Plantiff Files Prop 8 Brief For Supreme Court

[TAO]

When in doubt, go for the slippery slope argument.

Slippery Slope is a valid argument sometimes. I think this slippery slope is valid because there have been other instances where laws are justified on other laws. Therefore, is it not prudent to check out some of the laws that can be justified on this one that have a good likeliness to get passed?

[TAO]

I think it's worse than a slippery slope argument. It's essentially saying that we should preemptively try to prevent marriage rights for others in case they might possibly, in the future, attempt to somehow limit our rights.

Well, I suppose it's what you'd call acting before they act. But is it bad considering that I pointed out an example of them trying to limit our rights? In other words, it isn't a hypothetical anymore; they ARE trying to limit our rights right now.

As I've noted before, it strikes me as antithetical to D&C 134.

I can understand why you'd think that. But is not doing nothing antiethical as well considering all the warnings about governments which lead the people in the wrong direction? While it is true that it is not good to mingle religious influence with civil government, the civil government doesn't have much hesitation mingling it's influence in what should be religious. So is acting before they do uncalled for?

Hmmm... I think why we are disagreeing is simply because I look at government differnetly than you do. I look at things as a set of different possibilities, and choose the most practical one. You desire a place where gays have the right to marry, but also don't infringe on the rights of others to oppose their morality system. However, I think the likeliness of that happening is extremely small because of the activists on both sides pushing so hard. That's why I'm not willing to go that way; I don't think that it is likely. So I cut my losses, and go with the next best path.

[rockpond]

Well, I suppose it's what you'd call acting before they act. But is it bad considering that I pointed out an example of them trying to limit our rights? In other words, it isn't a hypothetical anymore; they ARE trying to limit our rights right now.

I can understand why you'd think that. But is not doing nothing antiethical as well considering all the warnings about governments which lead the people in the wrong direction? While it is true that it is not good to mingle religious influence with civil government, the civil government doesn't have much hesitation mingling it's influence in what should be religious. So is acting before they do uncalled for?

Hmmm... I think why we are disagreeing is simply because I look at government differnetly than you do. I look at things as a set of different possibilities, and choose the most practical one. You desire a place where gays have the right to marry, but also don't infringe on the rights of others to oppose their morality system. However, I think the likeliness of that happening is extremely small because of the activists on both sides pushing so hard. That's why I'm not willing to go that way; I don't think that it is likely. So I cut my losses, and go with the next best path.

I appreciate your fair minded summary paragraph at the end. It's difficult to accurately summarize someone else's position but you did well.

Regarding your first paragraph, I don't see how the FAIR act violates our civil rights. I don't necessarily support that kind of legislation but all kinds of groups lobby for public school curriculum. The curriculum in my kids' public school is not exactly what I want it to be but I don't count that as a violation of my civil rights.

[Daniel2]

The Federal Government also filed a brief in this case (both DOMA and Prop 8 are being heard at the same time):

US asks Supreme Court to strike down law denying benefits to same-sex couples

By M. Alex Johnson, staff writer, NBC News

The Obama administration urged the Supreme Court on Friday to throw out a section of a 1996 federal law that prohibits recognition of same-sex marriage.

The brief was filed Friday in United States v. Windsor, a case challenging Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, the law that legally declares marriage to be only between a man and a woman. That section allows state and federal authorities to deny benefits to same-sex couples that are commonplace for heterosexual couples, like insurance for government workers and Social Security survivors' benefits.

Oral arguments are scheduled for March 27.

In its brief (.pdf), the U.S. bluntly declares: "Section 3 of DOMA violates the fundamental constitutional guarantee of equal protection.

"The law denies to tens of thousands of same-sex couples who are legally married under state law an array of important federal benefits that are available to legally married opposite-sex couples," said the brief, which was signed by Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, the government's chief trial lawyer. "Because this discrimination cannot be justified as substantially furthering any important governmental interest, Section 3 is unconstitutional."

In a footnote, the brief mentions California's Proposition 8 and similar measures in other states as evidence that anti-gay discrimination remains a major problem.

In effect, the U.S. is asking the court to change DOMA to set a higher bar for courts to approve laws that discriminate against gay men and lesbians, Lyle Denniston, a Supreme Court expert, wrote on the influential ScotusBlog.

