[Photo: The scene at the Maryland House of Delegates joint committee hearing on Feb. 10, 2012. (Photo by John Riley.)]

Like Rocky Balboa, marriage equality is back for another round of fighting.

Supporters and opponents of a bill legalizing same-sex nuptials clashed once more at a joint hearing of the House Judiciary and Health and Government Operations committees on Friday, Feb. 10, as the lower chamber considered the bill.

A similar bill passed the Maryland Senate in 2011 by a vote of 25-21, but was sent back to committee after supporters failed to gain the votes necessary for passage in the House of Delegates.

Friday's hearing featured many familiar faces, as many of the witnesses had previously testified at a similar hearing held by the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee on Jan. 31. The committee members at Friday's hearings also were not strangers to those on both sides of the issue.

Some of the committee members -- Delegates Tiffany Alston (D-Prince George's Co.), Jill Carter (D-Baltimore City) and Del. Sam Arora (D-Montgomery Co.) -- made headlines last year when they wavered on their support for the measure under pressure and intense lobbying by opponents of marriage equality. Carter eventually voted for the bill in committee. Several other members of the two committees have either been vocal advocates of the bill, such as Delegates Joseline Peña-Melnyk (D-Anne Arundel, Prince George's counties) and Keiffer Mitchell, Jr. (D-Baltimore City) or opponents of the bill, such as Del. Don Dwyer (R-Anne Arundel Co.) and Neil Parrott (R-Washington Co.).

The hearing kicked off with testimony from O'Malley and two ministers, Rev. Delman Coates and Rev. Donte Hickman, who spoke in favor of marriage equality.

Coates told members of the two committees that people's personal beliefs and religious views on homosexuality should not be a factor influencing whether gay and lesbian couples get equal recognition under the law.

"Public policy has never been predicated on public consensus or personal preferences," Coates said.

Coates also went further, saying that adultery, divorce, out-of-wedlock children and abortion, also are violations of the tenets of some religions.

"If gays and lesbians are denied for this reason, why are heterosexuals who engage in adultery, divorce, having children outside of marriage and abortion not denied?" he asked.

Tim Gill, one of the most significant funders in the LGBT movement and a host of the Thursday night, Feb. 9, fundraiser for President Obama's re-election campaign that was expected to have raised more than $1.4 million for the effort, is a big fan of the president, telling Metro Weekly that it always is "such a joy to listen to" Obama.

A $35,800-per-person joy.

Forty people -- including another host committee member and the first out LGBT ambassador, James Hormel -- were willing to pay that price for the opportunity to talk with Obama in a no-press-allowed question-and-answer session at the home of Karen Dixon and Dr. Nan Schaffer north of Dupont Circle in the Kalorama neighborhood of the District. Although a White House press corps pool reporter attended Obama's opening remarks and the White House later released a transcript of them, no media was allowed in the room during the question-and-answer session and no transcript was provided of that latter portion of the event. Metro Weekly exclusively spoke with about a dozen of the attendees outside the event, a group consisting of several prominent LGBT advocates and business people, about the evening.

Laura Ricketts, the first openly LGBT owner of a major-league baseball team -- Obama's home team, the Chicago Cubs -- introduced the president inside the home at the fundraiser, telling the group that the night was "to show the president that the LGBT community stands strongly behind his re-election."

"What you hear when you hear Obama speak you really hear his authenticity, his thoughtfulness and just his genuine compassion for gay people, the entire American people and the American dream," Gill said outside the event. "So, it makes me realize more than anything else that he's the person that has to be our next president."

That said, Gill also was still looking at this term, talking with Metro Weekly about the chances that Obama would sign an executive order in his first term that would prohibit federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Noting that the Republican-led House is almost certain not to bring up the Employment Non-Discrimination Act -- which would prohibit most private employers from discriminating on those bases -- in this Congress, Gill said of the proposed executive order, "I think certainly we need that order, lacking ENDA. Whether we'll manage to get that before the election, that seems a little dicey, but I'm gonna keep my fingers crossed."

Elizabeth Birch, the former head of the Human Rights Campaign, was even less certain. She told Metro Weekly bluntly, "I don't know if it will happen. I would imagine that there's not a lot that's going to happen until after the election."

What's more, she suggested that it mightn't even be the most strategic move, saying, "Executive orders are great, but they can have wobbly legs. I want us to be able to marshal all of our energy and focus and resources, and get real laws passed."

