http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3&id=107807

Quote :

"Two huge victories for marriage equality In an enormous victory for same-sex marriage, a federal judge in Boston today (Thursday, July 8) ruled, in two separate cases, that a critical part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional. In one challenge brought by the state of Massachusetts, Judge Joseph Tauro ruled that Congress violated the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution when it passed DOMA and took from the states decisions concerning which couples can be considered married. In the other, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, he ruled DOMA violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. In Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Health and Human Services, Tauro considered whether the federal law's definition of marriage -- one man and one woman -- violates state sovereignty by treating some couples with Massachusetts' marriage licenses differently than others. In Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), a gay legal group, asked Tauro to consider whether DOMA violates the right of eight same-sex couples to equal protection of the law. Both cases were argued, separately, in May, and the decision released today is a relatively quick turnaround, given that some judges take almost a year to decide cases. "

Quote :

"Both lawsuits are very precise legal attacks against DOMA -- targeting just Section 3 -- and most legal observers believe both cases will eventually be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court for resolution. The only other marriage case right now that has that same potential is the Proposition 8 marriage case in a federal district court in San Francisco. Judge Vaughn Walker heard closing arguments in that case in June and has not yet issued his decision. The next step for all three cases is the U.S. Court of Appeals."

Pulling from wikipedia:

Quote :

"Critics of DOMA argue that the law is unconstitutional on several grounds: * DOMA exceeds congressional authority in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. * Congress over-reached its authority under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. * The law illegally discriminates and violates the Equal Protection Clause. * The law violates the fundamental right to marriage under the due process clause. "

As the article says, the appeals still have to work their way up, but these 2 cases plus the 1 in CA challenging prop 8's constitutionality now have a decent shot at making it to SCOTUS. Pro-state's right people, and pro-equality people should both be pleased by this ruling. I imagine libertarians aren't much fans of DOMA either. Even though they are often in favor of the gov getting out of marriage, DOMA was specifically the congress getting more involved in marriage.

For the NC connection... Richard Burr voted for DOMA back in 1996, and Elaine Marshall supports efforts to repeal DOMA. I don't know if Elaine goes the extra step of allowing gay couples to marry (I imagine so though), because DOMA repeal doesn't mean marriage equality, it just means the states that do have marriage equality would get their decision recognized by the federal government. Richard Burr goes a step further in the other direction, supporting amending the US Constitution to say no gay couples can get married which shows his priorities/respect for the Constitution.

Today means at least 2 of the 3 possible cases that could go to SCOTUS are decided, and the 3rd ruling in CA will probably be decided later this month.

7/8/2010 7:22:16 PM

God damn it, why won't the federal government grant me the freedom to deny homosexuals the right to marry?

7/8/2010 7:42:43 PM

The Constitution wins again!

Quote :

"*...exceeds congressional authority in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. * Congress over-reached its authority under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. * The law illegally discriminates and violates the Equal Protection Clause. * The law violates the fundamental right to marriage under the due process clause. "

How about polygamy?

7/8/2010 8:13:40 PM

Why not?

7/8/2010 8:19:16 PM

i can't wait till i can get gay married to a robotic goat

7/8/2010 8:22:12 PM

a robo-goat isn't a person, it's chattel

7/8/2010 8:23:04 PM

What *really* needs to happen is no government sanctioned marriage (no tax or other benefits) at all. Then you can get married to a cactus for all I care.

7/8/2010 8:23:41 PM

THAT MEANS YOU HATE FAMILIES ISN'T IT TEH GUBMINT'S JOB TO PROMOTE FAMILIES

7/8/2010 8:25:05 PM

Quote :

"How about polygamy?"

IT WILL LEAD TO THE BREAK DOWN OF THE MORAL FIBER OF AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

7/8/2010 8:34:44 PM

Quote :

"At the time of passage, it was expected that Hawaii (and possibly other states) would soon legalize same-sex marriage"

-wiki

Quote :

"How about polygamy?"