President Barack Obama announced in 2011 that the U.S. would no longer enforce DOMA, but "this is the first time the federal government has proposed that constitutional test in a gay rights case before the Supreme Court," Denniston writes. "The court itself has never specified just what constitutional standard it will apply in such cases, but it may have to settle that this term."

[Glenn101]

Joseph Smith taught that Sodom was destroyed for rejecting the prophets (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 271-272).

But if you are going to read Genesis 19:5 and the euphemistic sexual interpretation of "know" as the reason Sodom was destroyed, then it seems more appropriate to conclude that the city incurred God's wrath as a result of their desire to rape visitors to the city.

Then again, that type of reading of chapter 19 also seems to require an explanation of why Lot offered up with daughters to an upset mob of sexual predators.

Personally, my belief leans toward Joseph Smith's more general conclusion of rejecting the prophets. Reading too specifically (i.e. God destroyed Sodom for homosexuality) strikes me as an anachronistic view.

I hope that you will read my post again. I did not say that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed ONLY for homosexuality. However, the "know" euphemism is correct in its context. It is used repeatedly in the Old Testament. (Genesis 4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain.... Genesis 4:17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch....)

Also, for an explanation of Lot's actions, you would do well to read the JST clarification of those passages. In the JST Lot did NOT offer his daughters to those who were calling for Lot to send out his visitors that they might "know" them. Read JST Genesis 19:9-15 here.

Glenn

It seems that I am taking the thread off track a bit. I will not comment further on this particular issue.

[rockpond]

I hope that you will read my post again. I did not say that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed ONLY for homosexuality. However, the "know" euphemism is correct in its context. It is used repeatedly in the Old Testament. (Genesis 4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain.... Genesis 4:17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch....)

Also, for an explanation of Lot's actions, you would do well to read the JST clarification of those passages. In the JST Lot did NOT offer his daughters to those who were calling for Lot to send out his visitors that they might "know" them. Read JST Genesis 19:9-15 here.

Glenn

It seems that I am taking the thread off track a bit. I will not comment further on this particular issue.

Know is used more often in the OT in its non-sexual connotation.

And yes, Joseph Smith further clarified those verses. He also taught that Sodom was destroyed for rejecting the prophets.

Homosexuality may have been one of the reasons but there is no contextual justification for that within the story in Genesis. If you are going to use that story as one of the reasons the city was destroyed (even though the Lord had already told Abraham it was to be destroyed) then the sin involved seems to be their desire to rape Lot's guests.

[Glenn101]

Know is used more often in the OT in its non-sexual connotation.

I guess I lied, I am going to respond to the above statement. I agree with it. However, the context in which this opne is used clearly denotes a sexual connotation.

Glenn

[TAO]

I appreciate your fair minded summary paragraph at the end. It's difficult to accurately summarize someone else's position but you did well.

Thanks. I try to keep a somewhat even head... even when I'm feeling heated XD. To me it's sort of... well... ethically wrong for me to not look at the other person's point of view, if you know what I mean. So I feel compelled to mention it all the time which is sort of wierd I guess =p.

Regarding your first paragraph, I don't see how the FAIR act violates our civil rights.

Well, it depends what you consider a civil right. If you are talking about what is considered a civil rights by the courts, then no, it probably wouldn't be (yet). But then again, neither would gay mairrage (yet). What I'm talking about though is civil rights as considered by people (which is a bit more relative). People generally think education needs to be unbiased. This act, destroys the neutral zone schools have been hanging out in. There are three main things which I feel are iffy about it. First, it (1) forces schools to mention homosexuality to children at young ages (2) prevents any criticisms from being mentioned (but doesn't prevent schools from criticizing the opposite opinion) and (3) does not allow concientious objection. I look to these things as limited civil rights, and these things cross the boundary.

I don't necessarily support that kind of legislation but all kinds of groups lobby for public school curriculum. The curriculum in my kids' public school is not exactly what I want it to be but I don't count that as a violation of my civil rights.