Of Obama's judgment on selecting the time for action, she added, "He has a really good meter in terms of knowing when he has amassed enough political capital to get the best, most durable thing done."

Terry Bean, an Oregonian who is one of the co-founders of HRC and was leaving the fundraiser with Birch, agreed, saying, "I prefer, as the president seems to, long-term solutions rather than temporary solutions. If the president had done what some in the community wanted him to do, which was a stop-loss order on 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' it never would have passed Congress."

Another notable HRC board member, Bruce Bastian -- the Utah resident who spent $1 million to fight Proposition 8 -- said the final call on the executive order proposal was with Obama: "That's on his desk."

For Bastian, though, the night -- and his aim -- was focused on re-electing Obama.

"He really understands the pressure and the discrimination that we all face every day. And I really think he's trying to pick and choose the things he can do. He's done a lot, he's done a lot of things that people don't give him credit for, but little things that matter," he told Metro Weekly. "I think, if we can just get him re-elected, I think we'll see a lot, lot more."

New Yorker Marjorie Hill, the chief executive officer of Gay Men's Health Crisis (GMHC), said that it's about more than solely LGBT-specific issues. She noted, specifically, "The president has shown unprecedented leadership on HIV and AIDS, including the National AIDS strategy, so I'm very pleased."

When Obama did speak at the event that will benefit both Obama for America and the Democratic National Committee, several attendees, unsurprisingly, said that the president didn't tell the small audience of any new initiative or policy position. According to the transcript provided of the opening remarks, Obama said, "[T]he work that we've done with respect to the LGBT community, I think, is just profoundly American and is at the heart of who we are."

Obama touted that work -- from regulatory changes to the legislative repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" -- and then told the audience: "There [are] still areas where fairness is not the rule."

One issue that is front and center for several attendees: marriage equality.

Paul Smith -- the Jenner & Block law firm partner who successfully argued to the Supreme Court that state sodomy laws should be found unconstitutional in the 2003 case of Lawrence v. Texas -- noted the difference of opinion but took a pragmatic tone on the issue.

"We had the little tension about the marriage issue," Smith told Metro Weekly, "but everybody said, 'Look, come on, we got President Obama and we've got them.' Give me a break. That's what it is about." As Bastian put it, "We wouldn't go back four years, we'd go back decades if Santorum won. I mean, the LGBT community -- decades."

Joy Tomchin, a former board member of GMHC in New York City, was glad to be down in D.C. for the event and "thought [Obama] was great," but told Metro Weekly that she was here on a bit of a mission.

"I wanted to hear more about gay marriage, and I can’t get him to talk about it -- in New York or Washington," she said, noting, "I heckled him in New York."

She did. On June 23, 2011, when Obama traveled to New York City's Broadway and gave a speech at an LGBT-focused re-election fundraiser as the New York legislature was considering whether to pass marriage equality in the Empire State, it was Tomchin who shouted out: "What about marriage?"

Only one, thus far, has submitted his or her thoughts directly to the court.

Enter Robert Allgeyer.

With a subject line of, "Your ruling in Perry vs. Brown is unworthy of compliance or respect," Robert Allgeyer's Feb. 7 letter to the court was posted to the Ninth Circuit's docket of the case today.

He began: "Lately, I have wondered at why so many persons in government, and in higher education, make no sense. It seems to me that perhaps you are suffering from brain damage. I am graciously assuming that you were not bribed or threatened by 'progressive' activists, but of course this is not clear."

In addition to questioning whether a "life of depravity," "a lifetime of mind-altering drugs," "inbreeding" or "having attended the kind of elitist college that asks about your mom and dad on the application form (snicker)" caused the brain damage, Allgeyer expresses great concern about "toxins from mold infestation" being the real cause.

Finally, in case the brain damage is genetic, he urges, "As a precaution, I urge you and all of your relatives to voluntarily practice birth control and abortion to the greatest extent allowable by law."

Thank you, Robert Allgeyer, for your thoughts on this important issue.

READ Allgeyer's letter: Allgeyer.pdf

Follow @metroweekly

Get Poliglot in your inbox. Join our mailing list.

The Illinois bill would amend the 2011 Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act to grant the state's currently existing civil unions the legal designation of marriages with "the same benefits, protections, and responsibilities under law."

Currently, Illinois enforces the 2010 Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act, which specifies valid marriages as only those between a man and a woman.

