Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Boutrous sends letter about yesterday’s SCOTUS ruling


By Julia Rosen

Ted Boutrous sent a letter today to Judge Walker about the relevance of the Supreme Court’s decision yesterday in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez. It turns out that I was hasty yesterday to say that there was little of relevance between Perry v. Schwarzenegger and the recent decision. Karen Ocam has the letter on LGBT POV.

June 29, 2010

The Honorable Vaughn R. Walker

Chief Judge of the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

450 Golden Gate Avenue

San Francisco, California 94102

Re: Perry v. Schwarzenegger, Case No. C-09-2292 VRW

Dear Chief Judge Walker:

I write on behalf of Plaintiffs to bring to the Court’s attention yesterday’s decision in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, No. 08-1371 (U.S. June 28, 2010) (attached hereto as Exhibit A).

In Christian Legal Society, the Supreme Court definitively held that sexual orientation is not merely behavioral, but rather, that gay and lesbian individuals are an identifiable class. Writing for the Court, Justice Ginsburg explained: “Our decisions have declined to distinguish between status and conduct in this context.” Slip op. at 23 (citing Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 575 (2003); id. at 583 (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment); Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic, 506 U.S. 263, 270 (1993)). This confirms that a majority of the Court now adheres to Justice O’Connor’s view in Lawrence, where she concluded that “the conduct targeted by [the Texas anti-sodomy] law is conduct that is closely correlated with being homosexual” and that, “[u]nder such circumstances, [the] law is targeted at more than conduct” and “is instead directed toward gay persons as a class,” id. at 583 (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment) (emphasis added). See also Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) (treating gay and lesbian individuals as a class for equal protection purposes). The Court’s holding arose in response to Christian Legal Society’s argument that it was not discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, but rather because gay and lesbian individuals refused to acknowledge that their conduct was morally wrong. The Court rejected that argument, holding that there is no distinction between gay and lesbian individuals and their conduct.

In his closing argument, counsel for Proponents claimed that High Tech Gays v. Defense Industrial Security Clearance Office, 895 F.2d 563 (9th Cir. 1990), and its dubious statement that “homosexuality is not an immutable characteristic; it is behavioral,” id. at 573, forecloses heightened scrutiny in this case. But as this Court explicitly recognized at the hearing on Proponents’ motion for summary judgment, High Tech Gays, which relied on the now-overruled Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), rested on a moth-eaten foundation.

To the extent that anything is left of High Tech Gays after Lawrence, Christian Legal Society has abrogated it entirely.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr.

Theodore J. Boutrous Jr.

Counsel for Plaintiffs

TJB/eam Attachment

Boutrous is arguing that this case further buttressed several fundamental arguments they are making, that sexual orientation is immutable and that the LGBTs are a class that can be protected.

It will be interesting to see what if anything the defendants send to Judge Walker about Christian Legal Society v. Martinez.


  • 1. Felyx  |  June 29, 2010 at 11:20 am

    I know there are doubters but I am popping the Champagne!

  • 2. Kathleen  |  June 29, 2010 at 12:50 pm

    Not to burst anyone's bubble, and I assure you I am optimistic about the outcome, but remember that you're seeing an interpretation of this SC ruling by an advocate for one side. I'll be curious to see what, if any, formal reaction Proponents have to this position letter. It might be argued that this is mere dicta, not anything central to the holding of the case. I haven't had a chance to really study the ruling to see if there's anything to support that position.

    As to Walker's ruling, someone in a comment somewhere else described my opinion exactly: "The question is not whether we'll win but how much we'll win. I'm still hoping for the 'great big win' – a ruling for the plaintiffs and a holding that heightened scrutiny must apply.

  • 3. Misken  |  June 29, 2010 at 3:13 pm

    I'm hoping for an unanimous ruling from the SCOTUS and every step of the appeal (including the 9th Circuit en banc) that strikes down all Proposition 8-esque things and establishes a federal ENDA and other non-discrimination types and repeals DOMA.

    But that probably isn't going to happen.

  • 4. Jeff W.  |  June 29, 2010 at 11:48 pm

    Even analyzed conservatively, this ruling is quite favorable for Perry v. The Terminator. But my concern at this point is that Judge Walker will issue a ruling that invalidates all state constitutional amendments and DOMA. While this would be immensely gratifying, I don't think the courts, as a reflection of society, are quite yet ready for this. A reversal at the SCOTUS level would be hard precedent to overcome.

    A more limited ruling – invalidating Prop 8 in CA and setting a strong, but limited precedent that other courts can turn to as plaintiffs and advocates see the opportunity it presents to challenge the discrimination presented in their respective states.

    We need to continue to work to counter the lies, stereotypes and misinformation that our opponents spread. We need to start in the churches, talk to our neighbors, be gentle persuaders with our co-workers.

    Eventually, inevitably we will win.

  • 5. Bob  |  June 30, 2010 at 4:30 am

    "the court rejected that argument, holding there is no distincition between gay and lesbian individuals and their conduct"

    Wow, that is such a comforting statement, someone had to say that somewhere sometime,

    that is so central to our whole lives, and who we are ,

    Kathleen, I would be interested in your analysis of this, do you think the reaction by Proponents could take the weight out of this truth?

    In my dialog with the Lutheran Church Canada, this is where we are stuck, they insist that there is a distinciton between who I am and my conduct.

    And of course a court ruling stating otherwise, wouldn't change they're behavior under Freedom of Religion, but geeze it goes a long way in terms of educating us about the facts and the truth.

  • 6. Ed-M  |  July 3, 2010 at 4:16 am

    I'd be satisfied with a strikedown of all Proposition 8-esque things. Our opponents never bring out their 'rational' arguments during their campaigns but always play the fear card — in essence, animus.

  • 7. Richard A. Walter (s  |  June 29, 2010 at 11:22 am

    It is well-thought-out reasoning like this, and the proper application of its results, that mark some of the resons that Mr. Boutrous was part of our legal team on Perry et. al. v. Schwarzenegger et. al. I foresee an even brighter future for Mr. Boutrous, especially if he continues to associate himself with Mssrs. Olson and Boies and the other attorneys for the plaintiffs.

  • 8. Kathleen  |  June 29, 2010 at 3:37 pm

    Just so you know, Boutrous is a partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher (the law firm in which Ted Olson is also partner). Along with Ted Olson he is Co-Chair of the firm's Appellate and Constitutional Law Group and is a member of their Executive Committee. In addition, he is Co-Chair of their Media and Entertainment and Crisis Management Groups and a member of the firm's Management Committee.

    Olson and Boies have been the strong public face of the legal team but there are a lot of well-established legal luminaries on our side in addition to the two most public ones.

  • 9. Richard A. Walter (s  |  June 30, 2010 at 3:25 am

    I am glad you posted this, Kathleen. EVen though you and I know that Mr. Boutrous is a member of Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher, there may be others on the site who don't. I still predict an even brighter future for him as a result of this case.
    BTW, I sent an email to the four attorneys from each of the two firms who are listed in the beginning notes of the answers to the questions Judge Walker presented for closing arguments, and have had very nice responses from Jeremy Goldman and Ted Olson. I also asked in the email that it be shared with everyone at Ted Olson's firm and also David Boies' firm. After all, I consider everyone at both of these firms who has worked on this case a hero for civil rights and a valuable ally.