Well, I could say the same thing about gay mairrage, you see. The law may not be what you want it to be, but you shouldn't count that as a violation of civil rights. I guess my point is this; people consider 'civil rights' to be different things. Just as you see laws banning gay mairrage as violating people's civil rights, I see the FAIR act as violating civil rights as well. That's my opinion, in a sense.

[rockpond]

Well, it depends what you consider a civil right. If you are talking about what is considered a civil rights by the courts, then no, it probably wouldn't be (yet). But then again, neither would gay mairrage (yet). What I'm talking about though is civil rights as considered by people (which is a bit more relative). People generally think education needs to be unbiased. This act, destroys the neutral zone schools have been hanging out in. There are three main things which I feel are iffy about it. First, it (1) forces schools to mention homosexuality to children at young ages (2) prevents any criticisms from being mentioned (but doesn't prevent schools from criticizing the opposite opinion) and (3) does not allow concientious objection. I look to these things as limited civil rights, and these things cross the boundary.

The FAIR Education Act (available in its entirety here) does not force schools to mention homosexuality to children at a young age. It only requires that the contributions of a long list of minorities to the state and country be included in the curriculum. The curriculum doesn't need to highlight sexual orientation, just the contributions of those folks. It also doesn't prevent any criticisms from being mentioned. It only says that they cannot provide instruction that promotes a discriminatory bias on the basis of race or ethnicity, gender, religion, disability, nationality, or sexual orientation.

Well, I could say the same thing about gay mairrage, you see. The law may not be what you want it to be, but you shouldn't count that as a violation of civil rights. I guess my point is this; people consider 'civil rights' to be different things. Just as you see laws banning gay mairrage as violating people's civil rights, I see the FAIR act as violating civil rights as well. That's my opinion, in a sense.

Agreed. In my opinion, a lack of marriage equality for our homosexual citizens is a violation of the 14th amendment. I also believe that it is a violation of their religious freedom to not legally recognize same gender marriages performed in churches that support such unions while we continue to legally recognize opposite gender marriages performed in our churches and temples.

[TAO]

The FAIR Education Act (available in its entirety here) does not force schools to mention homosexuality to children at a young age.

It forces them to, "...include only instructional materials which, in their determination, accurately portray the cultural and racial diversity of our society...". This can be at a young age. Any age really =/.

It only requires that the contributions of a long list of minorities to the state and country be included in the curriculum.

Yes, and that curriculum is taught at a young age. That's worrisome.

The curriculum doesn't need to highlight sexual orientation, just the contributions of those folks.

And it has to mention the fact that they are gay. That will obviously bring up the issue. Even more than that though, they are still free to go past mentioning to actually highlight their sexuality; they aren't prevented from making it a big issue if they want to.

It also doesn't prevent any criticisms from being mentioned. It only says that they cannot provide instruction that promotes a discriminatory bias on the basis of race or ethnicity, gender, religion, disability, nationality, or sexual orientation.

I think preventing 'discrimination' (a vauge term) is pretty much the same as preventing any criticism. I've met a lot of people who think anything opposing homosexuality is automatically discrimination. I suspect that will be how it is viewed in schools.

Agreed. In my opinion, a lack of marriage equality for our homosexual citizens is a violation of the 14th amendment. I also believe that it is a violation of their religious freedom to not legally recognize same gender marriages performed in churches that support such unions while we continue to legally recognize opposite gender marriages performed in our churches and temples.

Indeed, we both have our views.

[rockpond]

It forces them to, "...include only instructional materials which, in their determination, accurately portray the cultural and racial diversity of our society...". This can be at a young age. Any age really =/.

Yes, and that curriculum is taught at a young age. That's worrisome.

And it has to mention the fact that they are gay. That will obviously bring up the issue. Even more than that though, they are still free to go past mentioning to actually highlight their sexuality; they aren't prevented from making it a big issue if they want to.

I think preventing 'discrimination' (a vauge term) is pretty much the same as preventing any criticism. I've met a lot of people who think anything opposing homosexuality is automatically discrimination. I suspect that will be how it is viewed in schools.

Indeed, we both have our views.

You are reading a lot into that law that isn't there. It requires that the curriculum include contributions of minority citizens. It does not require that the sexual orientation of those minorities be discussed.