Although the state has civil unions granting same-sex couples such rights as shared employment benefits, co-adoption privileges, and medical decision making among others, Bernard Cherkasov, executive director of the Equality Illinois statewide LGBT equality organization, said in a news release today:

"In following experiences of thousands of couples in civil unions over the past year, we confirmed what we always suspected to be true: that creating a separate institution to provide substantially the same rights did not add up to full equality under the law.

"A pharmacist who denied prescription pick-up to the patient's civil union partner didn't think it's the same thing as marriage. A coroner who refused to issue a death certificate to civil union partner survivor did not think that civil unions are the same as marriage. Tax preparers, estate planners, employers and employees do not think that civil unions are the same as marriage.

"Separate is not equal."

Rep. Harris first introduced the marriage equality bill on February 22, 2007 and then again on January 14, 2009, but both times it died in committee.

Though state legislators eventually legalized civil unions with a 61-52 House vote where five Republican votes helped the bill pass despite 12 Democrat nays. Only one Republican Senator, Dan Rutherford supported the Senate bill which passed in a 32-24 vote.

Cherkasov warns that the marriage equality bill is not a slam-dunk and that advocates will have to reach out their elected officials and fellow voters to compel legislators to pass the bill.

A 2010 poll of Illinoisans found that two-thirds favored legal recognition of gay couples the majority were split over their preference for civil unions and marriage.

However, shifting national attitudes in favor of marriage equality and the 2010 U.S. Census results showing 32,469 gay and lesbian couples living in Illinois could have positively affected public opinion in favor of marriage equality since the state's civil unions began.

Follow @metroweekly

Carney avoided, however, answering a question posed to him by Metro Weekly about President Obama's views on marriage equality -- which Carney said on Feb. 7 "involve[] his faith" -- and whether Obama has based "other decisions about providing protections and civil responsibilities" on his faith.

Carney responded that the statement was nothing new, saying, "I am in no way going further than anything the President himself has said about his views on this issue."

The response, however, said nothing about the implication in Carney's Feb. 7 statement, which was that faith informed Obama's views on whether civil marriage equality, sought by many advocates and allies, should be extended to same-sex couples.

The decision, though obviously not Obama's alone, does have an impact on the access LGBT people and their families have to many government services. And, while the religious exemption for places of worship in the HHS decision shows the administration in that situation allowing an exception based on faith to a generally applicable rule, Obama's marriage position, as it stands, is one of allowing faith to create the generally applicable rule -- regardless of the access to important services that such a view might deny LGBT people.

As detailed in a recent report from the Movement Advancement Project, Family Equality Council and Center for American Progress, access to important services -- health care and otherwise -- is regularly denied by the federal government to families headed by same-sex couples because of marital prohibitions on same-sex couples and, in jurisdictions where same-sex couples can marry, the Defense of Marriage Act.

As the report noted as to childcare and early child education assistance such as Head Start, for example, "Due to DOMA, even same-sex couples who are married in their state will not be recognized as such for these federal programs."

The president has said that he is "evolving" on the question of marriage equality, and Carney reiterated on Feb. 7 of Obama's view, "[A]s he said, and I won't go beyond that, his views are evolving. But I don't have an end point to announce to you or a date certain to tell you that he'll have [something] to say about that issue."

* * *

Here's the full question and answer from today:

     Q    Yesterday, regarding the President's position on the right of same-sex couples to marry, you said that this is a process that involves his faith. What other decisions about providing protections and civil responsibilities has the President based upon a decision on his faith?

     MR. CARNEY:  I want to be clear -- and I appreciate the question -- that I was simply referring to statements the President had made in the past about this issue.  And it's not about -- I don't want to -- I am in no way going further than anything the President himself has said about his views on this issue.  And I want to be clear, and thank you for the opportunity to be clear on this.

     What I want to add about yesterday is that, as you know, the President has long opposed divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same-sex couples. He believes strongly that protections should not be taken away from committed gay and lesbian couples who want to take care of their families.

     And while we don't comment on specific litigation, that is his general position on this, as I think you know and have reported on.

[Image: Screen capture of White House press secretary Jay Carney at the Feb. 7, 2012, White House press briefing.]

The bill, Senate Bill 349, was introduced by Sen. Jeff McWaters (R-Virginia Beach) and would codify into law that private child placement agencies are not required to place children with prospective adoptive or foster parents if doing so is in violation of that agency's written or moral convictions or policies, even if they receive state tax dollars.

