Articles in Politics
DOMA Section 3 ruled Unconstitutional, violates equal protection
“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.”
This court has determined that it is clearly within the authority of the Commonwealth [of Massachusetts] to recognize same-sex marriages among its residents, and to afford those individuals in same-sex marriages any benefits, rights, and privileges to which they are entitled by virtue of their marital status. The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state, and, in doing so, offends the Tenth Amendment. For that reason, the statute is invalid.
DOMA fails to pass constitutional muster even under the highly deferential rational basis test. As set forth in detail below, this court is convinced that “there exists no fairly conceivable set of facts that could ground a rational relationship” between DOMA and a legitimate government objective. DOMA, therefore, violates core constitutional principles of equal protection.
[T]his court notes that DOMA cannot possibly encourage Plaintiffs to marry members of the opposite sex because Plaintiffs are already married to members of the same sex. But more generally, this court cannot discern a means by which the federal government’s denial of benefits to same-sex spouses might encourage homosexual people to marry members of the opposite sex. And denying marriage-based benefits to same-sex spouses certainly bears no reasonable relation to any interest the government might have in making heterosexual marriages more secure.What remains, therefore, is the possibility that Congress sought to deny recognition to same-sex marriages in order to make heterosexual marriage appear more valuable or desirable. But to the extent that this was the goal, Congress has achieved it “only by punishing same-sex couples who exercise their rights under state law.” And this the Constitution does not permit.“For if the constitutional conception of ‘equal protection of the laws’ means anything, it must at the very least mean that the Constitution will not abide such a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group.”
But even if Congress believed at the time of DOMA’s passage that children had the best chance at success if raised jointly by their biological mothers and fathers, a desire to encourage heterosexual couples to procreate and rear their own children more responsibly would not provide a rational basis for denying federal recognition to same-sex marriages. Such denial does nothing to promote stability in heterosexual parenting. Rather, it “prevent[s] children of same-sex couples from enjoying the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of a stable family structure,” when afforded equal recognition under federal law.Moreover, an interest in encouraging responsible procreation plainly cannot provide a rational basis upon which to exclude same-sex marriages from federal recognition because, as Justice Scalia pointed out in his dissent to Lawrence v. Texas, the ability to procreate is not now, nor has it ever been, a precondition to marriage in any state in the country.
In the wake of DOMA, it is only sexual orientation that differentiates a married couple entitled to federal marriage-based benefits from one not so entitled. And this court can conceive of no way in which such a difference might be relevant to the provision of the benefits at issue. By premising eligibility for these benefits on marital status in the first instance, the federal government signals to this court that the relevant distinction to be drawn is between married individuals and unmarried individuals. To further divide the class of married individuals into those with spouses of the same sex and those with spouses of the opposite sex is to create a distinction without meaning. And where, as here, “there is no reason to believe that the disadvantaged class is different, in relevant respects” from a similarly situated class, this court may conclude that it is only irrational prejudice that motivates the challenged classification. As irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest, this court must hold that Section 3 of DOMA as applied to Plaintiffs violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The return of Sara’s NEWS Roundup (7/5/10)
Watch: Elena Kagan on DADT & marriage
Alaska GOP platform opposes gays, supports creationism and unqualified judges
“We affirm the family, defined as people living together related by blood, marriage or adoption, as the foundational unit of society. We embrace the definition of marriage in our State constitution as the union of one man and one woman and support reserving certain benefits to this union alone.”
“We support requiring active, written parental consent prior to teaching any sex education curricula. Any such curriculum must be age appropriate and abstinence based. We also support teaching prenatal development. We oppose teaching or promoting alternative lifestyles as legitimate or desirable.”
“We oppose any modification of the application of the current “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy as adopted in 1993 to implement Public Law 103-106.”
“We support teaching various models and theories for the origins of life and our universe, including Creation Science or Intelligent Design. If evolution outside a species (macro-evolution) is taught, evidence disputing the theory should also be presented.”
“We support a change to the Alaska Constitution that would eliminate the practice of the Alaska Judicial Council to limit the list of potential appointees to only those it finds “qualified.” The council could still give its rating, but the Governor could choose a nominee from all applicants.”
“We endorse the Human Life Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Man is made in the image of God; therefore, we embrace the sanctity of life from the moment of conception until natural death. We heartily encourage our elected officials to use every legal means to protect the unborn and recognize the worth of even the smallest members of the human race.”
“We are committed to the protection of full civil and equal rights for all people and the continued efforts to eliminate all forms of discrimination.”
“Alaskans must be guaranteed the freedom to make and act on personal decisions regarding religion, reproduction, medical care, and marriage and life partners.”
“Every worker is entitled to a living wage and a safe, healthy, harassment-free workplace that promotes equal employment opportunity in all terms and conditions of employment. We expect the enforcement of nondiscrimination laws and the promotion of Alaska preference in hiring.”
