the summation arguments of both sides. In a move that seems to indicate he has already produced a draft decision he has sent a list of questions that he would like the opposing sides to address.

For the plaintiffs (the folks suing to overturn the ban on gay marriage) he has asked questions about how much weight should be placed on the motivation of the voters. If they are acting out of a common (though perhaps not scientifically supported) view that children do best when they have a father and mother then should it be considered discrimination when they vote to prevent gay citizens from forming a family?

"Originally posted at Squarestate.net"

It is also troubling that he is asking after evidence which tends to show that women are more flexible with their sexual orientation than men. One study which Judge Walker cites shows that 88% of gay men say they have no choice in their orientation but only 68% of gay women say the same. This issue of choice of orientation should not really matter, as there is still the level of discrimination in marriage rights for those who are gay and that should be the core of the case. Still the issue of sexual orientation being a choice is one that has muddied this debate for a long time.

Here’s the wrapup schedule, essentially what to expect on Wednesday in the last inning of the federal trial in San Francisco on the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8 that made marriage equality illegal.

For those of you who will be joining Marcy, bmaz and me for Closing Arguments of Perry v Schwarzenegger next Wednesday, June 16th, here’s the schedule for orations. These times are all PDT (FDL) time.

Judge Vaughn Walker set a very short comment period for the public to weigh in on whether cameras should be permitted in his federal courtroom for the Boies/Olson challenge to Proposition 8 here in San Francisco. Letters are due by FRIDAY JANUARY 8th and must be delivered in hardcopy.