The bill also prevents the denial of any application for or renewal of a license, or any grant, contract, or participation in a government program, for any agency because of moral or religious objections, and prevents those agencies from being sued because of their refusal to perform any placement based on such objections. 

The bill cements into law a 5-1 decision by the State Board of Social Services in December that allows state-licenses private adoption and foster care agencies to deny prospective parents based on sexual orientation, religion, age of the prospective parents, gender, disability, family status and even political beliefs.

Under Virginia law, only single people, regardless of sexual orientation, and opposite-sex legally-married couples are able to adopt, while same-sex couples cannot. With the passage of SB 349, if a single gay or lesbian person wishes to become an adoptive or foster parent, they will be limited to using a smaller number of placement agencies that do not object on religious or moral grounds.

The bill is expected to be read during the Thursday, Feb. 9, session and passed by the full Senate. A similar bill with identical language previously passed the House of Delegates by a 71-28 margin, with one delegate not voting. Once the bill is passed by both chambers, it will go to Gov. Bob McDonnell (R), who has indicated he will sign it into law.

LGBT allies in the Senate, all Democrats, offered up to 18 amendments to the bill, all of which were rejected.

About 12 hours after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit paved the way, pending appeal, for same-sex couples to be able once again to marry in California, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum (R) -- one of the most clear opponents of LGBT equality remaining in the Republican presidential primary -- was announced the winner of his third primary or caucus of Tuesday, Feb. 7, when the Colorado caucuses were called for him.

A man who gained LGBT activists' ire during his time in the Senate for his "man on dog" comments used to dismiss same-sex couples' marriages in an AP interview in 2003, Santorum was the late-night winner in Colorado, as well as the victor in the Minnesota caucuses and the nonbinding primary held in Missouri.

Although former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) remains in the lead in delegates, and is still the frontrunner to secure the nomination, the results shake up the race, will continue to cause headaches for the Romney team and breathes new life into Santorum's effort.

In his victory speech on Tuesday night in Missouri -- given before the Colorado results were known -- Santorum said, "This is about a country that believes in god-given rights, and a constitution that's limited to protect those rights."

Although he didn't mention it specifically, the broad terms Santorum used would appear to apply to his earlier criticism of the Ninth Circuit ruling, in which he tweeted, "7 [million] Californians had their rights stripped away today by activist 9th Circuit judges. As president I will work to protect marriage."

Santorum's key line of his speech, though, was more of an attack on Romney, saying, "I do care about -- not 99 percent, not 95 percent -- I care about the very rich & the very poor, 100 percent of America." He also, though, made a strong statement of his aggressive intentions for the ongoing primary race: "I don't stand here to be the conservative alternative to Romney. I stand here to be the conservative alternative to Barack Obama."

R. Clarke Cooper, the executive director of Log Cabin Republicans, was dismissive of Santorum's victories, telling Metro Weekly, "The divisive Rick Santorum is not capable of winning a general election and will not be the Republican nominee."

Cooper added: "As former RNC chairman Governor Haley Barbour has observed, 'Purity is the enemy of victory.' The ability to secure the vote of the general electorate is necessary to succeeding as the Republican nominee."

In newspaper coverage of the states' outcomes, the Minnesota StarTribune reported:

Presidential candidate Rick Santorum won decisively in Minnesota's GOP caucuses on Tuesday, clobbering rival Mitt Romney in a state Romney had won easily just four years ago.

With most of the Minnesota vote in, Santorum won 45 percent of the GOP straw poll, followed by Ron Paul at 27 percent. Romney placed a distant third, while Newt Gingrich placed last.

From Missouri's Columbia Daily Tribune:

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) -- Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum easily won Missouri's nonbinding Republican presidential primary Tuesday, claiming momentum in his challenge against national front-runner Mitt Romney even though the victory won't earn him any delegates.

And, finally, from Colorado's Denver Post, where the results were first announced about 1 a.m. Eastern Time:

Colorado's race see-sawed throughout the night until 11 p.m. [Central Time], when Colorado GOP Chair Ryan Call declared Santorum the winner. But the race was a near tie.

"This is a major upset," said Denver-based political analyst Floyd Ciruli. "Definitely, there is a new story now."

The next outcome comes in Maine. Maine's nonbinding presidential straw poll has been taking place at Maine Republican Party municipal caucuses, and the results of the straw poll will be made public on Saturday, Feb. 11. The Arizona and Michigan primaries are slated for Feb. 28.

