National Geographic

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California has declared DOMA to be unconstitutional. The ruling arises from a case in which a married gay couple was denied the right to jointly declare bankruptcy. Chris Geidner at Metro Weekly provides the court's money quote:

This case is about equality, regardless of gender or sexual orientation, for two people who filed for protection under Title 11 of the United States Code (Bankruptcy Code). Like many struggling families during these difficult economic times, Gene Balas and Carlos Morales (Debtors), filed a joint chapter 13 petition on February 24, 2011. Although the Debtors were legally married to each other in California on August 20, 2008, and remain married today, the United States Trustee (sometimes referred to simply as “trustee”) moved to dismiss this case pursuant to Bankruptcy Code § 1307(c) (Motion to Dismiss), asserting that the Debtors are ineligible to file a joint petition based on Bankruptcy Code § 302(a) because the Debtors are two males.

Via press release:

Today, Chief Judge James Ware of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California heard arguments on a motion to invalidate former U.S. District Court Chief Judge Vaughn Walker's landmark ruling striking down Proposition 8.

Statement by NCLR Executive Director Kate Kendell:

"Today's hearing made it crystal clear that the Prop 8 proponents' central claim--that Judge Walker should have recused himself from the case because he is in a same-sex relationship--is absolutely baseless. During the hearing, Judge Ware pointedly asked the attorney for the proponents whether an African-American judge would have to recuse himself from a race discrimination case because some people might view him as biased. As Judge Ware's question artfully showed, our legal system does not assume that judges who are in the majority with respect to their race, religion, sexual orientation or any other personal characteristic are the only ones who can be unbiased. Judges take an oath to be impartial and do their job faithfully. It is outrageous and offensive to suggest that a gay judge is incapable of fulfilling that vow, or that Judge Walker did not do so in this case. We are hopeful that the ruling will dismiss this bigoted attempt to discredit Judge Walker's eminently sound ruling that concluded correctly, after weeks of trial and months of careful consideration, that Prop 8 is unconstitutional."

A ruling is expected within 24 hours.

UPDATE: Lambda Legal weighs in.

"Instead of putting Prop 8 on trial, the proponents attempted to put the judge who presided over the case on trial. But the absurdity and offensiveness of the Proponents' position - that a gay judge cannot decide a civil rights issue - became even more apparent under the court's rigorous questioning. Apparently, the Proponents also believe that the impartiality of female judges who have been the victims of rape is open to question in cases involving sexual assault. The court is likely to deny this motion for what it is: a desperate and dangerous witch hunt for gay judges that comes at the expense of judicial integrity."

Less than 24 hours after hiring lawyer/shark Gloria Allred, an openly gay California corrections officer has been granted permission to participate in a gay pride parade.

In May, officer Johnson, who is a member of the Gay Peace Officers Association, made a written request to march in uniform with other gay law enforcement. But, according to Allred, his request was denied by Warden Guillermo G. Garcia. Johnson was told that his participation in the parade would be against California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's operation manual which prohibits employees wearing uniforms who might be engaged in "inappropriate" activities or activities that would "bring discredit" to the department. Allred said it was "shocking and disturbing" that a branch of the state of California would consider marching in the West Hollywood parade a "discredit" to the CDCR. In response, the CDCR issued a statement reversing Warden Garcia's decision and allowed officer Johnson to wear his uniform.

An openly gay police officer from an unidentified California city was reportedly told by his superiors that he would discredit their department if he were to march in a gay pride parade. TMZ reports:

Gloria Allred is repping the California officer, who made a written request to march in uniform with other gay law enforcement officers and citizens. Allred says the Department responded IN WRITING that the march would be a "discredit" to the cop shop. Yes, in writing -- stuuuuupid. Allred will hold a news conference Tuesday at 11 AM PDT in her L.A. office and the cop will appear. We're told the cop will announce he's filing an employment discrimination complaint against the department based on sexual orientation ... though Allred won't reveal which department she's targeting until she takes the mic.

Opponents of San Francisco's proposed ban on circumcision say a comic book being using to promote the ballot referendum is anti-Semitic. The comic is being sold on the website of Matthew Hess, the bill's chief author and proponent. It features a muscular blond superhero fighting off rabbis who are attempting to complete a circumcision.

Saunders asked Hess if his comic is anti-Semitic. His answer: "A lot of people have said that, but we're not trying to be anti-Semitic. We're trying to be pro-human rights." He told her the "next issue will deal with a different kind of circumcision."Meantime, Hess is pushing his political effort with other dark, threatening images of Jewish characters. His "Foreskin Man" card set being sold through Cafe Press feautures the terrifying-looking "Monster Mohel." The astounding description of a person qualified to perform the Jewish rite of circumcision: "Nothing excites Monster Mohel more than cutting into the infantile penile flesh of an eight day old boy."

First San Francisco, now Santa Monica.

Performing a circumcision on a boy under age 18 — even for religious reasons — would be illegal under a measure that a San Diego group hopes to place on Santa Monica's November 2012 ballot. A similar initiative this month from the anti-circumcision group known as MGM Bill garnered enough signatures in San Francisco to place it on that city's November ballot. MGM stands for "male genital mutilation."