Not really what DOMA is about (as in I don't think DOMA repeal has any practical effect on the law there). DOMA specifically mentions "same-sex marriage", and was done in the context of gay couples possibly getting married (although DOMA repeal doesn't make gay marriage legal, it would just gets the feds to recognize whatever the states are doing).

If DOMA goes away, then many gay couples that are married/civil unioned and living in CT, IA, MA, NH, VT, CA, CO, HI, ME, NJ, NV, OR, WA, WI, MD, RI and DC would then get fully equal marriages where the states allow them.

[Edited on July 8, 2010 at 8:52 PM. Reason : .]

7/8/2010 8:39:54 PM

Quote :

"THAT MEANS YOU HATE FAMILIES ISN'T IT TEH GUBMINT'S JOB TO PROMOTE FAMILIES"

Actually, tax code is so fucking convoluted I'm not even sure if married people get a break. You certainly do for kids.

7/8/2010 8:41:45 PM

It's about time the courts started remembering the 10th. To bad they didn't use it to strike down all federal marriage laws.

7/8/2010 10:27:14 PM

I think people with kids should be taxed more.

7/8/2010 10:31:08 PM

^^
this


^
interesting.... I tend to agree, despite my general opposition to taxes.

Quote :

"How about polygamy?"

Quote :

"Not really what DOMA is about (as in I don't think DOMA repeal has any practical effect on the law there). DOMA specifically mentions "same-sex marriage", and was done in the context of gay couples possibly getting married"

While it may not really be what DOMA is about, aren't laws open to interpretation?
After all, the act reads:

Quote :

"Powers reserved to the states: No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship. Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse': In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife"

One plus one equals two.
So, polygamy is affected. (all 50 states prohibit polygamy, but on what grounds?)

[Edited on July 9, 2010 at 7:46 AM. Reason : ]

7/9/2010 7:43:22 AM

wow. the Supreme Court knows what the 10th Amendment is? when the fuck did they figure that out?

7/9/2010 10:44:16 PM

Wasn't the supreme court.

It was some activist district court judge.

7/9/2010 11:13:47 PM

This is not an activist judge, this is a judge correctly deciding the outcome of a civil case with strong constitutional backing.

7/9/2010 11:24:08 PM

The judicial branch is the most misunderstood branch of the government.

7/10/2010 2:24:32 AM

Quote :

"It was some activist district court judge."

Once again, someone uses the term "activist judge" because they don't like how a case was decided. Don't attack the outcome, attack the jurist! Hey, maybe the judge is secretly a Muslim, too, so you can hate him twice!

7/10/2010 8:56:08 AM

Sarcasm, folks. I'm all for gay rights. But the anti-gay rights groups are already using the terminology.

7/10/2010 10:18:15 AM

Quote :

" I'm [...] gay[...]."

-jwb9984

[Edited on July 10, 2010 at 10:31 AM. Reason : ]

7/10/2010 10:30:46 AM

Someone in another thread made the argument that the 10th amendment was all but repealed due to precedent.

7/10/2010 11:30:43 AM

Well, it's not "all but repealed" but it is almost totally ignored. Most federal laws are over reaching in their scope and most federal departments, bureaus, etc. have no constitutional right to do the things they do. Unfortunately the courts have warped things like the commerce clause into allowing the federal government to do just about anything they want, enumerated powers be damned.

7/10/2010 11:57:28 AM

^^^haha, fuckin' elipses! But no, I'm not. Not that there's anything wrong with that!!

7/10/2010 12:47:34 PM

Quote :

"Someone in another thread made the argument that the 10th amendment was all but repealed due to precedent."

That was me, and I said that because of this...

Quote :

"the courts have warped things like the commerce clause into allowing the federal government to do just about anything they want"

I believe that the civil rights act was the most egregious warping of the commerce clause (yes, more than the healthcare bill). Of course, I happen to agree with the civil rights act and think it's a good thing overall for the country. If the courts agree to warp it further by upholding DOMA then OK, but if they strike it down then I guess we are drawing the line somewhere in between.