Although White House press secretary Jay Carney initially said, "I'm not going to comment on litigation -- and particularly, as here, where we are not a party to it," at today's press briefing, he continued, "[T]he president's position on these issues, writ large, are well known. He's long opposed divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same-sex couples."

Asked if it is inconsistent for Obama to take such a position on a measure that relates to marriage when Obama is "evolving" on but does not support marriage equality, Carney said that he had "no update" as to the president's views on marriage equality.

Carney added, though, that in this situation, "These are proactive, deliberate efforts to deny benefits and to be discriminatory."

Romney, to put it gently, disagreed.

In a statement, he said, "Today, unelected judges cast aside the will of the people of California who voted to protect traditional marriage. This decision does not end this fight, and I expect it to go to the Supreme Court. That prospect underscores the vital importance of this election and the movement to preserve our values.

Of the presidential implications, Romney added, "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman and, as president, I will protect traditional marriage and appoint judges who interpret the Constitution as it is written and not according to their own politics and prejudices."

To that, Obama campaign press secretary Ben LaBolt tweeted, "Romney, who said he'd do more for gay rights than Sen. [Edward] Kennedy, condemned the court decision overturning divisive & discriminatory Prop 8."

Kennedy, who died in August 2009, had been a strong supporter of marriage equality. In 2006, while successfully opposing the Federal Marriage Amendment -- which Romney supports -- Kennedy said, "It is wrong for our civil laws to deny any American the basic right to be part of a family, to have loved ones with whom to build a secure future and share life's joys and tears, and to be free from the stain of bigotry and discrimination."

Romney's opponents for the Republican presidential nomination who are more to the right of him on LGBT equality issues, unsurprisingly, opposed today's ruling. On Twitter, both former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum (R) criticized the ruling.

Gingrich tweeted, "Court of Appeals overturning CA's Prop 8 another example of an out of control judiciary. Let's end judicial supremacy." He then linked to that platform in his campaign.

Later, Santorum tweeted, "7M Californians had their rights stripped away today by activist 9th Circuit judges. As president I will work to protect marriage."

It did not appear that Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) issued any statement on the ruling.

On a conference call organized by the American Foundation for Equal Rights, which brought the case, attorney David Boies told reporters, "I think the grounds do make it somewhat less likely that the Supreme Court will take it."

Ted Olson, Boies's co-counsel in the case, was not pushing nuance today, savoring victory in the case that has become a dedicated cause for him: "This is a very significant milepost on the way to equality in this country."

In his view of the ruling, Olson said, "The district court earlier and the Ninth Circuit today ringingly reaffirmed the right to equality, the fundamental right to marriage and the fact that it cannot be denied to citizens on the basis of their sexual orientation or the basis of their sex."

The decision was, on its face, based on more narrow legal grounds than those put forth by U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker in his trial court decision striking down the law in August 2010. The appeals court affirmed the trial court decision by finding Proposition 8 unconstitutional for the reasons established by the U.S. Supreme Court in striking down Colorado's Amendment 2 in Romer v. Evans.

In Romer, Colorado voters adopted an amendment prohibiting state and local entities from passing sexual orientation protections. The U.S. Supreme Court struck Colorado's Amendment 2 down as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause because the amendment's aim, as the Ninth Circuit stated today, was "not to further a proper legislative end but to make [LGB people] unequal to everyone else."

Ninth Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt then wrote for the court: "Proposition 8 is remarkably similar to Amendment 2."

"With a precedent like Romer that so squarely fits," Boies asserted that the outcome in the Ninth Circuit's opinion was solid. To that end, Boies added: "The [Supreme] Court might not want to take this issue on on those facts and might want to wait for a case that raises the more general issue."

University of California-Irvine law professor Rick Hasen noted that Boies's sentiment also had relevance even if the Supreme Court does, eventually, accept review of the Perry case because Justice Anthony Kennedy, who many think would be the swing vote in Supreme Court consideration of the case, wrote the Romer opinion.

"Notably, Judge Reinhardt does not hold there is a right to same sex marriage, only that [California] had no rational reason to take away the label of marriage for use by gay and lesbian couples after the state had had already given it," Hasen writes. "By crafting the argument in this way, and making the case that the only reason for passing Prop. 8 was anti-gay animus, Judge Reinhardt has given Justice Kennedy a way to decide the case without embracing a major holding recognizing a right to same sex marriage generally."

Despite the narrow scope on the face of the opinion, Boies conceded somewhat to Olson's more ambitious stance, saying, "The reasoning of the case is reasoning that clearly would support a national right to marriage equality."