End times proponent Harold Camping says he bears no responsibility for this.

Lyn Benedetto of Antelope Valley, Calif. slit the wrist and throat of her two daughters and then slit her own, claiming to prevent them from going through the “Tribulation” on May 21, 2011. However, her neighbor discovered the attempted murder and suicide early enough for ambulance to take them to a nearby hospital to be treated. At the Open Forum of Family Radio in Oakland, Calif. on Monday, Camping said he was not responsible for the acts committed by his followers. And he was also not prepared to tender any public apology or admit that he had made a mistake about his Doomsday prediction.

Camping: "Murdering is terrible. It is contrary to everything the Bible teaches. That would have been a horrible thing if she has done that. That will make me weep. That will fill me with sorrow that she would do that. The Bible teaches that we are to save life, not kill. If it is going to be death, leave it to God. God knows who He wants to kill and make alive. That is His business, not our business."

A giant AIDS ribbon has been installed on San Francisco's Twin Peaks in observance of the 30th anniversary of the epidemic. The ribbon, which can been seen for many miles, will remain on the hillside until it's replaced by the giant pink triangle which appears in that space every year on gay pride weekend.

(Tipped by JMG reader James)
[Photo Credit: Thomas Levinson]

From the virulently anti-gay Save California.

Former CA Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has revealed that he fathered a child with a member of his household staff ten years ago.

"After leaving the governor's office I told my wife about this event, which occurred over a decade ago," Mr Schwarzenegger said in a statement issued to the newspaper. "I understand and deserve the feelings of anger and disappointment among my friends and family. There are no excuses and I take full responsibility for the hurt I have caused. I have apologised to Maria, my children and my family. I am truly sorry. "I ask that the media respect my wife and children through this extremely difficult time," the statement concluded. "While I deserve your attention and criticism, my family does not."

The whereabouts of the child were not disclosed, not was the name of Schwarzenegger's employee, who reportedly retired in January after serving the family for 20 years.

Arnold Schwarzenegger and Maria Shriver have separated after 25 years of marriage. According to some wags, this has been coming for a long time, but the couple was waiting until Schwarzenegger left office.

The California state Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday refused to advance a bill that would give private citizens the right to defend ballot measures in court. The bill, which was authored by Tea Party activist Sen. Tom Harman, failed 3-2 along party lines. The Sacramento Bee reports:

"California voters deserve to have their position defended when an initiative is challenged in court and the State refuses to defend it," GOP Sen. Tom Harman, author of the bill and a former primary candidate for attorney general, said in a statement. Harman introduced a similar bill in 2009 that also failed to make it through the Legislature. Opponents, including representatives from gay-rights group Equality California and the National Center for Lesbian Rights, argued during yesterday's committee hearing that the proposed change would conflict with the court's existing power to decide who can intervene in a case. They also argued that law would undermine the constitutional responsibilities delegated to the state attorney general.

RELATED: In February, Harman authored a similar bill which would force the state to defend all voter-approved ballot measures.

In another move in the seemingly unending Prop 8 battle, California Attorney General Kamala Harris has filed a brief declaring that private citizens do not have standing to defend the statute in court.

In it, she argued that only public officials exercising the executive power of government have authority to represent the state when laws passed by voters or the Legislature are challenged. “California law affords an initiative’s proponents no right to defend the validity of a successful initiative measure based only on their role in launching an initiative process,” Harris wrote. [snip] Lawyers for the coalition of religious and conservative groups that qualified the gay marriage measure for the ballot and campaigned for its passage have argued that initiative proponents need to be allowed to advocate for laws in court to prevent elected officials from effectively vetoing measures by not defending them in court. Harris contended in her brief that rather than empowering citizens, granting the sponsors of initiatives the ability to overrule the governor and attorney general’s judgment “would rob the electors of power by taking the executive power from elected officials and placing it instead in the hands of a few highly motivated but politically unaccountable individuals.”

The state Supreme Court is expected to hold a hearing on Prop 8 "sometime before the end of the year."

A San Francisco anti-circumcision group has collected enough petition signatures to place a city-wide ban on the practice on the November ballot.

Legal experts, however, said even if such a measure were to pass, it would likely be quickly overturned as an unconstitutional attack on the grounds of religious freedom. Chief opponent Lloyd Schofield, 59, acknowledged circumcision is a ritual among Jews and a common practice among Muslims, but insisted it should be outlawed. "It's excruciatingly painful and permanently damaging surgery that's forced on men when they're at their weakest and most vulnerable," he said. San Francisco officials say Schofield's group submitted about 12,000 signatures supporting his proposed ban, which is more than enough to get it on the ballot in November.

The proposed measure would make it a crime to circumcise a boy under the age of 18.

They've been talking about it for weeks and today Prop 8's backers officially filed to vacate Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling overturning the ban of same-sex marriage in California. Because a gay judge cannot possibly be impartial about gay issues.

