NOM BLOG

Category Archives: California

Prop 8 Hearing Today — Keep Up With It Live!

This afternoon, beginning at 2:30 pm PT / 5:30 pm ET, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit will be hearing oral arguments on California's Proposition 8. You can learn more about the hearing as it progresses by visiting us at prop8case.com.

9th Circuit Hears Prop 8 Arguments Tomorrow!

Email Header Image

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Tomorrow afternoon beginning at 2:30 pm PT / 5:30 pm ET, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit will be hearing oral arguments on California's Proposition 8.

The three-judge panel, while continuing to deliberate on the constitutionality of Prop 8, will additionally be hearing oral arguments on whether Judge Walker broke the law when he allowed the public release of videotapes of the original Prop 8 trial and whether Judge Walker's decision to overturn Prop 8 should be reversed because he was involved in a same-sex relationship at the time.

Ruth Institute Founder and President, Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse will be in the courtroom providing live updates via the NOM blog and Twitter (follow us @NOMtweets).

Check the blog tomorrow afternoon and on Friday for updates to get a full report on the proceedings.

The path to this point has been circuitous to say the least...last December the court heard arguments on the case's merits, but because Governor Jerry Brown and Attorney General Kamala Harris have refused to defend the law, in January the 9th Circuit asked the California Supreme Court to decide whether the Protect Marriage coalition had legal standing to defend Prop 8.

Just last month, the California Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the Prop 8 proponents did have standing in the case. The 9th Circuit will now take the California Supreme Court's unanimous decision on the standing question into consideration in their deliberations.

Please follow along with us on the NOM blog and on Twitter as we continue to uphold and defend the people's right to protect marriage at the ballot box and in our nation's highest courts.

Brian Brown

Brian S Brown

Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage

Donate Now

Hollywood Hearts Cuomo: $500,000 Tinseltown Payoff for Gay Marriage

The Hollywood Reporter:

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo blew into Hollywood Friday for a fundraiser and left with at least $500,000 in contributions and the sort of rave reviews that bring press agents -- and political strategists -- to tears.

... Friday’s event -- dinner for 40 and a reception for about 80 guests -- was held at the home of interior designer and White House decorator Michael S. Smith and and his partner, HBO executive James Costas. The couple, who also maintain a residence in New York, also are major Democratic fundraisers, who have collected more than $1 million to support President Barack Obama’s reelection campaign.

... Attendees included: MGM co-chairman Roger Birnbaum, Chelsea Handler, producer John Goldwyn and his parter Jeff Klein, who owns the Sunset Tower Hotel, Hard Rock Cafe owner Peter Mortin,  Cynthia Sikes Yorkin, Vanessa Williams, Los Angeles City Controller and mayoral candidate Wendy Greuel, Occidental Petroleum CEO Ray Irani, director James Burrows, and producer Jennifer Todd.

ADF Video: Two Recent Legal Victories for Marriage

From the Alliance Defense Fund:

Prop 8 Legal Update: 9th Circuit Lays Out Plan to Rule on Prop 8

SCOTUSblog with an update:

The Ninth Circuit Court will move directly, without a further public hearing, to rule on two key questions involving the constitutionality of California’s “Proposition 8,” banning same-sex marriage in the state. The Court, in an announcement Wednesday, laid out plans for its Proposition 8 review from this point on. The plans do include two hearings, to be held on Dec. 8, but not on the constitutional questions the Circuit Court now has before it.

The three-judge panel held a hearing on Dec. 6, 2010, on two constitutional disputes surrounding the ballot measure approved by California voters three years ago. Those issues arise in the case of Perry v. Brown (Circuit docket 10-116696).

One is whether Proposition 8 must be struck down under the federal Constitution, and the other is whether the Circuit Court has jurisdiction to rule on that question since an issue has arisen on whether anyone has a legal right to be before the panel. Tomorrow, the panel is to receive new briefs — from each side simultaneously — that will bear on that second question (which, technically, involves the issue of “standing” to appeal under the Constitution’s Article III). The briefs are to discuss the impact of a ruling last month by the state Supreme Court in California bolstering the right — under state law — of the backers of Proposition 8 to go to court to defend their measure against constitutional attack.

Once those new briefs are in, the panel seemed to be indicating by its announcement Wednesday, it will then move on to decide the two constitutional questions. The announcement stressed that “there will be no further argument” in that proceeding. It also emphasized that, up to now, the three-judge panel has not made a final decision on either question.

Bruce Hausknecht of CitizenLink also explains what is happening.