Responding to a question about how Reinhardt's opinion stated that it was a limited one reaching only the Romer question about taking away a right based on animus and not the broader question of marriage equality, Olson was incredulous: "Judges say that all the time. They're not reaching more than what they have to. But the reasoning [applies to other cases]."

Specifically, Olson pointed to the Supreme Court's opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down sodomy laws in the country as unconstitutional. Despite the fact that Kennedy, who wrote Lawrence's majority opinion as well, said Lawrence did not relate to marriage, Olson noted that Justice Anthony Scalia wrote in his dissenting opinion in the case, "At the end of [Kennedy's majority] opinion -- after having laid waste the foundations of our rational-basis jurisprudence -- the Court says that the present case 'does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter.' Do not believe it."

Olson said of today's decision: "I will say the same thing here. Our opponents are going to say, 'That didn't decide what goes on in Georgia. That didn't decide what goes on in Arkansas.' But we're talking about the fundamental right of individuals to enjoy the relationship of marriage. This decision talks in terms of how important and fundamental that is."

When the question of the videotapes of the trial were raised on the call, Boies took things to a less professorial place, suggesting that the Dustin Lance Black play about the trial, titled simply 8, could be more effective a presentation to the public than the tapes because of the performer playing Boies at the Los Angeles premiere of the show on March 3.

"They may find George Clooney a lot more interesting than watching David Boies," he said with a chuckle.

[Photo: Ted Olson, center, and David Boies, right, answer questions by audience members selected by David Boaz, Cato's executive vice president, on Wednesday, May 18, 2011. (Photo by Chris Geidner.)]

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit today affirmed the August 2010 decision by U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker that California's 2008 amendment banning same-sex couples from marriage is unconstitutional, deciding the case on narrow grounds relating to the facts of the amendment's impact, which the court notes was to "eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California."

Same-sex couples cannot begin marrying in California today, however, as the court also kept in place its stay halting enforcement of the unconstitutionality decision for the time being.

The case, Perry v. Brown, was brought by the American Foundation for Equal Rights and featured a contrasting team of lawyers -- the conservative Ted Olson and liberal David Boies -- who waged a high-stakes trial in January 2010 and a high-profile public campaign to advance the cause of marriage equality.

[DON'T MISS METRO WEEKLY'S FULL PROP 8 COVERAGE:

• Obama's Press Secretaries and Romney (and the Others) Talk About Prop 8, With Very Different Takes

• Olson and Boies Talk About Their Prop 8 Victory, With Slightly Differing Takes

• The Village Voice's Thrasher and Geidner Talk About Prop 8]

In today's decision, Judge Stephen Reinhardt writes for the court:

We consider whether that amendment violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We conclude that it does.

Specifically, he wrote, "Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently. There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted."

As to the standing question -- whether the proponents had a right to asppeal the decision -- the court held that it was California's decision to make. "It is their prerogative, as independent sovereigns, to decide for themselves who may assert their interests and under what circumstances, and to bestow that authority accordingly." California, the court noted, decided that initiative proponents have such a right.

The court also denied the proponents' request that the trial court decision be vacated because Walker, the proponents asserted, should have recused himself because he is gay and had a long-term partner to whom he was not married.

The narrow legal grounds on which the court decided to affirm Walker's decision about the constitutionality of Proposition 8 were those established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Romer v. Evans -- referenced as a possibility by Metro Weekly earlier today.

Although the path to get here is a winding one -- and although the details are important -- today's coming decision in the challenge to the constitutionality of Proposition 8 brought by the American Foundation for Equal Rights in Perry v. Brown likely will be confusing.

Here are five key questions to help getting through the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's opinion:

1. Did the appeals court avoid ruling on the constitutionality of Proposition 8?

Today's decision could avoid addressing the constitutionality if it finds either that: (1) now-retired U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker should have recused himself from hearing the case because he is gay and had a long-term partner to whom he was not married or (2) the proponents of Proposition 8 -- the only ones appealing the ruling -- lack standing to bring the appeal.

2. Is Proposition 8 upheld or struck down?

This is the easy one -- but it's also the most important one. The court will be deciding whether to affirm or reverse the trial court decision striking down Proposition 8 as unconstitutional. That decision, by now-retired U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker, struck down Proposition 8 on the grounds that it unconstitutionally infringed on both due process and equal protection rights.