7/10/2010 2:27:27 PM

Quote :

"What *really* needs to happen is no government sanctioned marriage (no tax or other benefits) at all. Then you can get married to a cactus for all I care"

7/10/2010 5:06:51 PM

Anyone with sense knows that's what needs to happen. I don't hear a single politician talking about it. Wouldn't want to lose the "married vote," after all.

7/10/2010 6:45:03 PM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38251758/ns/world_news-americas/

Quote :

"Argentina legalizes gay marriage in historic vote BUENOS AIRES, Argentina — Argentina legalized same-sex marriage Thursday, becoming the first country in Latin America to grant gays and lesbians all the legal rights, responsibilities and protections that marriage brings to heterosexual couples. After a marathon debate, 33 lawmakers voted in favor, 27 were against it and 3 abstained in Argentina's Senate in a vote that ended after 4 a.m. Since the lower house already approved it, and President Cristina Fernandez is a strong supporter, it now becomes law as soon as it is published in the official bulletin. ... Same-sex civil unions have been legalized in Uruguay, Buenos Aires and some states in Mexico and Brazil. Mexico City has legalized gay marriage. Colombia's Constitutional Court granted same-sex couples inheritance rights and allowed them to add their partners to health insurance plans. But Argentina now becomes the first country in Latin America to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide, granting gays and lesbians all the same rights and responsibilities that heterosexuals have. These include many more rights than civil unions"

I specially liked this line of opposition:

Quote :

""They want to convert this city into the gay capital of the world," said Morales of San Luis province."

7/15/2010 8:57:07 AM

I don't understand what is being said with regards to the 10th amendment?

Quote :

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

I feel like the elephant in the room on this issue is the federal benefits married couples enjoy.

Even if you say all states can do as they wish allowing same sex couples to marry - that doesn't require that the federal government recognize them for the purpose of anything other than State Benefits.

I don't see how following the 10th would even fix anything. Infact in the few cases in which the 10th was upheld and the courts told the federal government what they could and could not do....

Quote :

" New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992), ...ruled that the imposition of that obligation on the states violated the Tenth Amendment. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote that the federal government can encourage the states to adopt certain regulations through the spending power (i.e., by attaching conditions to the receipt of federal funds, see South Dakota v. Dole), or through the commerce power (by directly pre-empting state law). However, Congress cannot directly compel states to enforce federal regulations. "

The federal government can encourage but not directly compel.

It seems to me that the benefits fall more so under the category of encouragement through spending power.

If the government can encourage certain treatment of minorities through affirmative action then why can't they encourage the marrying of a man and a woman. This wouldn't stop others from being "married" but it wouldn't guarentee them benefits(at least on a federal level) either - and lets be honest that is what everyone is after.

I'm not so sure this is a one or the other issue - but everyone is intent on taking a side - could this backfire later on?

7/15/2010 12:09:46 PM

I think I heard something about them complaining about town halls having to keep 2 sets of books, and that it'd be cheaper/easier to only keep one. Found a few related quotes:

Quote :

"It is a burden on Massachusetts to keep two sets of laws. For some purposes you're married under our law, for other purposes you're not married under federal law. Judge Tauro's decision changed that."

Quote :

"Massachusetts cannot receive or retain federal funds if it gives same-sex and different-sex spouses equal treatment, namely by authorizing the burial of a same-sex spouse in a federally-funded veterans’ cemetery and by recognizing the marriages of same-sex spouses in assessing eligibility for Medicaid health benefits"

Quote :

"Well, I think there’s several ways, and we’ve stated in our complaint that, in terms of over a thousand federal benefits, same-sex couples are treated differently in Massachusetts. And that includes everything from income tax, to federal gift tax, to spending accounts, Social Security spousal benefits, Medicare, medical leave, public safety officer benefits — and so, for those reasons, individuals are impacted differently. It also impacts the commonwealth, as I said, because we jointly administer several kinds of programs, including health care benefits through our MassHealth program, and particularly through cemetery burial services. And so we are in the position now of working with the federal government on benefits that our resident citizens should be entitled to, but there’s a two-tiered system for our disposing of those benefits."