Gay Softball League Agrees Not to Discriminate Against Bisexuals

The Associated Press reports the conclusion of a lawsuit where a gay softball team poorly handled the discovery that they had exceeded their quota of non-homosexuals:

A gay softball organization has agreed to pay an undisclosed sum to three players who were disqualified from its 2008 Gay Softball World Series because of their perceived heterosexuality.

... The men - Stephen Apilado, Laron Charles and John Russ - filed the federal lawsuit against the North American Gay Amateur Athletic Alliance last year, claiming they had been discriminated against because they were bisexual, not gay.

They had played for years on a San Francisco-based team called D2. Rumors had persisted that the team was stacked with straight ringers, and when they made it all the way to the finals of the 2008 tournament in the Seattle area, others filed a protest, accusing D2 of exceeding the limit of two heterosexual players per team.

Tournament officials convened a protest committee and brought in five D2 members for questioning. In a conference room filled with about 25 people, many of them strangers, the players were asked questions about their sexuality and private lives. The protest committee then voted on whether the men were gay.

Gov. Cuomo Cashes In On New York Gay Marriage with Hollywood Fundraiser

Is there any remaining doubt about where the big money for redefining marriage really comes from?

Gov. Cuomo will be heading to Hollywood next week to take a bow for his successful role in passing same-sex marriage — and he’ll bring home a fistful of campaign cash from grateful glitterati.

The Hollywood fund-raiser is being hosted by some of California’s most ardent backers of same-sex marriage, showing that lesbian and gay donors are poised to help Cuomo in his re-election and beyond.

... Cuomo is scheduled to jet to Los Angeles next Friday for a fund-raiser co-hosted by big Hollywood names including Rob and Michele Reiner, Steve Bing, Katie McGrath and J.J. Abrams, Candy Spelling, Darren Star, Chris Albrecht, Kevin Huvane, Vanessa Williams and Laura and Casey Wasserman.

Reiner is one of the leaders in the fight to overturn California’s Prop 8, a state constitutional amendment that bars gay marriage.

White House decorator and interior designer Michael S. Smith and his partner, HBO executive James Costos, will host the event at their Bel Air home, which will fetch $12,500 per person for dinner and $1,000 per person for cocktails. -- New York Post

Obscure Gay Rights Figures to Have Place in CA History Classes

The San Diego Union-Tribune:

Often obscure, figures and events in the history of the gay rights and disabled rights movements will soon have a mandatory place in the classroom right along side Martin Luther King, Cesar Chavez and Susan B. Anthony.

... “Our history is more complete when we recognize the contributions of people from all backgrounds and walks of life,” State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson said after the legislation was signed into law in July.

... Overshadowed by the political and philosophical divide is the looming question: just what will be taught to whom, particularly regarding the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) community.

“That’s the million dollar question,” said Hayes, who has helped put together suggested materials for high school teachers to use as part of their ongoing lesson plans on voting rights and civil rights.

Asked about whether there will be some sort of opt-out or notification, Hayes said “that’s one of those things I’ve been trying to find out. There are a lot of questions about it.”

Parents cannot keep their children from the class based on objections to the material, according to Tom Adams, an official with the California Department of education working on implementation.

9th Circuit To Rule on Prop 8 and Judge Walker's Impartiality Simultaneously

Metro Weekly (a gay newspaper):

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit will be deciding the appeal of U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling striking down Proposition 8 as unconstitutional alongside the appeal of U.S. District Court Judge James Ware's ruling denying the Proposition 8 proponents' attempt to have Walker's ruling vacated because they argued he was biased because he is gay and has a partner.

The decision was announced in a one-sentence order issued this afternoon in granting a request from the proponents that the matters be consolidated.

... With today's order, all of the questions relating to the validity and merits of the constitutionality of Proposition 8 could be decided by the Ninth Circuit in one decision, allowing for the most clean appeal possible to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The only ancillary matter still unconsolidated is the question of whether the tapes of the Proposition 8 trial conducted by Walker in January 2010 and concluded that June can be released to the media and public. The Ninth Circuit oral arguments on the appeal of that question will be held at 2:30 p.m. Pacific Time Dec. 8.

Prop 8 Lawyer: Case is Headed to the Supreme Court

The Christian Post:

Proponents and opponents of California’s Proposition 8, the amendment that essentially bans gay marriage in the state, are in a fierce legal battle. But one thing they can agree on is that the case will likely head to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Andrew Pugno, general counsel of ProtectMarriage.com, the official proponents of Prop. 8, told The Christian Post on Friday that yesterday’s court ruling means the voter-approved ballot initiative is not dead and that “both sides agree this case is ultimately destined for the U.S. Supreme Court.”