  • 10. Owen  |  June 29, 2010 at 11:25 am

    This is AWESOME news. I had no idea that was a part of the ruling.

    Did Kennedy concur specifically with that portion of it as well?

  • 11. Kathleen  |  June 29, 2010 at 11:59 am

    You can read the full decision here – it is an Attachment to the letter filed with the court:

    Kennedy voted in the majority and there is nothing I can find in his concurrence that suggests he distinguishes his decision on this point.

  • 12. Owen  |  June 29, 2010 at 1:11 pm

    Good good. Thank you for the link.

  • 13. Felyx  |  June 29, 2010 at 11:35 am

    With deference to Kathleen I repost her comment here from the other site. The indefensible case of the proponents is becoming more blatantly obvious by the second. Not that abusing gays in order to herd penises into vaginas under the auspices of matrimony so as to encourage 'mother-fuckers' to marry their 'accidentally' knocked up sex partners was ever anything but a blatantly irrational reason in the first place!

    37. Kathleen | June 29, 2010 at 2:59 pm

    Yes, in broad terms, the level of judicial scrutiny are:

    Rational basis: the law need only be ‘rationally related’ to a ‘legitimate’ state interest

    Intermediate: the law must be ‘substantially related’ to an ‘important’ state interest

    Strict: the law must be ‘narrowly tailored’ and be the ‘least restrictive means’ for furthering a ‘compelling’ state interest.

    The other advantage to heightened scrutiny is in where the burden of proof falls. If the law is subjected only to rational basis, the burden of proof remains with plaintiffs. However, once plaintiffs prove that heightened scrutiny applies, then the burden shifts to defendants to prove that the law can withstand the appropriate level of review.

  • 14. Sagesse  |  June 29, 2010 at 11:41 am

    NOM watch. I have no idea how credible this source is, or the others that are linked to, but there seems to be a connection between NOM and some of the less savoury characters in the anti-LGBT movement. If so, NOM are getting sloppy, or they underestimate people's ability to dig behind the carefully constructed facade.

  • 15. Straight Ally #3008  |  June 29, 2010 at 12:12 pm

    It wouldn't surprise me – look at what happened to the LDS leadership when they thought their tracks were completely covered, and their resources dwarf those of NOM.

  • 16. Kathleen  |  June 29, 2010 at 12:13 pm

    Frankly, I have a hard time distinguishing all these groups. They all just seem like different heads of the same grotesque hydra.

    I've certainly seen the Protect Marriage: One Man One Woman facebook page the article refers to. I pop in there every now and again to see what they're up to, and then leave when my blood pressure gets out of hand. The level of willful ignorance displayed there is astonishing. They're currently mocking the Salon interview with Boies and describe him as "clueless."

  • 17. Straight Grandmother  |  June 29, 2010 at 9:41 pm

    "Frankly, I have a hard time distinguishing all these groups. They all just seem like different heads of the same grotesque hydra. "

    Boy you got that right Kathleen, my sentiments exactly.
    Read Bill Mariotts Blog (Mariott Hotel) from 2008

    From the Mariott Hotel website

    Now fast forward to 2010 at the "Gala event by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty"

    Look for the photo of Bill Mariott

  • 18. Sagesse  |  June 30, 2010 at 4:26 am


    The thing that distinguished NOM in my mind is that they are meticulous about their messaging, which is not overtly hostile or haterous. What's underneath is probably no different, and what their followers and donors think is no different, but they generally don't associate their name with the kind of things this Marinelli person is saying.

    The other thing NOM does really well is raise large amounts (more or less) anonymously. It acts as a front for the LDS Church and wealthy individuals and foundations precisely to hide where the money is coming from. I actually think they sell it that way…. give us money and we'll mount a huge campaign, so you don't have to be publicly involved.

  • 19. Kathleen  |  June 30, 2010 at 5:47 am

    Thank you Sagesse. As always, you offer intelligent, well-informed analysis. I will count on you to be there for me when I need to sort through the madness exhibited by the other side. 🙂 (Seriously, I really appreciate your contributions here and can always count on you to add depth to the conversation. Thank You!)

    SG, As to the Marriott Corp vs Mr. and Mrs Marriott, I'm willing to accept those as separate as long as their behavior is truly distinguishable. I will not hold the corporation accountable for where the Mr and Mrs put their money and support as long as the corporation is really living up to its claim of supporting diversity, which at first glance it appears to be.

    The interesting thing to me about Bill Marriott's statement (the first link) is that it would appear to show he recognizes that allowing the 'behavior' of the corporation to be dictated by his personal religious beliefs is bad for business. There is nothing I can reasonably expect to do to persuade him of the wrong-headedness of his church's beliefs; the most I can hope for is that the corporation behaves itself as a good 'citizen' in our diverse society.

  • 20. Sagesse  |  June 30, 2010 at 6:45 am

    You're welcome Kathleen. I find NOM fascinating because they are so disciplined. There's a Stepford quality to Brian and Maggie as they repeat their mantra, as though, if you say if often enough, it must be true.

    Oh, and I forgot to mention the part where they take great gobs of that money and spend it to keep their donor list secret.

  • 21. Joel  |  June 30, 2010 at 9:17 am

    I just want to note that I work for Marriott International, and the company is pretty explicit and encompassing in it's non-discrimination policy.

    As far as federal law allows them, they provide for the needs and security of domestic partners, and I have always felt welcome in the corporate environment here.

    It would, after all, be awfully hard to discriminate against homosexuals in the hospitality industry, LOL.

  • 22. Sagesse  |  June 29, 2010 at 1:17 pm

    Following the links, here's the schedule for the NOM Summer for Marriage Tour. Interesting pattern in the locations they've chosen.

  • 23. Richard A. Walter (s  |  June 29, 2010 at 1:39 pm

    Yes, and Freedom to Marry has already said they are doing a matching tour to counter this one, and they will be in the same cities on the same days.
    Felyx, call us please, WRT the Raleigh date.

  • 24. Billy  |  June 29, 2010 at 11:46 pm

    So NOM is going to be in Indy on July 26th. Figure I'll stop by and give them a piece of my mind…

  • 25. Andrew_WA  |  June 30, 2010 at 5:03 am

    OMG…. I want to go on this tour in drag with my husband Tim!

    (incidentally, I have never done drag, so yes, I would be one
    U-G-L-Y looking woman)


  • 26. Straight Grandmother  |  June 30, 2010 at 5:20 am

    I am going to insist that our son and his husband go and counter protest. I think he will. I'll have to check the date for DC I know he is going to Africa for work soon. I swear if I had the time and the money I would tailgate that bus everywhere it went this summer.

    Lordy i hope we win Prop 8, we gotta win folks, we just have to. I want to be the legal grandmother to my twin grandchildren more than you can even imagine.

  • 27. nightshayde  |  June 30, 2010 at 5:50 am

    I find it interesting that their "nationwide tour" goes no farther West than Sioux City. Maybe they're redefining "nationwide" in protest of our redefining marriage.