-MA's Attorney General

Maybe this will help reduce the government's department of redundancy department a little for that state.

7/15/2010 12:33:43 PM

Quote :

"Well, I think there’s several ways, and we’ve stated in our complaint that, in terms of over a thousand federal benefits, same-sex couples are treated differently in Massachusetts. "

Quote :

" New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992), ...ruled that ...the federal government can encourage the states to adopt certain regulations through the spending power (i.e., by attaching conditions to the receipt of federal funds, see South Dakota v. Dole)"

Not sure what the problem is here?

A federal benefit is just that... federal. The state can do whatever they want - but they have to play the game if they want "encouragement"

7/15/2010 1:16:11 PM

^Well it wasn't just states rights that this ruling was based on, it was also about violating the equal protection clause. If the gov wants to get out of the business of marrying couples, then fine, but until they do they are going to be hard pressed to justify stuff like allowing the wife of male veteran to be buried with him, but not allowing the wife of a female veteran to do the same.

7/15/2010 1:29:41 PM

why?

there is no requirement that the vet be buried there.
Maybe the States need to step up and maintain cemetaries for their vets. Then they can grant whoever they please to be buried there.

I don't see how "equal protection" falls under the scope of benefits that are used to encourage states, business, citizens, etc. to act a certain way. By design a benefit is preferential treatment for something - so it is inheriently bias towards something. Short of removing benefits or the govenment ability to influence all together I'm not sure how far you can take this arguement.

But now we are getting into entitlements - people have come to feel that certain things are owed to them just because they were born. This leads to the misconception that they are being discriminated against.

Denial of preferential treatment is not the same a denial of a right.

7/15/2010 2:39:14 PM

So what are you thoughts on cases like Loving v. Virginia and Perez v. Sharp where decisions were based on things like marriage being one of the "basic civil rights of man" and both relied on marriage bans being unconstitutional in terms of violating the 14th amendment?

7/15/2010 2:51:29 PM

Quote :

"What *really* needs to happen is no government sanctioned marriage (no tax or other benefits) at all. Then you can get married to a cactus for all I care"

I agree, except that some legal contract would still be necessary to deal with child custody, power of attorney, hospital visitation, etc. And of course, only adult humans can reasonably give consent. Someone should be able to "marry" a cactus if they want, but no legal ramifications/implications should result from it, because no legal contract would apply.

[Edited on July 15, 2010 at 3:17 PM. Reason : Diaper fee for chimp brides]

7/15/2010 3:05:42 PM

Quote :

"So what are you thoughts on cases like Loving v. Virginia and Perez v. Sharp where decisions were based on things like marriage being one of the "basic civil rights of man" and both relied on marriage bans being unconstitutional in terms of violating the 14th amendment? "

my broad thoughts are - it's all a big game: you can play by the rules and use them to your advantage... or you can pick up your toys and go somewhere else. Things are not always going to go your way. If you want the government to cater to "you" - you need to find a way to give them a reason to.

Though specifically I am not familiar with those cases - a brief reading leads me to confusion
about what you are asking. These cases seem to apply to state only court decisions and I thought we were talking about fed vs state.

as far as the 14th amendment is concerned

Quote :

" No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "

that is another topic all together - depending on how you interpret the wording.

Though it still doesn't seem to apply.
If the federal government doesn't recognize same sex marrige then how could a state law against it(or not explicitly for it) abridge any privileges or deny any protection that does not exist??

again I am asking about federal benefits here - you seem to keep asking me about States Issues.

I guess I'll take it back to this...
Abridging privileges and denying protection is not same as - not providing preferential incentives equally to everyone.

[Edited on July 15, 2010 at 3:39 PM. Reason : closing]

7/15/2010 3:32:42 PM

Quote :

"my broad thoughts are - it's all a big game: you can play by the rules"

But the rules are ever changing and in many cases pretty arbitrary. So part of playing the game is trying to change the rules. And DOMA is a pretty shitty rule to begin with. Its a 14 year old rule, and I'm hoping it wont live to see its 20th birthday.