Proponents of California’s Prop. 8 saw a major victory Thursday when the California Supreme Court ruled they had legal standing and could continue defending the amendment.

Victory for Prop 8! California Supremes Tell 9th Circuit Protect Marriage Has Standing to Defend Law

Elaboration on good news from last week, via William C. Duncan on NRO's The Corner blog:

...the state supreme court decided that the Proposition 8 campaign has standing to defend the law, noting that California courts have consistently allowed “official proponents” of an initiative to “to defend a challenged voter-approved initiative measure in order ‘to guard the people’s right to exercise initiative power.’”

The court [said]:

Neither the Governor, the Attorney General, nor any other executive or legislative official has the authority to veto or invalidate an initiative measure that has been approved by the voters. It would exalt form over substance to interpret California law in a manner that would permit these public officials to indirectly achieve such a result by denying the official initiative proponents the authority to step in to assert the state‘s interest in the validity of the measure or to appeal a lower court judgment invalidating the measure when those public officials decline to assert that interest or to appeal an adverse judgment.

...Basically, the court has turned back the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ attempt to throw the case, in collusion with recalcitrant government officials, and vindicated the principle that the people of California deserve to have their laws respected and defended in court.

The next step will be for the Ninth Circuit panel to rule on the substantive claim of Proposition 8’s constitutionality.

BREAKING NEWS! Prop 8 Proponents Have Standing To Defend Initiative in Federal Court

Email Header Image

Dear Marriage Supporter,

In a huge victory for NOM and supporters of Proposition 8, the California Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that the proponents of the initiative have the legal right to defend the initiative in court.

This is a major victory for the Prop 8 Legal Defense Fund and the lead Prop 8 attorney, Chuck Cooper.

Had the Supreme Court not agreed with the backers of Prop 8 that the Proponents have the legal standing to defend the initiative, it is very likely that the ruling of a rogue judge that overturned Prop 8 would have gone unchallenged. This is because Governor Jerry Brown, his predecessor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Kamala Harris have shamefully refused to fulfill their constitutional responsibility to defend the marriage initiative in court, despite it being passed with the support of over 7 million California voters.

NOM was the largest contributor to putting Prop 8 on the ballot and has given $300,000 to help defend it in court.

Now the hard work begins. The constitutionality of Prop 8 has already been argued before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which requested the California Supreme Court to determine if state law gave the proponents the right to defend the measure on appeal. Presuming the Ninth Circuit accepts the answer it got today that the proponents DO have standing, they will issue their ruling determining whether the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman violates the US Constitution.

It's almost crazy to say this out loud — that somehow the core institution of society, marriage as the union of a man and a woman, violates our federal constitution. Yet that is what the lower court judge, Vaughn Walker, determined. Walker is the rogue San Francisco federal justice who has been in a long term homosexual relationship.

We'll be candid — we don't hold out a lot of hope of upholding Prop 8 in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Remember, this court is noted for their extreme liberalism and is the most overturned court in America. But whatever ruling the Ninth Circuit issues will speed this case to the US Supreme Court, where we can finally get a ruling on the merits.

NOM is confident that we will win this case when it gets to the United States Supreme Court. But there is a huge challenge we must help meet first – money.

The good news is that supporters of Proposition 8 have secured the right to defend the intiative. The bad news is that this will cost millions of dollars—money that we don't have. We urgently need your help.

Contribute

We are already fighting on so many fronts—trying to defeat efforts in Congress to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, fighting to get the people of Iowa and New York the right to vote on an amendment, and working in countless state legislatures, like New Hampshire, Maryland, Rhode Island and New Jersey.

But defending one of our greatest accomplishments, the passage of Proposition 8 in California, cannot take a back seat to our current challenges. Somehow, we must do both.

This is the case that could become the Roe v. Wade of marriage. Imagine the damage to the gay marriage movement when the US Supreme Court rules definitively that the US Constitution does NOT contain a right to same-sex marriage! This case could become the pivotal moment in the entire battle.

NOM is only one part of the coalition working to fund the legal defense of the initiative in court. But we have an important part to play. We've already given $300,000 to the defense effort, but that is just a small fraction of the overall cost. Our opponents have unlimited resources from billionaires in Hollywood and on Wall Street. We must rely on the generosity of donors like you.

Would you please make a sacrificial gift today to help defend Proposition 8 in court? Everything you give will be used to support the Prop 8 Legal Defense Fund. Every penny. We hope to be able to free up other resources to add to what you can give.