    *laughs herself silly*

  • 28. Monty  |  June 30, 2010 at 5:53 am

    Yeah, I noticed that. How am I supposed to make fun of them if they don't come anywhere near California?

  • 29. JonT  |  June 30, 2010 at 5:55 am

    No Denver either 🙁 Cowards.

  • 30. Felyx  |  June 30, 2010 at 6:35 am

    That tour of theirs has us in stitches over here in Raleigh! It seems that there is not sufficient hate in the area so NOM has to bus it in!!!

    @Richard (& BZ by association)
    We got your message loud and clear!!! We are ready to plan!

    @Andrew (et. als.)
    Let us know if you get to Raleigh!! If you are even remotely serious then let us know…we got a spare bedroom and can put you guys up!

    @ Any Member or friend of any of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence…
    I would LOVE to see you guys trailing this one!!! That would be a riot!


  • 31. JonT  |  June 29, 2010 at 12:19 pm

    Subing some scribes.

  • 32. cc  |  June 29, 2010 at 12:24 pm

    I’m sure the Protect marriage side will spin this decision in such a way that proves the LGBTIQ community has political power and that the court should not step in. I'm waiting to see their comments and reply to the Ted Boutrous letter.

  • 33. Alan E.  |  June 29, 2010 at 12:36 pm

    Subscribng so I can stalk you

  • 34. Richard W. Fitch  |  June 29, 2010 at 12:49 pm

    Securing my spectator status – for now.

  • 35. Ann S.  |  June 29, 2010 at 1:29 pm

    Fascinating and encouraging analysis.

  • 36. Owen  |  June 29, 2010 at 3:20 pm

    Oooo, the NOM tour is coming to Maryland?

    Not in my backyard, Maggie, you miserable, odious, jealous shrew.

    Time to go to war.

  • 37. Straight Grandmother  |  June 30, 2010 at 5:25 am

    Double Kick Ass Owen, props to you from France. Get up a possee to go with you.

  • 38. Richard A. Walter (s  |  June 30, 2010 at 5:38 am

    And who is up for joining us in Raleigh, NC on August 11 for the counter protest there?

  • 39. K!r!lleXXI  |  June 30, 2010 at 7:34 am

    Their website says they will be in Raleigh on August 10, not 11:

    8/10/10 noon – 1 p.m.
    TBD, (Will be in Raleigh, NC)

    Where did you see August 11?


  • 40. Richard A. Walter (s  |  June 30, 2010 at 10:22 am

    You are correct, Kirille. It is August 10. I don't know if I mistyped the date or if my keys were sticking again. Thank you for the correction.
    Of course, it still stands–who is up for joining us here in Raleigh on Tuesday, August 10, so we can prove to NOM that there are more equality minded folks than there are haters?

  • 41. Tim  |  June 29, 2010 at 4:44 pm

    Kick ass Owen! Make us proud!!!

  • 42. Yvonne  |  June 29, 2010 at 8:49 pm

    Irony: If people with poor reasoning and logic skills were not allowed to vote or to pass these faulty genetics on to any progeny, NOM would not exist.

  • 43. Monty  |  June 30, 2010 at 5:40 am

    As they say, "democracy is the worst system of government, except for all the other ones."

  • 44. Ronnie  |  July 3, 2010 at 12:24 am

    lol…..Monty…..that's perfect…. ; ) …..Ronnie

  • 45. Sagesse  |  June 29, 2010 at 10:42 pm

    This letter is being picked up in the (internet) press.

    Note the last sentence:

    "Charles Cooper, who represents Yes on 8, did not immediately respond to an e-mail seeking comment."

    I still think their strategy (it's rational basis, period) will come back to bite them if Walker rules based on heightened scrutiny (as he should). Their evidence hasn't addressed it, except for some lame cross-examination.

  • 46. Ed-M  |  July 3, 2010 at 4:40 am

    "The Christian Legal Society tried to justify excluding gays and lesbians by arguing that its membership policy wasn't aimed at homosexuals because of their conduct, but because of their belief that homosexuality isn't immoral."

    And this is what's going to bite the Hatero Religious Right in the end… and not in a good way (for them)… for they have ALWAYS argued that morality is inseparable from religion.

    Last time I checked, we still have religious freedom in this country!

  • 47. Richard A. Walter (s  |  July 3, 2010 at 6:38 am

    I wish we did, but according to the Radical Religious Reich Wing, if we do not believe exactly as they do, we are all going to hell. But then, since the Jews do not believe in hell, at least not for humans anyway, I guess I don't have to worry about that.

  • 48. Straight Grandmother  |  June 30, 2010 at 2:29 am

    Hmmmm in light of the recent spy news I wonder where our resident Russian is? Krill (I know I spelled that wrong don't hage me for it) where are U?

  • 49. Felyx  |  June 30, 2010 at 3:11 am

    @Str8 G-Ma,

    No fears. Our resident 'Roosky' is busy spying on me as he has been for hours every day for the last 5+ months. So far I am more concerned about how this will affect international immigrations procedures than he is! Of course we have years to go before we can make any moves…I feel confident that marriage will be legalized or nearly so before we even get to a point that we can go through immigration procedures.


  • 50. K!r!lleXXI  |  June 30, 2010 at 3:25 am

    Oh, Grandma…  I know I wasn't here…  You see, I was very busy with those damn Americans getting closer to our secret spy network in the US (I can talk about it now, we were uncovered)…  And now that we were unsuccessful, I'm sitting here and mourning my friends who were captured by the CIA and will probably never see the light of day anymore.  I'm kinda depressed about the whole thing and bemused as to who tattled on us…


  • 51. Felyx  |  June 30, 2010 at 3:31 am

    As you can tell, Russia is paranoid about gays getting married…they have sent one of their most intelligent intelligence gatherers to gather intelligence concerning gays getting married. I am aware of the risks but I feel it my patriotic duty to seduce this innocent Russian Cheburashka and bring him to the pink side!

    I hope the P8TT community will assist me with this terrible task. Sincerely, Felyx. 😛

  • 52. Straight Grandmother  |  June 30, 2010 at 5:15 am

    Krill- Ha Ha Ha, ggigle giggle giggle, LOL, ROTFL.
    See *you* thought I was a bit "off" but see… I told you so, we Have been infiltrated by Russian spys trying to blend in. Ya know I always thought you blended in a little "too much" over here on P8TT, again laughing out loud.
    I hope you immigrate to Canada. It is not that hard to make the immigration leap from Canada to the USA. Take a chance, Canada wants you!!! Just go for it and don't look back. You have the language, you can make it in Canada, honestly. I have to check that e-mail address I gave you and send you an e-mail. I still need that special favor.

  • 53. Kathleen  |  June 30, 2010 at 5:59 am

    Before these rumors get out of hand, I thought I should let everyone know that the Code of Conduct of the Gay Super Hero League to which Kirill and I belong forbids conducting espionage for any one country. (Usually, I wouldn't reveal that much, but since our cover has already been blown here at P8TT, I figured I may as well let you know and clear Kirill of these charges)

  • 54. K!r!lleXXI  |  June 30, 2010 at 7:15 am

    @Straight Grandmother

    We, Russians, like to joke, especially when things are not looking up.
    This just helps to have a positive perspective.