7/15/2010 3:39:52 PM

^that is exactly right
which takes me to the 2nd part of that statement...

Quote :

"If you want the government to cater to "you" - you need to find a way to give them a reason to. "

This could be taken to a variety of extents. But essentially you need to have something that they want. Money, power, and influence are the first things that come to mind. If you don't have those... then your first step should be to position yourself to get them. Otherwise do your best to play the game because it is not likely that you will be able to change the rules.

7/15/2010 3:45:55 PM

Quote :

"So what are you thoughts on cases like Loving v. Virginia and Perez v. Sharp where decisions were based on things like marriage being one of the "basic civil rights of man" and both relied on marriage bans being unconstitutional in terms of violating the 14th amendment?"

the Loving case didn't say that states couldn't make laws restricting who could get married. it only said that you couldn't put someone in jail for marrying someone else... Perez is more to the point of what you are saying, but I wouldn't hold Loving up as an example of all that much...

7/15/2010 9:38:17 PM

http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/news/federal-court-to-release-its-decision-tomorrow/

Quote :

"The federal court announced today that it will release its decision in the American Foundation for Equal Right’s landmark case, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, on Wednesday. Text “EQUAL” to 69866 to get a text message with the official decision on your mobile phone the moment the court releases its decision, or sign-up for an email alert at equalrightsfoundation.org. Join AFER on its Web site to watch a live press conference with our plaintiffs and co-counsels Ted Olson and David Boies following the release of the decision. As we receive news about the details of the release, AFER will update our Facebook and Twitter profiles, along with our Web site."

Looks like the Perry v. Schwarzenegger decision is coming down tomorrow in CA. Depending on how this ruling goes, it along with the MA ruling could help fuel SCOTUS looking into DOMA.

8/3/2010 11:23:43 PM

http://www.scribd.com/doc/35374801/Prop-8-Ruling

Quote :

"CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Each challenge is independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation."

[Edited on August 4, 2010 at 4:54 PM. Reason : .]

8/4/2010 4:54:20 PM

A win for civil libertarians, and a step towards a smaller government.

8/4/2010 5:48:16 PM

Fabulous!

8/4/2010 5:56:23 PM

Between the 2 MA cases & CA things are looking good for when this winds its way up to SCOTUS in 3 or so years:

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2010/08/04/expect-a-win-for-plaintiffs-and-gay-marriage-in-perry-prop8-case/

Quote :

"The decision by Vaughn Walker to have a full fledged trial with a full evidentiary record was inspired and put the Perry case in a unique position compared to how such issues are usually handled on submitted pleadings and argument. This one had a real trial with a real record; that makes a ton of difference for the appeal. Appellate courts cannot just substitute their views for that of the trial court when there is an evidentiary record, findings of fact and conclusions of law like this, where it is much easier to do so if it has been decided by preliminary injunctive relief, motions or on the pleadings."

Also, since this was Perry v Schwarzenegger I thought I'd throw in Governor Schwarzenegger's response:

http://gov.ca.gov/press-release/15738/

Quote :

"Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger today issued the following statement after U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker issued a ruling invalidating Proposition 8: “Judge Walker had the great responsibility of deciding whether Proposition 8 violates the Constitution of the United States. He heard in-depth arguments from both sides on fundamental questions of due process, equal protection and freedom from discrimination. There are strong feelings on both sides of this issue, and I am glad that all viewpoints were respected throughout the proceedings. We should also recognize that there will continue to be different points of view in the wake of this decision. “For the hundreds of thousands of Californians in gay and lesbian households who are managing their day-to-day lives, this decision affirms the full legal protections and safeguards I believe everyone deserves. At the same time, it provides an opportunity for all Californians to consider our history of leading the way to the future, and our growing reputation of treating all people and their relationships with equal respect and dignity. “Today's decision is by no means California's first milestone, nor our last, on America's road to equality and freedom for all people.”"

[Edited on August 4, 2010 at 8:29 PM. Reason : .]