The sponsors of California's same-sex marriage ban said Monday that the recent disclosure by the federal judge who struck down Proposition 8 that he is in a long-term relationship with another man has given them new grounds to have his historic ruling overturned. Lawyers for the ban's backers filed a motion in San Francisco's U.S. District Court, arguing that Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker should have removed himself from the case or at least disclosed his relationship status because his "impartiality might reasonably be questioned." "Only if Chief Judge Walker had unequivocally disavowed any interest in marrying his partner could the parties and the public be confident that he did not have a direct personal interest in the outcome of the case," attorneys for the coalition of religious and conservative groups that put Proposition 8 on the November 2008 ballot wrote.

Lambda Legal's Jon Davidson reacts:

To say that Judge Walker's should have disclosed his ten-year relationship with another man or that it made him unfit to rule on Proposition 8 is like saying that a married heterosexual judge deciding an issue in a divorce proceeding has to disclose if he or she is having marital problems and might someday be affected by legal rulings in the case. Or that any judge who professes any religious faith is unable to rule on any question of religious liberty or, at a minimum, must disclose what his faith teaches. Much like a suggestion that a female judge could not preside over a case involving sexual harassment or an African American judge could not preside over a case involving race discrimination, Proposition 8's supporters improperly are suggesting that a judge will rule in favor of any litigant with whom he shares a personal characteristic.

American Foundation for Equal Rights reacts:

"This motion is yet another in a string of desperate and absurd motions by Prop 8 Proponents who refuse to accept the fact that the freedom to marry is a constitutional right. They're attempting to keep secret the video of the public trial and they're attacking the judge because they disagree with his decision. Clearly, the Proponents are grasping at straws because they have

NCLR's Shannon Minter reacts:

"This is a desperate and ill-advised move that underscores their inability to defend Prop 8 on the merits. This is not likely to win them any points with the courts, who understandably do not appreciate having the integrity of judges called into question based on such outrageous grounds. This is part and parcel of the underhanded way the Prop 8 campaign itself was run-based on lies, insinuations, and unsupported innuendo."

"Oh, come on! Everybody who knows me knows that I am not a racist. It was a joke. I have friends who are black. Besides, I only sent it to a few people–mostly people I didn’t think would be upset by it. You're not going to make a big deal about this are you? It's just an Internet joke." - Marilyn Davenport, Tea Party activist and Orange County GOP committee member, after being busted for having emailed the above image with the caption: "Now you know why there's no birth certificate."

California's education bill requiring that notable LGBT people be positively portrayed in textbooks was passed yesterday by the state Senate.

If the bill is adopted by the state Assembly and signed by Gov. Jerry Brown, California would become the first state to require the teaching of gay history. Supporters say the move is needed to counter anti-gay stereotypes and beliefs that make children in those groups vulnerable to bullying and suicide. Opponents counter that such instruction would further burden an already crowded curriculum and expose students to a subject that some parents find objectionable. The legislation, sponsored by Democratic Sen. Mark Leno of San Francisco, passed on a 23-14 party line vote. It also would add disabled people to the curriculum. The bill gives school districts flexibility in deciding what to include in the lessons and at what grades students would receive them. But starting in the 2013-14 school year, it would prohibit districts and the California Board of Education from using textbooks or other instructional materials that reflect adversely on gay, bisexual and transgender Americans.

As I've noted here several times, the bill is vehemently opposed by anti-gay groups.

Anti-gay Christianist groups are launching an all-out war on California's pending SB 48 bill, which calls for the inclusion of notable LGBT figures in lessons about civics and history. From a World Net Daily story about "sexual brainwashing":

"Life has consequences. This is what parents get with the Democrats," said SaveCalifornia.com President Randy Thomasson (pictured). "It's what they get with the teacher unions. It's what they get by believing the lie that people are born 'gay,' when they're not. Or that this is a harmless lifestyle. "This is what parents get when they place their children in the government school system and say that they have no other options," he continued. "Parents are seeing the tip of the iceberg in SB 48, and they need to wake up to the fact that the public school they went to as a child no longer exists. "Government schools in California are mandated by more than half a dozens laws already to bring children to think that homosexual, bisexual and transsexual [lifestyles are] good and natural and maybe even for them," he said.

SB 48 is sponsored by openly gay state Sen. Mark Leno, who, the above-linked article pointedly notes, had a former partner who died of AIDS. Because teaching kids about Harvey Milk will give them AIDS. Or something.

"This shows that you cannot trust the Democrat legislators, the homosexual agenda people at all, and you cannot trust the teachers unions -- the California Teachers Association and the California Federation of Teachers boldly and brashly supported this bill in committee. They want children in the classrooms statewide to be taught that they can be homosexual or bisexual or transsexual -- or they ought to be -- and that they'll enjoy it." - Save California spokesbigot Randy Thomasson, responding to a bill that requires that LGBT people be depicted positively in public school textbooks.

The bill, sponsored by openly gay state Sen. Mark Leno, advanced out of a Senate committee last week.