3. How does the court resolve the constitutional question?

If the court affirms Walker's ruling, it doesn't need to use his reasoning. The court could rule in any of a number of ways. It could affirm Walker's ruling and reasoning that Proposition 8 violates the due process "fundamental" right of marriage and the equal protection of the laws against discrimination based on sexual orientation (and/or sex). It could choose to affirm on one but not both of those grounds. Or, it could affirm on an alternative ground not considered by Walker. The most likely of these alternative grounds would be to apply the reasoning of Romer v. Evans, in which the Supreme Court struck down an anti-LGB amendment in Colorado because the court determined it was based only in animus and furthered no legitimate governmental end.

4. What sort of stay of the court's decision is issued, if any?

The court -- as it did when Walker's ruling was appealed to it -- is likely to issue a stay of its decision pending any appeal decision. Watch for this, as it will mean that, regardless of today's ruling, marriages will not begin in California in the coming days.

5. Watch for a statement that the losing party is bringing an appeal.

Although today's opinion will be important, it is almost certain that it will be appealed -- either to the full Ninth Circuit for reconsideration (called en banc consideration) or to the U.S. Supreme Court. In either situation, the court needs to choose to accept the appeal. But, the decision as to whether the losing party goes first for en banc review or proceeds directly to the Supreme Court could expand or shorten the timeline until this case reaches its final resolution.

Follow @metroweekly

Opinionated? Take our latest Metro Weekly poll. Win free movie passes!

Box Turtle Bulletin reported the possible reintroduction on Feb. 6. The bill was first considered in 2009 and, if passed, would greatly enhance the country's laws against homosexuals and allies.

In a statement provided to Metro Weekly, State Department spokesperson Hilary Fuller Renner wrote, "Our message is unchanged:  The Department of State opposes the anti-homosexuality bill, which we view as manifestly inconsistent with Uganda's international human rights obligations. We call on the Ugandan government to reinforce its respect for the human rights of all individuals, including LGBT individuals."

Although the bill in question has yet to be released, a 2009 version proposes 18 clauses that attempt to constrain the country's gay community. Ugandans found guilty of homosexuality would face fines, lifetime imprisonment or death.

According to its original text, the bill's objectives are to "provide for marriage in Uganda as that contracted only between a man and a woman; to prohibit and penalize homosexual behavior and related practices in Uganda as they constitute a threat to the traditional family; to prohibit ratification of any international treaties, conventions, protocols, agreements and declarations which are contrary or inconsistent with the provisions of this Act; and, to prohibit the licensing of organizations which promote homosexuality."

Of U.S. action opposing the bill, Renner stated, "We remain attuned to the possibility that Parliament could take action on the Bahati bill, and we continue to raise these concerns with senior Ugandan officials."

Renner also noted that a number of Ugandan government institutions have already spoken out against further criminalization of homosexuality, stating that the Uganda Human Rights Commission said the Bahati bill violates Uganda's constitution and international law in 2010. Renner added that Uganda's judiciary has repeatedly supported the rights of all Ugandan citizens, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.

The State Department also notes that during Uganda's recent Universal Periodic Review at the United Nations Human Rights Council, the country agreed to "take immediate concrete steps to stop discrimination and assaults against LGBT persons."

It was in December 2011 the Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton made headlines proclaiming the importance of ending LGBT discrimination in a global address. In relevant part, she said, "Wherever you live and whatever the circumstances of your life, whether you are connected to a network of support or feel isolated and vulnerable, please know that you are not alone. People around the globe are working hard to support you and to bring an end to the injustices and dangers you face. That is certainly true for my country. And you have an ally in the United States of America and you have millions of friends among the American people."

Joe Corcoran contributed to this report.

[Photo: Secretary Clinton (Photo courtesy of State Department web site.)]

During the Feb. 2 New Jersey Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on the state marriage equality bill, Greg Quinlan president of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX, pictured right) testified against the bill by saying that homosexuals, with therapy, can convert into heterosexuals -- a notion discredited by the American Psychological Association.

Nevertheless, Quinlan and his practices have found dissemination through Maryland's Montgomery County school system, Super Bowl XLVI commentator David Tyree and various religious and media figures around the world -- even as evidence builds of the harm these programs inflict on young Americans.

During his testimony, Quinlan said in part:

"Homosexuality is not immutable. People do change. People have a right of self-determination. They can choose to change from being gay to straight. Why can't they choose to change from being straight to gay? People do it all the time. There are many ex-gays. Anne Heche, to name one. Sinead O'Connor. And myself."