8/4/2010 8:23:49 PM

you'd be surprised to find out the supreme court can pretty much do whatever the fuck it wants... Just ask Earl Warren

8/4/2010 8:31:33 PM

so a gay judge rules against Prop 8


SHOCKING


Not that its a bad thing, but since Ahnold and Jerry Brown both basically backed off this case they must have known it was going to fail.

Honestly I don't care if Homosexuals want to get married. Its no sweat off my back, the institution of marriage between a man and woman has been a sham for years anyways look at the divorce rates.

8/4/2010 9:33:34 PM

^^or John Roberts

anyway I'm surprised that not even the agents of intolerance thought anything unusual about the judge's open homosexuality with respect to this case

[Edited on August 4, 2010 at 9:36 PM. Reason : "conservative" and "activist" are neither mutually exclusive nor inclusive

8/4/2010 9:35:36 PM

Quote :

"you'd be surprised to find out the supreme court can pretty much do whatever the fuck it wants."

Even so, this is the basically the best case that could be made. They had about 80 findings of fact, which is apparently very extensive, by this George H. W. Bush appointee judge. And findings of fact are apparently a lot more binding on appeals than are findings of law. And the winning counsel in this case certainly had familiarity with SCOTUS and had SCOTUS in mind in crafting and framing their arguments:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/02262010/profile.html

Quote :

"The quest for marriage equality has created some unlikely allies in attorneys Theodore Olson, a conservative, and David Boies, a liberal. Long well-known within the field of law, the two became nationally famous as the opposing counsels in Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court case that halted the Florida recount, and resolved the 2000 Presidential election in favor of George W. Bush. Now the two lawyers, both veterans of multiple Supreme Court cases, have mounted a well-financed legal challenge to Proposition 8"

The next stop is the 9th circuit headquartered in San Fransisco, representing places like the west coast & their neighboring states, and Hawaii. So we're still looking at 2 or 3 years before SCOTUS gets into this, but its pretty obvious that its going to make it there. And as far as divorce rates go, MA has had marriage equality the longest of any state in the US, and has the lowest divorce rate in the country and its lower than it has been since pre-WW2 so its not rising to the religious rights arguments of destroying the institution.

All told, this is the best possible situation heading to SCOTUS.

8/4/2010 9:42:52 PM

To add a local angle to all this, the National Organization for Marriage (an organization that is opposed to this ruling) is busing around the country this summer to protest equality in state capitals. They'll be busing into North Carolina in just under a week. Fortunately the whole we don't have enough official religious stances in government argument isn't holding as much water as it used to.



Here is a sign from one of their events:


A few vids from one of their earlier stops:
http://ideationplantation.blogspot.com/2010/07/standing-by-love.html

8/4/2010 10:45:41 PM

The story on this "liberal activist" judge is interesting. From CATO:

Quote :

"In fact, Judge Walker was first appointed to the federal bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1987, at the recommendation of Attorney General Edwin Meese III (now the Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow in Public Policy and Chairman of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation). Democratic opposition led by Sen. Alan Cranston (D-CA) prevented the nomination from coming to a vote during Reagan’s term. Walker was renominated by President George H. W. Bush in February 1989. Again the Democratic Senate refused to act on the nomination. Finally Bush renominated Walker in August, and the Senate confirmed him in December. What was the hold-up? Two issues, basically. Like many accomplished men of the time, he was a member of an all-male club, the Olympic Club. Many so-called liberals said that should disqualify him for the federal bench. People for the American Way, for instance, said in a letter to Judiciary Committee chair Joe Biden, “The time has come to send a clear signal that there is no place on the federal bench for an individual who has, for years maintained membership in a discriminatory club and taken no meaningful steps to change the club’s practices.” The second issue was that as a lawyer in private practice he had represented the U.S. Olympic Committee in a suit that prevented a Bay Area group from calling its athletic competition the Gay Olympics. Because of those issues, coalitions including such groups as the NAACP, the National Organization for Women, the Human Rights Campaign, the Lambda Legal Defense Fund, and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force worked to block the nomination."

8/4/2010 10:55:24 PM