Those who want to make it a big issue were not prevented from doing so before this law. For example, someone who wanted to spend an excessive amount of time on Harvey Milk including an explanation of his sexual orientation could have done that even before this law was passed. A teacher who does not want to discuss Harvey Milk's sexual orientation still does not need to discuss it.

[TAO]

You are reading a lot into that law that isn't there. It requires that the curriculum include contributions of minority citizens. It does not require that the sexual orientation of those minorities be discussed.

Well if they don't mention it, I don't have a problem. If they do, I have a problem.

Those who want to make it a big issue were not prevented from doing so before this law. For example, someone who wanted to spend an excessive amount of time on Harvey Milk including an explanation of his sexual orientation could have done that even before this law was passed. A teacher who does not want to discuss Harvey Milk's sexual orientation still does not need to discuss it.

Do you have a source on this?

[cdowis]

This points out that one must be very careful in deciding where to live, especially if you have school age children. The courts have basically given carta blanche on what can be required by the school boards to be taught (except, of course, creationism).

They can give sex education classes without any notification to the parents, with no opt out option.

[california boy]

75+ Prominent Republicans Sign Brief Urging Supreme Court to Strike Down Proposition 8

Among those signing the brief, according to organizers, are former RNC Chair Ken Mehlman, former California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman, former U.S. Deputy Atty General Jim Comey, Mary Cheney, Senior Romney Adviser in Iowa Dave Kochel, Reps Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) and Richard Hanna (R-NY), and Bush National Security Advisor Steven Hadley.

Many of those who signed it have never before made public their support of marriage equality.

The brief argues that "there is no legitimate, fact-based justification for different legal treatment of committed relationships between same-sex couples," arguing that marriage equality promotes conservative values:

Amici start from the premise—recognized by this Court on at least fourteen occasions—that marriage is both a fundamental right protected by our Constitution and a venerable institution that confers countless benefits, both to those who marry and to society at large. … It is precisely because marriage is so important in producing and protecting strong and stable family structures that amici do not agree that the government can rationally promote the goal of strengthening families by denying civil marriage to same-sex couples.

It also argues that there is no credible social science behind the arguments pushed by Prop 8's proponents:

Deinstitutionalization. No credible evidence supports the deinstitutionalization theory. … Petitioners fail to explain how extending civil marriage to same-sex couples will dilute or undermine the benefits of that institution for opposite-sex couples … or for society at large. It will instead do the opposite. Extending civil marriage to same-sex couples is a clear endorsement of the multiple benefits of marriage—stability, lifetime commitment, financial support during crisis and old age, etc.—and a reaffirmation of the social value of this institution.

Biology. There is also no biological justification for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples. Allowing same-sex couples to marry in no way undermines the importance of marriage for opposite-sex couples who enter into marriage to provide a stable family structure for their children.

Child Welfare. If there were persuasive evidence that same-sex marriage was detrimental to children, amici would give that evidence great weight. But there is not. Social scientists have resoundingly rejected the claim that children fare better when raised by opposite-sex parents than they would with same-sex parents.

And although the law is consonant with firmly held beliefs, it does not sustain its Constitutionality:

Although amici firmly believe that society should proceed cautiously before adopting significant changes to beneficial institutions, we do not believe that society must remain indifferent to facts. This Court has not hesitated to reconsider a law’s outmoded justifications and, where appropriate, to deem them insufficient to survive an equal protection challenge. The bases on which the proponents of laws like Proposition 8 rely are the products of similar thinking that can no longer pass muster when the evidence as it now stands is viewed rationally, not through the lens of belief though sincerely held.

Finally, the brief encourages court to protect the fundamental right to marry by offering it to same-sex couples:

Choosing to marry is also a paradigmatic exercise of human liberty. Marriage is thus central to government’s goal of promoting the liberty of individuals and a free society. For those who choose to marry, legal recognition of that marriage serves as a bulwark against unwarranted government intervention into deeply personal concerns such as the way in which children will be raised and in medical decisions.