    As for Canada, I'm not so sure Canada wants me…  I know my Felyx wants me — he tells me about that every day.  But Canada — haven't heard anything like that…  Though I know for a fact that we could get married there any moment now — there is a Russian lesbian couple that got married in Canada several months ago, and now they are suing the Russian government fighting for marriage equality (in Russia, Federal Family Code specifically says that marriage is between one man and one woman only), so, I guess, this is kind of our version of Baker v. Nelson (1972) that will be equally unsuccessful until, decades later, we'll finally argue a Prop 8-like case in our Supreme Court.  Somehow, I don't wanna stick around in Russia for that.

    ᴥ       ᴥ       ᴥ


    Thank you for always protecting your co-heroes from the League!  I guess, from the legal point of view, my facetious statements can still be harmful for me or the local community of this very blog.  God knows, we know how some people do not understand humor.


  • 55. Bob  |  June 30, 2010 at 3:27 am

    I've been thinking about Krill too, especially this week in our Canadian news when they talked about asking the LGBT community to get more involved in supporting immigration to this group.
    Sargesse, is more able than I to post any links regarding this,

  • 56. Sagesse  |  June 30, 2010 at 4:09 am

    I'm on it :). Canada has increased the number of refugees it will accept, but the Immigration Minister is asking LGBT groups to 'sponsor' or support those who would not be self sufficient once they arrive.

    Refugees need more help from private groups: Kenney

  • 57. Bob  |  June 30, 2010 at 3:29 am

    sorry for mispellling both those names

  • 58. K!r!lleXXI  |  June 30, 2010 at 3:35 am

    That's OK, Bob!
    Everybody calls me Krill here 🙁
    Funny thing is, in Russian krill is креветка, and there are lots of jokes on the net about a certain креведко, it became very popular to joke about them…
    That's why I will change my legal name to Kevyn, now I'm more convinced about that 🙂

    Thank you for your concern about Russian spies!


  • 59. Straight Grandmother  |  June 30, 2010 at 5:23 am

    It is just that if you don't post first we can't remember how to spell your name. For some stupid reason Krill always comes to mind, LOL.

  • 60. Cat  |  June 30, 2010 at 3:47 am

    I'm happy about the Supreme Court ruling, but worried about the narrow majority, and some of the language of the opposing judges. Separation of Church and State seems to be a tough concept to grasp for too many people, including judges. And requiring one organization to actively support another organization that has conflicting views seems un-liberal, un-republican, and even un-teapartyish. It should have been a 9-0 decision.

  • 61. Misken  |  June 30, 2010 at 3:56 am

    You will never, EVER, get Thomas to agree on ANYTHING remotely relating to the concept of separation of church and state. Religion rules his mind unequivocally.

    While it may be possible to sway Roberts, Scalia, and Alito…it is still unlikely.

    A unanimous ruling on these touchy subjects in the current SCOTUS is difficult.

  • 62. Bob  |  June 30, 2010 at 3:52 am

    @K!r!lleXXI thanks for understanding, my point was to inform you, and others, Canadian Immigration Minister, made an open invitation to welcome LGBT members to immigrate to Canada, this is good news, if he upholds his invitation, especially for those seeking asylum , from countries like Iran.

    I know it doesn' solve the problem for you unless your partner also immigrated, and it is cold up here.

    Cheers my friend

  • 63. K!r!lleXXI  |  June 30, 2010 at 3:59 am


    Well, Russia is no Iran… Yesterday I even saw special condoms for gay men in a good drug store downtown — apparently, they cater to the needs of our community.

    Iranian and Iraqi gays really need that asylum, but in Russia things are not bad enough for that.

    As for cold — I love it, I'm Russian! 🙂 I wanted to live in Canada in the first place. But now it's more important for me to follow my beloved guy, wherever he lives!


  • 64. Papa  |  June 30, 2010 at 4:13 am

    With all my support to Kirill and Felyx and their long hours on SKYPE, I think it is time to tell my story:
    I was married for over 41 years to a lesbian. In the days when we were married, it was a matter of protection to be in the closet. What is somewhat unusual in our case is the timing. Sue died six years ago, and I decided to come out. Shortly after her death, one of her friends told me that Sue had hit on her when she was 15 years old. Sue and I were so careful about our closets that we NEVER actually discussed our both being gay! We both knew about the situation, and suffered silently about the unfortunate bedroom life. It must be noted that she was the love of my life, and a wonderful friend. We have two (straight) biological sons, who have accepted my being out. Now I have two adopted sons in Felyx and Kevyn (Kirill). I guess what is left to say is this: We had a gay marriage that was successful! All the haters will have to back off at my gay marriage — we followed their rules of one man and one woman. We suffered a lifetime and I am dedicated to not letting this happen to Felyx, Kirill, or any other would-be SScouple. While I was fortunate, many marriages created as a shield have not worked out. What a shame that Sue could not come out until after her death.
    Papa Foma

  • 65. Kathleen  |  June 30, 2010 at 5:13 am

    Thank you so much for sharing your story.

    And Kirill and Kelyx – you know I'm cheering for you and hope you can work this out.

  • 66. Straight Grandmother  |  June 30, 2010 at 5:34 am

    Papa, hard to know what to say to you after reading your story. I am so glad you finally came out. Hopeully you will find a man to love as much as you did love Sue, but only in a way that is more natural to you. How wonderful it is for you to have two loving sons. You could have stayed in the closet Papa, after all you did for 41 yeas, but now that you are in this new chapter in your life i am so proud of you that you are standing up and just plain being who you are. If people don't like it to Hell with them, right?

  • 67. Alan E.  |  June 30, 2010 at 5:42 am

    That has actually become a problem in China. Many gay men are marrying straight women out of social pressure to marry, and their marriages are ending up poorly and highly dysfunctional (not every one, but on the whole).

  • 68. Kathleen  |  June 30, 2010 at 7:51 am

    Papa, I also wanted to point you (and everyone else) to a recent article by David Mixner:

    I think stories like yours are exactly the ones that need to be told and preserved. Perhaps one of your sons or someone else close to you would consider taking an oral history and you would allow it to become part of the archive preserved for future generations.

  • 69. Papa Foma  |  June 30, 2010 at 8:16 am

    What a joy to communicate with you, Kathleen — you are one of my heroines!
    There is a work in progress — not yet published — which contains my autobiography. They have had a hard time finding a publisher (am I surprised?).
    The idea of recording oral histories is terribly valuable. I hope the idea becomes reality!
    Another revelation — Foma is Russian for Thomas, so I'll sign this one Papa Thom

  • 70. Bob  |  June 30, 2010 at 4:42 am

    Papa, thanks for telling the truth, and thereby offering hope, and strength to all of us, with courage and conviction our stories will be heard, and will be held in our hearts and minds for eternity, I'm so proud to part of the Rainbow Tribe, when I hear these incredible stories of survival, and the creation of families, you did play by their rules, so glad you're free.