As such, Quinlan continues to champion a practice denounced by the American Psychological Association as harmful to gay-identified people and responsible for discrimination and violence against gays.

PFOX itself came under scrutiny last week for distributing ex-gay literature to Maryland high schoolers, something Montgomery County Public Schools spokesperson Dana Tofig says the school system must allow due to PFOX's status as a registered 501(c)3 nonprofit.

Gay conversion therapy has found unlikely national supporters over the past years, including two figures highlighted by the Feb. 5 National Football League Super Bowl game.

Regular CNN contributor Rowland Martin (pictured left) found the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation calling for his termination in light of a tweet questioned by advocates and others that he made in response to a Super Bowl ad for the H&M David Beckham underwear line. GLAAD also mentioned Martin's ongoing record of homophobic comments, some of which include support for his wife's "successful" ex-gay therapy work.

Former New York Giants wide receiver David Tyree -- who provided NBC Super Bowl pre-show analysis yesterday -- publicly tweeted his loving support for "former homosexuals" earlier last year, around the same time that he emerged as a spokesperson for the National Organization For Marriage -- saying that gay marriage in New York would lead to "anarchy."

But more directly religous supporters of the therapy also have made headlines more recently.

This past week, the Maine Catholic Diocese of Portland announced an expansion of its ex-gay "Courage" ministry purportingconversion via a celibate 12-step program.

At the same time, former Canterbury Archbishop Reverend Lord Carey recieved criticism for supporting the professional reinstatement of Lesley Pilkington, a Brish therapist barred from practice for using ex-gay therapy; both the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy and the Royal College of Psychiatrists have called ex-gay therapy "absurd." 

Finally, also outside the U.S., LGBT Rights United Arab Emirates denounced a recently released six-minute video entitled "Be Yourself," which depicts an effeminate man "turned straight" by adopting masculine gestures, shortened hair, nails and a lower voice.

Both at home and abroad, the fact that, as its site says, "since 1974, the American Psychological Association (APA) has opposed stigma, prejudice, discrimination, and violence on the basis of sexual orientation and has taken a leadership role in supporting the equal rights of lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals," efforts to "change" LGB people remain an ongoing practice and a regular source of public commentary.

In part, the Post editorial board wrote:

President Clinton issued an executive order to protect federal government employees from discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, religion and sexual orientation.

Executive orders have also been used as far back as the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt to advance fairness in the employment polices of federal contractors. In the 1960s, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed into law the executive order that obligates contractors to adopt nondiscriminatory employment practices.

Mr. Obama could amend that order or issue a new one to order federal contractors not to discriminate in their workplaces on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. He would have the vast majority of Americans on his side ....

Mr. Obama deserves credit for his efforts to eliminate "don't ask, don't tell," which prevented gay men and lesbians from serving openly in the military. He has rightly criticized the Defense of Marriage Act for withholding from same-sex couples federal benefits and responsibilities enjoyed by their heterosexual counterparts. He should continue on this path by issuing an executive order that makes clear that there should be no room for discrimination in the American workplace.

And, in The New York Times, University of Massachusetts-Amherst economics professor Lee Badgett -- who serves as the research director for the Williams Institute -- wrote an opinion piece relating to the executive order and her new study that was reported about on Feb. 6 by Metro Weekly. She wrote in part:

Why should taxpayer money be used to buy goods and services from companies that permit discrimination based on a worker’s sexual orientation or gender identity?

Making sure taxpayer dollars don’t support companies that discriminate does not require an act of Congress. By issuing an executive order, President Obama can — and should — make nondiscrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity a requirement for doing business with the American public. ...

In the past, executive orders setting standards for contractors have not only put an American ideal of equal opportunity into practice; they have also helped show employers that ending discrimination is good for business. Employers who act out of bias waste valuable training and often pass over the best person for the job. In the case of gay and transgender workers, workplace discrimination comes with an added cost to employers, leading other lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender workers to fear disclosure and contributing to stress, illness and lower productivity. ...

Requiring federal contractors not to discriminate against workers based on sexual orientation or gender identity lets the American public win twice — as taxpayers and as workers. New research of mine shows that by issuing an executive order, President Obama could cover more than 16 million additional workers against discrimination. Following the legacy of almost every president since World War II and the lead of most of the nation’s top companies, the president should once again put our government on the side of equal opportunity for all.

Read them both for more.