Amici recognize that a signal and admirable characteristic of our judiciary is the exercise of restraint. Nonetheless, this Court’s “deference in matters of policy cannot … become abdication of matters of law.” The right to marry indisputably falls within the narrow band of specially protected liberties that this Court ensures are protected from unwarranted curtailment. Proposition 8 ran afoul of our constitutional order by submitting to popular referendum a fundamental right that there is no legitimate, fact-based reason to deny to same-sex couples. This case accordingly presents one of the rare but inescapable instances in which this Court must intervene to redress overreaching by the electorate.

Meg Whitman, the republican candidate for governor of California.

Why I Support Civil Marriage For Same-Sex Couples

I have joined a prominent group of conservatives, moderate Republicans and social libertarians in signing an amicus brief on behalf of Paul Katami, Jeff Zarrillo, Kristin Perry and Sandra Steir in their case challenging Proposition 8, California’s ban on same-sex marriage. I feel the time has come to bestow marriage equality to same-sex couples.

I have come to embrace same-sex marriage after a period of careful review and reflection. As a candidate for governor three years ago, I supported Proposition 8. At the time, I believed the people of California had weighed in on this question and that overturning the will of the people was the wrong approach. The facts and arguments presented during the legal process since then have had a profound impact on my thinking.

In reviewing the amicus brief before deciding to put my signature on it, one passage struck an immediate chord with me. In explaining his own support for same-sex marriage, British Prime Minister David Cameron once said, “Society is stronger when we make vows to each other and support each other. So I don’t support gay marriage despite being a conservative. I support gay marriage because I am a conservative.”

During my business career, I have lived by a philosophy I refer to as “the power of many.” I truly believe that what we can do together, none of us can do alone. By leading from this principle, I have been able to manage thriving organizations that have delivered great results. I believe the same holds true for society at-large. We are simply better when we are bonded together.

Marriage is the fundamental institution that unites a society. It is the single greatest contributor to the well-being of adults and children because it promotes eternal principles like commitment, fidelity and stability. It makes no difference whether the marriage is between a man and woman or a woman and woman. Marriage makes society better.

The core argument of the amicus brief is that there is no legitimate, fact-based reason for providing different legal treatment of committed relationships between same-sex couples. Without the presence of such a rationale, precedent should result in the U.S. Supreme Court overturning California’s ban on gay marriage.

The amicus brief argues that the oft-cited claims that civil marriage between same-sex couples will somehow hurt traditional marriage and be detrimental to children have been rejected by social science. Rather, we now know that children who grow up in intact, married families are much more likely to do well in school, achieve professional success and enjoy the benefits of stable, adult family lives.

In contrast, children who live with unmarried, cohabitating partners encounter significant challenges in their lives due to the higher separation rates of their parents and lower household incomes. Laws like California’s Proposition 8 do not fortify traditional marriage, they merely prevent hundreds of thousands of children of same-sex couples from enjoying the benefits that accrue from marriage.

Like several others who have either sought or held public office, including President Obama, I have changed my mind on this issue. Same-sex couples and their children should have equal access to the benefits of marriage.

My decision to support civil marriage is solely my own. I hope that the Supreme Court will heed the arguments in the amicus brief. Establishing a constitutional right of marriage equalityin California will strengthen our nation as a whole.

[rockpond]

Do you have a source on this?

The text of the law, linked in my previous post, does not require that teachers instruct on sexual orientation.

[TAO]

The text of the law, linked in my previous post, does not require that teachers instruct on sexual orientation.

No, I asked for a soruce that teachers could teach an excessive amount of Harvey Milk before this law. As far as I know, teachers had to stay pretty close to the textbook. Schools in general however, weren't bound that way.

[rockpond]

No, I asked for a soruce that teachers could teach an excessive amount of Harvey Milk before this law. As far as I know, teachers had to stay pretty close to the textbook. Schools in general however, weren't bound that way.

Oh, no, I don't have a source for that. It was an assumption based on my experience of teachers choosing our topics and books that we read. Are there laws that go to that extent of dictating, for example, which books a high school English teacher could have his/her students read?

[TAO]

Oh, no, I don't have a source for that. It was an assumption based on my experience of teachers choosing our topics and books that we read. Are there laws that go to that extent of dictating, for example, which books a high school English teacher could have his/her students read?