    Thanks for taking this opportunity to tell your story

  • 71. Dave P.  |  June 30, 2010 at 7:05 am

    Wow, the previous 20 or so posts really show how special this site has become. I've never actually met any of you and yet I feel a very real connection with all of you and the sense of true community is powerful here. This really made my day. Thank you all!

  • 72. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  June 30, 2010 at 9:19 am

    @ Dave: I know just how you feel…I will be lost and sad when this trial is over and this site quiets down as I'm sure it will.

  • 73. Kathleen  |  June 30, 2010 at 9:41 am

    This case has a long life ahead of it as it wends its way through the appeals process. I'm hoping we can keep the site up and running and many participants engaged in the process here throughout that time.

  • 74. JonT  |  June 30, 2010 at 9:43 am

    Yes it does. I'll be here for the whole damn thing. 🙂

  • 75. Felyx  |  June 30, 2010 at 4:53 pm

    Prop 8 will indeed be here for awhile but it inevitably will be resolved…I hope the administrators and the community will migrate or evolve into something else when the time comes.


  • 76. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  June 30, 2010 at 5:40 pm

    I will be here, even if I don’t get the chance to post a comment very often. This has become my extended family.

  • 77. Jeremy  |  June 30, 2010 at 5:04 am

    Not that this is directly related, really, but I have an ongoing debate with a friend of mine as to the outcome of prop 8 in the SCOTUS (obviously just hypothetical based on the justices perceived personalities/history). We both agree on a 5/4 split, but disagree on who the 5 will be.

    I think everyone agrees the Scalia, Alito & Thomas are/will be against the plaintifs.

    I think a lot of people think that Ginsberg, Sotomayor & Kegan (confirmation pending) will rule in favour of plaintifs.

    I find Kennedy to be a total wild-card, he seems to be unpredictabe at this time.

    I think Roberts will be against plaintifs, my friend disagrees. Says the Roberts is a "strict constitutionalist" and hasn't been as "conservative" as former president bush would have liked/expected.

    What are everyone else's, intelligent and rationally developed, thoughts on this? Any thoughts on Breyer?

  • 78. Straight Grandmother  |  June 30, 2010 at 5:40 am

    I think the split is going to be exactly as it is in this trial. Roberts, Alito, Scalia & Thoas opposed and the rest for. Frankly that is a little to close for comfort for me, but that is what I think will happen.

  • 79. Monty  |  June 30, 2010 at 5:45 am

    My guess is 4-4, with Kennedy's vote determining the outcome.

  • 80. Michelle Evans  |  June 30, 2010 at 6:01 am

    Bad news from Wisconsin.

    Doesn't specifically rule on the constitutionality of gay marriage itself, but rather the way the proposition was presented to the people. Looks like a major uphill battle there unless SCOTUS gives us all our equality.

  • 81. Kathleen  |  June 30, 2010 at 6:08 am

    That is bad news for Wisconsin and I'm sorry to see another state amend its constitution to enshrine discrimination, but you're right – it wasn't really a ruling on the issue of ss marriage, per se.

  • 82. Kathleen  |  June 30, 2010 at 6:10 am

    Anybody else notice that the format for the emails you receive when you're subscribed to a post has changed? Also, this morning there were a half dozen emails informing me of comments that had been made in May. :/

  • 83. JonT  |  June 30, 2010 at 6:16 am

    I have not noticed anything different, at least nothing obvious…

    Same to Monty below, seems 'normal'…

  • 84. Richard A. Walter (s  |  June 30, 2010 at 6:23 am

    I have noticed that now comments have a line down the left hand side and that they are indented. Also that the colors are slightly different in the header–name in one shade of purplish-blue, then another shade of blue, then the thread title in still a third shade. It could be due to the fact that Robert has taken over on this.

  • 85. JonT  |  June 30, 2010 at 6:33 am

    Ahh. I use a text-only mail client (on Linux 🙂 so I don't see any of the html markup. Not really into the GUI mail clients like thunderbird. Maybe I'll switch someday. 🙂

  • 86. Kathleen  |  June 30, 2010 at 6:45 am

    I so admire your Linux purity. (note to self: when sending emails to JonT, send in 'text-only' form)

    The difference (that I did such a poor job of illustrating below) is more than formatting. The email notices are now including more information about each comment than they used to.

  • 87. Monty  |  June 30, 2010 at 7:22 am

    I use Linux as well, but I'm still a fan of the GUI. Unfortunately, at work (where I am now) I'm stuck with Windows and Outlook, so I can't even get close.

  • 88. Kathleen  |  June 30, 2010 at 6:38 am

    The difference in format in the emails is that in the past, the body of the message contained the Name of the person making the comment the text "said on" and then the Title of the Post (with a date and time below) Then the text of the comment. Example:

    Kathleen said on Building Coalitions
    March 2, 2010 at 9:09 am

    blah, blah, blah

    NOW, they have the above but ALSO include an indication of who the reply is "to" (the original post or someone else's comment) ad brief quote from the post or earlier comment.

    Examples (where the part in italics is indented and italicized in the email – but I'm not clever enough with code to get the formatting to match exactly here):

    Mark M. (Seattle) said on Boutrous sends letter about yesterday's SCOTUS ruling
    June 30, 2010 at 1:19 pm

    In response to couragecampaign on June 29, 2010 at 6:14 pm:

    By Julia Rosen Ted Boutrous sent a letter today to Judge Walker about the relevance of the Supreme Court’s decision yesterday in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez. It turns out that I was hasty yesterday to say that there was little of relevance between Perry v. Schwarzenegger and the recent decision. Karen Ocam has the […]

    I’ve noticed some of things too…but assumed it was something I did wrong LOL


    JonT said on Boutrous sends letter about yesterday's SCOTUS ruling
    June 30, 2010 at 1:16 pm

    In response to Kathleen on June 30, 2010 at 1:10 pm:

    Anybody else notice that the format for the emails you receive when you're subscribed to a post has changed? Also, this morning there were a half dozen emails informing me of comments that had been made in May. :/

    I have not noticed anything different, at least nothing obvious…

    Same to Monty below, seems ‘normal’…

  • 89. Kathleen  |  June 30, 2010 at 6:39 am

    The lack of formatting in the above probably makes it impossible to understand what I'm trying to show. Oh well…. not important.

  • 90. JonT  |  June 30, 2010 at 6:48 am

    Ahh, I see what you mean. For 'Replies', it seems to be adding a block of the message being replied to preceeded by a '>'.

    Helps understand the context of the reply I guess.

  • 91. K!r!lleXXI  |  June 30, 2010 at 7:23 am

    I've noticed that, but I haven't received any emails about comments in several days, so I figured it happened while I was gone. Funny that it happened today.
    In general, it helps to read comments from emails, without having to refer to the blog itself. Good feature. Will be useful.

  • 92. Monty  |  June 30, 2010 at 6:10 am

    Is it just me, or has the site been kind of weird lately? Comments appearing out of order, replies not going in the right place, stuff like that.