“We believe that the U.S. government should support multinational efforts through the United Nations and elsewhere to stop genocide, reduce hunger and disease, protect human rights, and to promote justice, prosperity and peace in the world.”
Make "Housing First" a reality, support Karluk Manor
HOUSING FIRSTMake It A RealityA Housing First project is critical to our efforts in eliminating homelessness from our community. RurALCAP is working hard to establish Anchorage’s first large Housing First complex (48 efficiency-style units); Karluk Manor. Without a Housing First project, Anchorage will continue to struggle with the negative community impacts caused by the chronically homeless population.Four A’s has approximately 15 clients who are chronically homeless who would greatly benefit from this project. These individuals have been unsuccessful in any of the housing programs we have provided over the years. Without housing, these individuals are unable to remain adherent to HIV medications or consistently access support services. Each year we are serving more and more hard-to-serve/house individuals. Without this project, these people will remain homeless.
WE NEED YOUR VOICE NOW!!To make Karluk Manor a reality, RurALCAP requires a conditional use permit. We need you to voice your support for the project. For more information on Karluk Manor, click here. At the bottom of the page is information regarding Housing First (PDF) and Karluk Manor (PDF).Click here to voice your support. Without community support, this project will die and we will not have a Housing First project for many years to come. Help us achieve our goal of 100 people providing positive testimony for Karluk Manor. Comments can be as short as “I support Karluk Manor”, to more details outlining why you support the project.Please join us and countless others in letting our community know the importance of Karluk Manor. The Municipality is putting forth many road blocks that have the potential of “killing” this project. Without your voice, they will win. Share this request with friends and family. We need the city to hear we want Housing First….we want Karluk Manor.
Housing First is permanent housing, as opposed to emergency/transitional housing, and has intensive case management services available. As a result of being permanently housed, the homeless can begin to access medical, mental health, substance abuse treatment, employment and vocational training and life skill resources. Economic studies have shown providing permanent housing for the chronically homeless population significantly reduces the costs of homelessness.
Stonewall, the Rosa Parks moment (video)
“It was the Rosa Parks moment,” said one man. June 28, 1969: NYC police raid a Greenwich Village Mafia-run gay bar, The Stonewall Inn. For the first time, patrons refuse to be led into paddy wagons, setting off a 3-day riot that launches the Gay Rights Movement.Told by Stonewall patrons, reporters and the cop who led the raid, Stonewall Uprising recalls the bad old days when psychoanalysts equated homosexuality with mental illness and advised aversion therapy, and even lobotomies; public service announcements warned youngsters against predatory homosexuals; and police entrapment was rampant. At the height of this oppression, the cops raid Stonewall, triggering nights of pandemonium with tear gas, billy clubs and a small army of tactical police. The rest is history. (Film Forum)
The ordinance one year later (video)
Ossiander defends position for man who threatened her *UPDATE: Bronson shelved*
UPDATE: The Assembly heard our concerns and voted to postpone Bronson’s appointment indefinitely! Only Birch and Starr voted against the postponement. Kudos to Ossiander for standing up to Prevo this time.
—-
Tonight, the Anchorage Assembly will vote to oppose or approve Mayor Sullivan’s appointment of Alaska Family Council chairman and ABT member Dave Bronson to a school commission. Please remind the Assembly to oppose this inappropriate choice: wwmas@muni.org.
A Bent Alaska reader wrote to the Assembly about Bronson, and forwarded a strange response from Debbie Ossiander:
Dear Assembly Members,
Please reject the nomination of Dave Bronson to any position on any board, commission, or committee in the municipality. His open letter to Debbie Ossiander (during the 2009 AO64 hearings) alone should disqualify him from consideration. He has clearly declared himself to have highly politicized and rigid views which would preclude him from working productively with the wide variety of officials and citizens of our city.
On the other hand, his resume shows that he is clearly qualified to pilot an airplane if any such municipal need should arise.
Thank you
On Friday, the reader sent an update saying, “Can you believe her? I got responses from others agreeing, one from Ernie Hall saying thank you for your letter, and this,” an odd response from Ossiander:
thanks for the note…I do want you to know that there are no qualifications listed anywhere for this advisory volunteer committee. Historically it has been filled by anyone who is interested and willing to serve. Their sole responsiblity is to write and advisory letter on the ASD budget. I believe it is a 9 member committee and still has several vacant seats.
No comment on Bronson’s inability to work productively with the Assembly, his anti-gay activism and political extremism, or his dislike of diversity – diversity that exists in the Anchorage school system and is reflected in the ASD budget.