For High School and middle school, probably not. But they are a bit more strict about elementary where I live. They do have a limited book list from what I remember, however.

[Daniel2]

Think Progress reports:

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/02/28/1650541/poll-61-percent-of-californians-support-marriage-equality/

By Zack Ford on Feb 28, 2013 at 9:00 am

Today is the deadline for submitting amicus (friend of the court) briefs in the Supreme Court case challenging California’s Proposition 8, and a new poll suggests California is more ready than ever to embrace marriage equality. According to Field Poll, 61 percent of California voters support marriage equality, while only 32 percent oppose. Women, young people, and Catholics continue to be the most supportive, while Republicans are still largely opposed. Nevertheless, just since 2010, favor among Republicans has grown from 26 percent to 39 percent. The chart below from the Sacramento Bee shows the full results:

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/California-Marriage-Poll.gif

[california boy]

A summary of some of the briefs being filed against prop 8. If you want to know what the real issues are that will be discussed about Prop 8, this should give you a better idea.

States with Marriage Equality: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont and Washington, plus the District of Columbia

The brief argues that the States’ interests in marriage are all furthered by allowing same-sex couples to wed. These interests include: promoting the well-being of couples and their children, strengthening the legal and economic protections for families, and securing for the broader community the efficiency and stability created by marital households. Furthermore, amici argue that Proposition 8 is not rationally related to the Proponent’s asserted interests of procreation and child-rearing because: 1) excluding same-sex couples from marriage does not further the well-being of children; 2) same-sex parents are as capable as different-sex parents of raising healthy, well-adjusted children; and 3) promoting responsible procreation does not justify restricting marriage to different-sex couples. Additionally, amici address speculation about the erosion of marriage based on allowing same-sex couples to marry, and demonstrate that no such erosion will occur. Amici examine 1) marriage rates; 2) divorce rates; and 3) non-marital births, to demonstrate that in states where marriage by same-sex couples is permitted, the institution of marriage remains strong.

State of California

Proposition 8 violates the Fourteenth Amendment because it does not further the interests identified by Proponents. To the contrary, amici declare that marriage equality best further California’s interests in ensuring a stable home for California’s children. Amici also argue initiative proponents lack standing to pursue appellate review.

Southern Poverty Law Center

“The arguments advanced by supporters of Proposition 8 s

eem like echoes from the past. The warnings of social atrophy and moral decline and the invocation of religious prohibition are all eerily familiar.”

Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom (BALIF), et al

This brief explains the harm inflicted on gay men and lesbians as a result of Proposition 8’s pernicious classification. Because Proposition 8 excludes them from marriage, gay men and lesbians and their families are stigmatized, deprived of benefits enjoyed by their heterosexual counterparts, and exposed to increased discrimination. These effects are repugnant to the Constitution’s equality guarantee and are in no way mitigated by access to the separate and inherently inferior mechanism of domestic partnership. Proposition 8 fails rational basis because it creates classifications that serve only to disadvantage the burdened group. Additionally, Proposition 8 creates a two-tiered system of those whose relationships can be recognized as part of the revered institution of marriage and those that are forced into inherently inferior domestic partnerships.

Family Equality Council, Emory Child Rights Project, COLAGE, Our Family Coalition, Center on Children and Families, and individual amici Sarah Gogin

Using the testimony of children raised in homes led by same-sex parents and testimony from LGBT youth about their personal experiences, Family Equality Council, et al. demonstrates that: 1) same-sex parented families are successfully and responsibly creating and nurturing the next generation; 2) contrary to their stated purpose of stabilizing families, both Proposition 8 and DOMA delegitimize the families of same-sex parents in the eyes of the law and society; and 3) both Proposition 8 and DOMA harm LGBT youth by teaching them that their government considers them, and any committed relationships they may form as adults, to be inherently inferior to those of their heterosexual peers.

Parents, Families & Friends of Lesbians & Gays (“PFLAG”)

Using the personal stories of parents of gay men and lesbians the brief explains how: 1) Proposition 8 dishonors gay men and lesbians; 2) domestic partnership is no substitute for marriage; and 3) the marriage of same-sex couples does not pose any risks to the marriages of opposite-sex couples.