  • 93. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  June 30, 2010 at 6:19 am

    I've noticed some of things too…but assumed it was something I did wrong LOL

  • 94. Richard A. Walter (s  |  June 30, 2010 at 6:24 am

    New administrator. Robert. Julia emailed me about that the other day wrt reporting trolls.

  • 95. JonT  |  June 30, 2010 at 6:35 am

    Maybe it's the intense concentration of Rainbow Power on this poor server 🙂

  • 96. Suzanne (not for muc  |  June 30, 2010 at 7:09 am

    I simply adore you, Straight Grandmother. Would you please have a talk with my Mom? I've been working on for her for years and years, but I haven't been entirely successful to drop her "because the church said so" opposition to same sex marriage. She's a Grandmother too. Interestingly enough, after years of me trying to call upon her empathy and, encouraging her to accept and love others as Jesus did (language she understands) with respect to homosexuality, her granddaughter came out as a lesbian. I hoped this would make it personal for her, but it didn't. I'm afraid when my niece is older, and involved in a committed relationship, this is going to divide them.

  • 97. Straight Grandmother  |  June 30, 2010 at 9:04 am

    Suzanne, I think there is a chance for "redemtion" for your mom. If her grandaughter gets a real nice girlfriend and integrates her girlfriend into the grandaughters family your mom will see it with her own eyes and be changed. The key will be what kind of GF the grandaughter brings home to mama (and by extension grandma). As time goes by and hopefully the grandaughter settles down with her GF and establishes a home and family with her your mother will have to admit, "Gee they are just like any other couple" OTOH if the grandaughter brings around not so nice girls that will only harden your mother's heart.
    As you well know it is real important that there are no family secrets or covering up your lesbian niece's sexual orientation. I know when my kids came out to my husband and I, practically the first thing I did was call up (and my husband did also) all the members of my family and tell them. It was hard to do, but there was no way I was going to have that kind of secret in our family and extended family. On your end other, members of your family will stick up for the grandaughter to your mother and she will see that she is out numbered. I think it is more likely than not that your mother's attitude will change.

    Oh and I like being adored, doesn't everybody? You are so kind to say that. I wish there was a "Like" button next to our names and a running tally. I would like to see if i could garner more "Likes" than Katheen. Prolly not though, I think she would sweep the Russian votes and I would get out "Liked" LOL!!! I knew I should have learned how to spell that Russian's name ha-ha.

  • 98. Felyx  |  June 30, 2010 at 9:17 am

    What is to say that we would not all vote for each of you?…!!! It is hard to imagine that several of would not end up in an all out tie!!!

    Felyx 😛

  • 99. K!r!lleXXI  |  June 30, 2010 at 10:42 am

    @Straight Grandmother

    Reading your comment to Suzanne, I couldn't help but think about my own mother who doesn't know I'm gay.  I was thinking whether I should come out to her one day or leave it alone for good and always pretend to be single.

    I think she's the kind of person who would rather bury this family secret and keep it away from everybody outside of my immediate family, partially because it's Russia and it's just an awful thing to be gay here, comparable with being a serial sex-offender and serial killer all-in-one (that's the sad truth).

    On the other hand, I found the love of my life (he posted right above me), and we're serious, so maybe it would be better if she knows everything and knows the man I'm with and that we love each other and that I have someone who watches my back (so to speak) and takes care of me.

    Assuming she's not so much religious, and she's in her late 50s, do you think there is a room for eventual acceptance? and does it worth it uncovering the truth about me at some point in my life?


  • 100. Kathleen  |  June 30, 2010 at 10:45 am

    I have no advice to offer. Just wanted to say I forget sometimes how young everyone here is… I'm in my late '50s – as late in my '50s as I can get without being in my '60s. 🙂

  • 101. Straight Grandmother  |  June 30, 2010 at 5:00 pm

    Kirill, you really don't have a choice, really do you? Sure tell your mom, your grandma and your aunts and uncles, "By the way you might not have noticed but I am gay." I think it is much easier for your family to accept if you have a serious BF that is a nice guy. It is much harder to accept I think if you don't have a serious BF in your life. What our son did was tell me and immediatly give me a resource, PFLAG, which helped me a LOT. Honestly it only took me a couple days to come around back to acceptence and love for my son.

    So yes, do come out to your mother. I was completely clueless about both my son and daughter being gay, some parents might be suspecious but I never was, so it is going to be a shock for her. Just have on hand some positive resources for her as she is going to need them. IF she loves you she will accept you as you are. She will aks you if you could possibly change and wish it were different. Just be kind but firm with her that you know you are gay, you always have been, and always will be gay. You need to allow her the time she will need to adjust to this new information and just keep reassuring her that you are going to be okay. Literally Kirill, the truth shall set you free. The end result might not be 100% of what you would like it to be, but it is better for YOU for your mental health and YOUR happiness to be honest. Look above what papa wrote, don't wait until you are old, do it when you are young.

  • 102. K!r!lleXXI  |  June 30, 2010 at 7:39 pm


    Oh, and I forget all the time that you are yourself a grandmother, you seem to be so active and involved in this case that it feels like you're still in your 30s!

    My question, of course, was to everyone who has the experience with their family members coming out to them as gay, especially if the former ones are straight themselves.

    ᴥ       ᴥ       ᴥ

    @Straight Grandmother

    I do have a choice, that's why I'm struggling!  I simply don't want to live in a lie my entire life!  I want my family and friends to know about it and be OK with it, I think it's only natural to desire such acceptance and recognition, especially after a lifetime of hiding it and being afraid it will surface to bite me in the ass.

    That's an interesting perspective you've offered — that having a serious relationship with a nice and loving person can really help our families accept us and be glad that we are happy!  As for the literature with truth about homosexuality and everything else — that is absolutely necessary, no doubt!

    I only hope this wouldn't drive her into religion — in Russia it is a common belief that religion (Russian Orthodox church specifically) is the guardian of morality (I kid you not: I've had some conversations with a priest who said morality does not exist without the Bible and God's Word, and otherwise people are no better than animals who would slaughter each other and commit all sorts of crimes if the fear of God has not been instilled in them in childhood).  So when something like this happens, when your child admits to be what you always believed is a children-raping monster, the most immoral creature you can ever imagine, you may not believe anything one says and try to refer to that guardian of morality you know about, which, as we know, turns out to be nothing more than an organization of people driven by the obsolete doctrine full of ignorance and unfounded odium.

    As for Papa Foma aka Thom (my future father-in-law, cross your fingers), he told me his story months ago, and by doing that he only confirmed my own findings — I want more, I want something real, and I don't wanna have any regrets; and I have a chance for that, much better chance than he had decades ago in his country, but I'm gonna have to get my ass out of Russia first!


  • 103. JonT  |  June 30, 2010 at 8:17 pm

    @Kiril: 'My question, of course, was to everyone who has the experience with their family members coming out to them as gay, especially if the former ones are straight themselves.'

    I have absolutely no experience with other family members coming out. Myself, I took a 'long term' approach. I did not announce at dinner one night : 'Hey, BTW I'm a homo'. 🙂 I know of no other in my immediate family who is gay.

    In fact, my family were the last people to get a clue that I was gay. I started with my friends first. Some I told outright (those I thought could handle it), others I … intimated – indirectly.