Would Ossiander really give a city position to someone who threatened and blamed her personally for the downfall of Anchorage? Here is a quote from Bronson’s open letter to Ossiander during last summer’s battle for an equal rights ordinance:
Madam Chair, when Catholic Social Services (CSS) and Latter Day Saints Social Services cease operations because their faith compels them to adopt children to heterosexual couples only… you, personally, will be to blame. When religious schools close their doors because in obedience to their faith they simply cannot allow practicing homosexuals or transsexuals to teach their children… you, personally, will be to blame. I wonder why you think Anchorage is now such an evil city that it must undergo such a radical transformation just to assuage your guilt that someone you may know and care about is being treated terribly by someone who is simply exercising their right to be ignorant. Mind you, your ignorance, demonstrated by a vote for AO 64 will be far more harmful to many more individuals that you can imagine… and you, personally, will be to blame. Whether you intend these catastrophic consequences to happen or not is simply meaningless. The language in AO 64 is clear and it will cause exactly what I have articulated.
And she would approve him for a city position? Wow.
Prop 8 closing arguments made, decision in a few weeks
“What we are talking about here is allowing individuals who have the same impulses, the same drives, the same desires as all of the rest of us to have a relationship in harmony, stability, and to form a family in a neighborhood, all of those things that the Supreme Court talked about. And now tell me how it helps the rest of the citizens of California to keep them out of the club? It doesn’t.”“… you are discriminating against a group of people, you are causing them harm, you are excluding them from an important part of life and you have to have a good reason for that. And I submit at the end of the day ‘I don’t know’ and ‘I don’t have any evidence,’ with all due respect to Mr. Cooper, it does not cut it. It does not cut it when you are taking away the basic human rights and human decency from a large group of individuals and you don’t know why they are a threat to your particular institution.”“You cannot then in the face of all those decisions by the United States Supreme Court say to these individuals we are going to take away the constitutional right to liberty, privacy, association and sexual intimacy that we tell you that you have, and then we will now use that as a basis for not allowing you the freedom to marry. That is not acceptable. It’s not acceptable under our constitution. And Mr. Blankenhorn is absolutely right, the day that we end that we will be more American.”
Today’s arguments overwhelmingly demonstrated the volume and strength of the plaintiffs’ evidence, and the complete lack of evidence in support of Proposition 8.Theodore Olson of Gibson, Dunn did a masterful job for the plaintiffs. He focused his presentation on the two plaintiff couples’ moving testimony about why marriage is important to them. Olson also highlighted the testimony from all of the expert witnesses – on both sides of the case – who unanimously agreed that marriage would enhance the well-being of same-sex couples and their kids. Olson hammered home the point that during the election, Prop 8 backers argued that children needed be “protected” from gay people — but during the trial, the Prop 8 backers did not raise this argument, which echoes themes that anti-gay forces have used for decades to stigmatize and marginalize gay men and lesbians. Instead, the attorneys defending Prop 8 argued that same-sex couples must be excluded from marriage because the purpose of marriage is procreation. Olson countered that the right to marry, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, is about the individual right to form a family, whether or not procreation is involved.Asked by Judge Walker to describe the evidence supporting his position, Charles Cooper, the attorney defending Proposition 8, repeatedly said that there was no need for evidence to support his case. At one point, he claimed that even the single expert witness on his side, David Blankenhorn, had been unnecessary, because simply looking at the dictionary would show that the definition of marriage presumes procreation. Judge Walker asked Cooper about different-sex couples who cannot or do not procreate, and about different-sex married couples who do not procreate “naturally” because they adopt children or need medical assistance to conceive. Cooper returned time and again to the argument that marriage is needed in order to “channel” heterosexual people into having sex, and procreating, within marriage, but was unable to point to any evidence from trial that allowing same-sex couples to marry would have any effect on the “channeling” of heterosexual reproduction into marriage.Judge Walker’s sharply questioned both Olson and Cooper about the facts presented at the trial. Although it’s risky to predict how a judge might be leaning based on the questions he asked, several of Judge Walker’s suggested that he might be considering applying some type of heightened scrutiny to Prop 8 because it discriminates against people based on their sexual orientation. Judge Walker indicated that in his view, whether a trait is “immutable” and whether the excluded group lacks political power are not the key factors supporting heightened scrutiny. Instead, his questions indicated that he considers it more important that the group have a long history of discrimination based on a factor that is irrelevant to their ability to contribute to society. Based on the evidence presented at trial, that would certainly be true of gay men and lesbians. Ted Olson and David Boies’s team put on compelling expert testimony about the long and painful history of discrimination against LGBT people. If the judge does decide to apply some type of heightened scrutiny, it’s very hard to see how Prop 8 could be upheld. The defenders of Prop 8 offered no evidence that there was even a rational reason, let alone a compelling one, for the voters to single out one category of California couples for unequal treatment under the law.
"City of Borders" at Mini Film Fest for Anchorage Pride