Utah Pride Center, Campaign for Southern Equality, Equality Federation and 25 State-wide Equality Organizations

Using Utah as a case study, this brief demonstrates that in many states, discrimination against gay men and lesbians occurs from the cradle to the grave. The brief gives examples of: 1) educational statutes that discriminate against gay people; 2) laws targeting the ability of high school students to have gay-straight alliances; 3) bans and restrictions on the ability of same-sex couples to adopt; and 4) bans on marriages between individuals of the same sex. Amici argue that heightened scrutiny is warranted because gay citizens lack the political power to prevent new discriminatory laws from being passed or to eradicate those that already exist. The brief concludes by asking the Court to guarantee equal protection under the law for all gay citizens, not just those that are fortunate to live in certain states.

“Too many laws throughout the United States say to gay Americans:You are not equal.”

Among the amici curiae filing briefs in support of the Plaintiffs are:

• More than 100 social and political conservatives, moderates, and libertarians from diverse religious, racial, regional, and philosophical backgrounds, including Mary Bono Mack, Alex Castellanos, James B. Comey, Clint Eastwood, Carlos Gutierrez, Gary Johnson, Benjamin Ginsburg, Stephen Hadley, Margaret Hoover, Jon Huntsman, James Kolbe, Ken Mehlman, Steve Schmidt, William F. Weld, Christine Todd Whitman, Meg Whitman, and Paul Wolfowitz
  
• Nearly 100 of the nation’s leading companies, including Apple, Nike, Morgan Stanley, Facebook, AIG, Intel, Marsh & McLennan, Xerox, Verizon, Hewlett-Packard, Mesirow Financial, Cisco Systems, Oracle, Google, Panasonic, Barnes & Noble, Office Depot, and Alaska Airlines
  
• The State of California
  
• The States Massachusetts, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington and the District of Columbia
  
• Utah Pride Center, Campaign for Southern Equality, and 25 state-wide equality organizations
  
• Family Equality Council, Emory Child Rights Project, Our Family Coalition, the Center on Children and Families, and other advocates for children and families
  
• Parents, Families & Friends of Lesbians & Gays (PFLAG)
  
• A broad array of national, metropolitan, local, and minority bar associations and national and local non-profit organizations.
  
• A diverse coalition of religious and faith group leaders
  
• Professor Harold Hongju Koh and other international law scholars
  

[cdowis]

amici declare that marriage equality best further California’s interests in ensuring a stable home for California’s children.

This summarizes several of the points presented. Is is an unproven assertion The long term effects of SSM on children will not be known for at least a generation. Issues of concern for the well-being of children include parents of the same gender, and the existence of three party parents -- the two biological physical parents and the marriage partner. It is impossible to determine the effects on the psychological well-being of the children.

These statements on the well-being of children are simply expressions of wishful thinking.

SSM is a very dangerous social experiment which could have serious, permanent destructive effects on society.

[Daniel2]

Here's an interesting take on the Obama administration's brief today:

Obama admin issues historic brief to SCOTUS…advocating (limited) marriage equality

By: Pam Spaulding Thursday February 28, 2013 6:47 pm

The Obama admin does another half-measure, calling for marriage equality — in a limited scope. It won’t weigh in to clear the way for equality nationwide – punting to SCOTUS. Here is the fairly deflating news (if you’re in a state with a marriage amendment), or elating endorsement if you’re in a handful of states (Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog the brief is here):

In essence, the position of the federal government would simultaneously give some support to marriage equality while showing some respect for the rights of states to regulate that institution. What the brief endorsed is what has been called the “eight-state solution” — that is, if a state already recognizes for same-sex couples all the privileges and benefits that married couples have (as in the eight states that do so through “civil unions”) those states must go the final step and allow those couples to get married. The argument is that it violates the Constitution’s guarantee of legal equality when both same-sex and opposite-sex couples are entitled to the same marital benefits, but only the opposite-sex couples can get married.

The eight states that apparently would be covered by such a decision are: California (whose Proposition 8, which denies marriage to couples who already have all of the other marital benefits, would fall), Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, and Rhode Island.