    As a result, I found out who my friends really were 🙂 Let me tell you, that is a harsh thing to get used to.

    Some seemed okay with it (but then never talked to me again), others *actually* were okay with it and didn't give a crap. One friend, who was really close to me, simply said "I'm not gay." and hasn't talked to me since. I have to admit – that hurt a lot, and gave me pause.

    I learned that trying to figure out how someone would handle it… well I was almost always wrong.

    My family is pretty conservative, though not 'radical' religionists. They have all figured it out by now, though are uncomfortable when I am too 'obvious' – ie: discuss anything 'gay' related. Okay. So it will take time.

    I remember my dad talking to one of my brothers several years ago at a family BBQ: "I don't know what Jon's into, but he's ok in my book' 🙂 Hehe, that was quite a statement from him.

    Don't think he thought I could hear him, but I 'got' the message. So did the particular brother he was talking to 🙂

    So, this long, rambling message is meant to inform — only you know your parents and friends – and only you can choose the best way to let them know.

    From my view, I'd start 'weeding' out your friends – ie: let them know first. Dump the ones who cannot handle it (as hard and painful as that will be), get close to the ones who can. The strength of good friends is vital IMO. Sorta like this p8tt community 🙂

    Once you have a 'base', and maybe a boyfriend (though I do not suggest that as a requirement), then consider how you approach your parents/family.


    Good luck.

  • 104. Straight Grandmother  |  June 30, 2010 at 11:17 pm

    @ Kirill, Let me ask you a couple questions and don't answer if you are not comfortable. How old are you again? Do you feel your mother loves you? Where is your father? You and Felix or is it Felyx?) are together, right? You are a couple, neither one of you is looking for nor going out with anyone else, right? There is your support, plus you have papa. I do think having a nice BF makes it easier, although your mom at first, may not want to know a lot about him. Every parent wants their child to find love an happiness. If you think about it, you have an advantage by right away being able to tell your mom, that you have someone in your life that you love.

    I have always thought the perfect month to come out is July. It is summer, there is plenty of sunshine and it takes about a month or 6 weeks or so to have this new information really really sink in. Come September the season changes to the fall, and with the changing of the season you kind of let go with the past, summer is over. Both of our kids came out to my husband in July and I advised the son of a friend of ours to come out to his father in July. I think it would be harder to receive this news in the winter, the summer is better. Our son and daughter felt they could not tell their father themselves so they mailed him a card. He got it in the mail, LOL. Hey were wrong about dear old dad, by September he had adjusted, and accepted. He never yelled or anything, he was simply in shock, but you know what? He adjusted. My advice for what it is worth, July is the best month to come out.

  • 105. Kathleen  |  June 30, 2010 at 7:37 am

    Kagan's hearings wrapping up.

    Anyone know of a site that has an archive video of the hearings? I missed part of them and my internet kept cutting out while watching the live feed.

    BTW, she was asked point blank about DOMA and the current litigation. I was glad to hear that her replies seem to suggest she wouldn't feel the need to recuse herself from any cases on the issue when they come to the Supreme Court.

  • 106. Kathleen  |  June 30, 2010 at 8:03 am

    Answered my own question. It think they're all here:

    Kagan's nomination and the Q & As on many topics seem relevant and important enough to CC's mission that it would seem to warrant a Post on the subject – would also be nice to have it so we could have a discussion on the topic on its on thread.

    Anyone reading?

  • 107. Ray in MA  |  June 30, 2010 at 9:18 am

    Hi Kathleen, … we definitely owe you one…

    This is the question from Grassley:

  • 108. Kathleen  |  June 30, 2010 at 9:42 am

    I heard a direct question pointblank about DOMA and her role in defending it. I thought it was Grassley; I'm still looking for it.

  • 109. Kathleen  |  June 30, 2010 at 10:17 am

    Found it! It's in the video "Day 3, Part 2" at 2:42:28 (of 3:10:39)

    I think this is the direct link to the appropriate video

  • 110. Kathleen  |  June 30, 2010 at 7:44 am

    UPDATE: Charles Cooper's reply to plaintiffs letter (Doc 695) re: CLS v Martinez.

  • 111. K!r!lleXXI  |  June 30, 2010 at 8:02 am

    Translation of Cooper's letter:  “That's not what SCOTUS meant!  They only said it to illustrate an example!  But they still disparage queers 'cause they deserve it, those freaking queers! — don't make a mistake about that!  we know you will make a mistake, dear Judge, because you are yourself queer!


  • 112. Kathleen  |  June 30, 2010 at 8:05 am

    “That’s not what SCOTUS meant!"

    That mostly sums it up.

  • 113. Monty  |  June 30, 2010 at 8:11 am

    Oddly similar to a lot of religious arguments. "Well, that's not what the author meant to write."

  • 114. nightshayde  |  June 30, 2010 at 8:22 am

    I think Cooper forgot to mention the "I'll hold my breath until I turn blue" part.

    Sorry – just pictured him pouting, furrowing his brow, and stomping his feet as I read that.

  • 115. Kathleen  |  June 30, 2010 at 8:44 am

    I keep imagining him sweating and moaning —

    My Lord, why won't they leave me alone? Do I have to keep making these ridiculous, unsupportable ravings over and over? Haven't I suffered enough public humiliation?

  • 116. Felyx  |  June 30, 2010 at 8:49 am

    Oh and PS…you still haven't made them give back those videos that show us acting like a bunch of uneducated monkeys…our supporters might stop giving our front groups money if they actually get to see what losers we are! Chop! Chop! Judgey!

  • 117. JonT  |  June 30, 2010 at 9:01 am

    @Kathleen: 'My Lord, why won’t they leave me alone? Do I have to keep making these ridiculous, unsupportable ravings over and over? Haven’t I suffered enough public humiliation?'

    LOL! That's pretty much what I was thinking too! 🙂

  • 118. Felyx  |  June 30, 2010 at 10:58 am

    Just curious….and I know my comments tend to be 'edgy' but I am serious when I ask….is there really anyone out there who still feels sorry for Cooper? (I am of course referencing the article regarding this topic from just a few posts ago.)

    Felyx – Still not convinced Coop is not a 'Poop head'!

  • 119. JonT  |  June 30, 2010 at 11:09 am

    @Felyx: '….is there really anyone out there who still feels sorry for Cooper?'

    Damn, that's edgy. 🙂

    I don't feel sorry for him at all. I do not hold any animosity toward him either. Now NOM on the otherhand…

    He's doing his job – he's got to play the cards he's been dealt.

    That said, I admit to taking pleasure in the apparent weakness (IMO) of his case. Whether that will amount to squat when SCOTUS gets it – I don't know.

    I have hope, and I do not feel sad for Mr. Cooper.

  • 120. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  June 30, 2010 at 5:32 pm

    Isn’t it funny how someone like Cooper can take a SCOTUS ruling at face value unless it flies in the face of the rhetoric of fear used by those who were responsible for shoving Proposition H8 down the throats of the California voters?