Chuck Cooper and his legal team have won a major victory for marriage. Now it is up to us to make sure that we take advantage of the opportunity we've won. Please, help us preserve marriage by contributing today.

Contribute

Faithfully,

Brian Brown

Brian S Brown

Brian S. Brown
Executive Director
NOM Education Fund

NOM Commends California Supreme Court Decision Granting Standing of Proposition 8 Proponents to Defend Measure in Higher Courts

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: November 17, 2011
Contact: Mary Beth Hutchins (615-337-3710)


NOM Logo

Ruling Clears Way for Prop 8 to Eventually Head to the US Supreme Court

Washington — The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today praised the unanimous decision of the California Supreme Court recognizing that California law gives initiative proponents the right to defend their own initiative, and predicted the ruling would speed the case to the US Supreme Court where NOM expects a victory. NOM was the largest contributor to qualifying Prop 8 to the ballot and has invested substantial funds in the defense of the initiative in court.

“It has been nothing short of shameful to see Governor Jerry Brown, his predecessor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Kamala Harris abdicate their constitutional responsibility to defend Proposition 8 in Court,” said Brian Brown, NOM’s president. “Although today’s ruling from the California Supreme Court confirms that the proponents of Prop 8 have the right to defend their initiative when the state officials refuse to fulfill their sworn duty, it is gratifying to know that the over 7 million Californians who supported the initiative will have a vigorous defense of their decision in our federal courts.”

The decision of the California Supreme Court today now will be considered by the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which must ultimately decide whether the right of Initiative proponents recognized under state law meets the requirement for legal standing in the federal court. While the decision of the California Supreme Court is not binding on the Ninth Circuit, it seems certain that the Ninth Circuit would not ignore the advice, having asked the California Supreme Court to address this legal question.

“With this victory in hand, it is time for the Ninth Circuit to move the Prop 8 litigation forward to its eventual decision by the US Supreme Court,” Brown said. “We fully expect the Ninth Circuit, the most overturned court in America, to invalidate Prop 8, finding some phony right to same-sex marriage in the US constitution. However, once this case gets out of San Francisco and reaches the US Supreme Court, we fully expect to be victorious.”

To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, or John Eastman, Chairman of the Board, please contact Mary Beth Hutchins (x105), mhutchins@crcpublicrelations.com, or Elizabeth Ray (x130), eray@crcpublicrelations.com, at 703-683-5004.

###

9th Circuit Vacates Ruling That Might Have Been Used Against Prop 8, For Other Gay Rights Cases

Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog is sympathetic to the original ruling which the 9th Circuit has now "erased", but he must concede that it's decision couldn't be more final:

One of the modern gay rights movement’s most significant courtroom victories — a California judge’s ruling last year striking down the military’s ban on gays and lesbians — is about to vanish from the federal record books, as if it had never happened. It will do so because the Ninth Circuit Court refused on Wednesday to reconsider a ruling that erased the decision, and everything about it, and barred any gay rights lawyer from ever trying to use it to help in any other case. The brief order by the Circuit Court, denying rehearing by a three-judge panel, also noted that no judge eligible to vote even called for a tally on reconsideration by the full en banc court. This was a final legal victory for the Obama Administration in a case that at times had been bitterly contested.

... The denial of further review by the panel and by the full Circuit Court also left intact a blistering critique by one of the three judges of any jurist who would use a 2003 gay rights ruling by the Supreme Court — Lawrence v. Texas — as the basis for recognizing new rights for homosexuals.

... The panel said: “We vacate the district court’s judgment, injunction, opinions, orders, and factual findings — indeed, all of its past rulings — to clear the path for any future litigation. Those now-void legal rulings and factual findings have no precedential, preclusive, or binding effect.”

CA School Officials Prevent Parent From Making "Rainbow Day" More Inclusive

The Pacific Justice Institute:

Opening legal briefs have been filed in the California Court of Appeal, arguing that San José school officials broke the law by refusing to even consider a parent’s request to change a controversial pro-gay celebration at her child’s middle school.

The parent, Norina Mooney, started asking questions after a pro-LGBT “Rainbow Day” was held this spring at Castillero Middle School. She asked district officials to place an item on the school board’s agenda which, if approved, would have directed the school to make Rainbow Day more inclusive of non-LGBT students affected by bullying.

... School officials may have thought they succeeded in avoiding the issue, but they actually broke the law, according to Mooney’s lead attorney Kevin Snider, who is also Chief Counsel of the Pacific Justice Institute. “California law says that citizens may place items directly on school board agendas for discussion and a vote. That did not happen here,” Snider said.