Beyond those eight, nine other states already recognize full marriage rights for same-sex couples. Three have done so as a result of state court rulings (Connecticut, Iowa, and Massachusetts). Five have done so by state legislatures’ passage of equality laws (Maryland, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, and Washington), and one by voter-approved ballot measures (Maine). The legislatively approved equality laws in Maryland and Washington were ratified last November by voters in statewide balloting. Washington, D.C., also allows same-sex marriages.

The silver lining:

The administration brief did not take an explicit position on how its standard might apply to states that do not now provide civil unions or other broad marriage-like rights as the eight non-marriage states do. But the logic of its constitutional test might, in fact, jeopardize same-sex marriage bans as a general proposition.

Attorney General Eric Holder issued the following statement today on the U.S. government’s filing in Hollingsworth v. Perry:

“In our filing today in Hollingsworth v. Perry, the government seeks to vindicate the defining constitutional ideal of equal treatment under the law. Throughout history, we have seen the unjust consequences of decisions and policies rooted in discrimination. The issues before the Supreme Court in this case and the Defense of Marriage Act case are not just important to the tens of thousands Americans who are being denied equal benefits and rights under our laws, but to our Nation as a whole.”

I hadn't heard of "the eight state solution" regarding this SCOTUS case before.

Daniel2

[rockpond]

This summarizes several of the points presented. Is is an unproven assertion The long term effects of SSM on children will not be known for at least a generation. Issues of concern for the well-being of children include parents of the same gender, and the existence of three party parents -- the two biological physical parents and the marriage partner. It is impossible to determine the effects on the psychological well-being of the children.

These statements on the well-being of children are simply expressions of wishful thinking.

SSM is a very dangerous social experiment which could have serious, permanent destructive effects on society.

Whether gay couples have access to legally recognized marriages or not, they will continue to create families and have children.

I know a gay couple in SLC with three children. They had adopted all three kids prior to getting married (because when they started their family, marriage wasn't available to them anywhere). They eventually got married in CA during the brief period when it was legally recognized.

So the question is not: Do you want gay couples raising kids?

The question is: Do you want gay couples raising kids outside of a legally recognized marriage?

[california boy]

This summarizes several of the points presented. Is is an unproven assertion The long term effects of SSM on children will not be known for at least a generation. Issues of concern for the well-being of children include parents of the same gender, and the existence of three party parents -- the two biological physical parents and the marriage partner. It is impossible to determine the effects on the psychological well-being of the children.

These statements on the well-being of children are simply expressions of wishful thinking.

SSM is a very dangerous social experiment which could have serious, permanent destructive effects on society.

What is not an experiment is having children brought up in homes where there is no marriage. Children do worse when their parents are not in a committed marriage. So forcing gay couples to not marry does no favors to children. That we already know. To think that any person would push for children to live in a home where marriage is not part of the parents commitment does not have the best interest of the children in mind. The only agenda that can be concluded from that suggestion is one that is anti gay not pro chlidren.

[cdowis]

What is not an experiment is having children brought up in homes where there is no marriage.

Where there is either a mother or father that is not present.

Children do worse when their parents are not in a committed marriage.

Especially where a father or mother is not present.

So forcing gay couples to not marry does no favors to children.

But it will protect those children who from adoption by SS parents. I would propose that a mother and father both present in the household gives the best environment for growth and stability for a child.

It is the relationship between the parties, not the marriage ceremony that affects the children. We cannot control what parents can and will do with children, inside or outside formal marriage. The marriage ceremony, the formal marriage is irrelevant. Again, that is the social experiment that I don't think society can afford.

That we already know.

SSm is not the solution, however. At best, it will only complicate the problems. And the effect of a mother and father being present is already known. SS parents is simply an experiment, with the results unknown for at least a generation.

To think that any person would push for children to live in a home where marriage is not part of the parents commitment does not have the best interest of the children in mind. The only agenda that can be concluded from that suggestion is one that is anti gay not pro chlidren.

Thank you for sharing your opinion. It is a pro-child, pro-family that I am an advocate. SSM is a dangerous experiment that could have severe damaging effects on the family and society.

You are advocating a pro-gay agenda without regard to the consequences.