  • 121. Bob  |  June 30, 2010 at 4:46 pm

    “The CLS did not attempt , let alone purport to resolve questions regarding definition or nature of sexual orientation”

    but SCOTUS did, and took the opportunity to clarify the definition

    I like their hypothetical scenario of a women in an Male Dominant Club, (would it be her sex, or her failure to adhere to their philosophy that would bar her from running for president) bang on

  • 122. Straight Grandmother  |  June 30, 2010 at 4:47 pm

    Oh but they did say in Lawrence vs Texas that making laws against homosexual "acts" is a sham and what you are really doing is discriminitating agains homosexuals. This was properly cited in Justice Ginsberg's majority opinion on the CLS opinion and as Boutrous notes Ginsberg further went on refered to us as a "class." Cooper can backpeddle, or more accurately tread water all he wants, this case will be decided on what is in the record. In the record our experts said that homosexuality is immutable. Their side never brought a witness to the court to challange this. The record does show that we (not me obviously personally) are immutable and now Ginsberg has called us a "class."

    I wish someone would repost that video of Cooper saying over and over again Pro-creation. Judge Walker and the Justices of the Supreme Court are smart enough in the ways of the world to know that in fact using medical assistance, gays and lesbians are out there procreating every day. And the medical assistance they use is no different than the medical assistance hetrosexuals use. So once you remove "procreation" they have nothing left. Nothing.

  • 123. Bob  |  July 1, 2010 at 3:37 am

    Straight Grandmother, I get what you're saying, but heterosexualtiy also is immutable, (right), so you can include yourself in that statement, that's what makes us equal

  • 124. Sagesse  |  July 1, 2010 at 12:53 am

    "The isolated, out-of-context statements quoted by plaintiffs…"

    Riigght. Justice Ginsberg, in rejecting an argument made by the Christian Legal Society, just happened to take a paragraph to explain the Court's view of sexual orientation vs sexual behaviour in a judgment dated June 28, 2010, using case references subsequent to High Tech Gays. Because the Justices often go off on tangents just to hear themselves speak.

  • 125. Kathleen  |  July 1, 2010 at 9:46 am

    right. 😉

  • 126. JeffSD  |  July 1, 2010 at 8:23 am

    Heres the full quote – Mr. Cooper left out the parts that speak towards that they see it as a class (emphases added):

    Second, the all-comers requirement helps Hastings police the written terms of its Nondiscrimination Policy without inquiring into an RSO’s motivation for membership restrictions. To bring the RSO program within CLS’s view of the Constitution’s limits, CLS proposes that Hastings permit exclusion because of belief but forbid discrimination due to status. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 18. But that proposal would impose on Hastings a daunting labor. How should the Law School go about determining whether a student organization cloaked prohibited status exclusion in belief-based garb? If a hypothetical Male-Superiority Club barred a female student from running for its presidency, for example, how could the Law School tell whether the group rejected her bid because of her sex or because, by seeking to lead the club, she manifested a lack of belief in its fundamental philosophy?

    This case itself is instructive in this regard. CLS contends that it does not exclude individuals because of sexual orientation, but rather “on the basis of a conjunction of conduct and the belief that the conduct is not wrong.” Brief for Petitioner 35–36 (emphasis deleted). Our decisions have declined to distinguish between status and conduct in this context. See Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558, 575 (2003) (“When homosexual conduct is made criminal by the law of the State, that declaration in and of itself is an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination.” (emphasis added)); id., at 583 (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment) (“While it is true that the law applies only to conduct, the conduct targeted by this law is conduct that is closely correlated with being homosexual. Under such circumstances, [the] law is targeted at more than conduct. It is instead directed toward gay persons as a class.”); cf. Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic, 506 U. S. 263, 270 (1993) (“A tax on wearing yarmulkes is a tax on Jews.”). See also Brief for Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., et al. as Amici Curiae 7–20.

  • 127. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  June 30, 2010 at 8:14 am

    What a poop head!!

  • 128. Shun  |  June 30, 2010 at 10:24 am

    Good news to the same-sex binational couples:
    The CA Senate passed AJR15 bill that calls for the Congress and President Obama to pass and sign UAFA into law. As you may or may not know, the Uniting American Families Act calls for allowing same-sex partners to be able to sponsor their foreign partners to immigrate to the States. (only partners so not 'married' couples) Immigration is federally controlled, so no matter how many States allow same sex marriage, binational couples cannot stay together in the States unless the Federal government recognizes it.

    While this passage in CA doesn't have any direct impact on the bill's passage, CA becomes the first state to do so.

    The folks at Out4Immigration have been working very hard to help make this happen. They have also gotten many cities to officially support UAFA too. If your city isn't an official supporter, there are ways to make that happen. If you can, head over to Out4Immigration or contact Tom ( [email protected]) to find out how. It's important to let Congress know that there IS support all over the country for UAFA's passage.

  • 129. Richard A. Walter (s  |  June 30, 2010 at 10:50 am

    Email to Tom sent just moments ago, asking how to start a chapter in my area.

  • 130. Shun  |  June 30, 2010 at 10:55 am

    Thanks Richard. 🙂 I always admire how much effort you put into fighting for our rights

  • 131. Richard A. Walter (s  |  June 30, 2010 at 11:19 am

    You're welcome, Shun. Unlike Joe Solmonese, I do not believe ANYONE should be thrown under the bus for political expediency and fashion awards.

  • 132. Straight Grandmother  |  June 30, 2010 at 11:30 pm

    Richard, it is kind of funny what you write about fashion awards. When our son is by us or vice versa I really make an effort to dress better than I normally do and put on a bit of makeup and do my hair. He had told me before we left France that when we visited him in DC he did not want me to wear Crocs. I have this humoungus pair of crocs, they are the off road model and they are great on the farm and I admit I wear them in my town also sometimes. He is not overly into style and fashion, but he does like to look "nice" and have me look "nice." For him I make the effort although I don't think his husband really cares either way. Now when I go to my daughters and spend time with her she doesn't really care a whit, so no makeup is requested. I want my son to be proud to go out with his parents so for him I make the effort.

  • 133. Richard A. Walter (s  |  July 1, 2010 at 2:21 am

    And I am glad you caught what I meant.
    For those who may not know, Joe.My.God had a blog post about the fact that Joe Solmonese had won a fashion award in Washington, DC a while back, and Joe stated that it would be nice if Solmonese won an award for actually doing something for the LGBTQQI community.
    What you are doing, Straight Grandmother, is something else entirely, and is admirable. You are being yourself while allowing your son, son-in-law, daughter and daughter-in-law to be themselves. To me this says that you accomplished the single most important goal as a parent. You gave your son and your daughter roots to grow from and wings so they could soar like the eagles.
    While I am here, I will take this opportunity to let everyone know that our wedding plans have changed with regard to the location. We have been unable to find anyone we can depend on to watch out for Mother for the length of time it would take us in Connecticut, on top of the couple who want the Chasunah being denied their leave so they could be home in Pennsylvania for the chasunah to take place, so we will be making two trips to Washington, DC to get married. The first trip will be so we can apply for our license, and the second will be approximately 8-10 weeks later, depending upon the schedule of the officiants in DC, so that we can get married. And I hope I get to meet some of you on one of those trips.
    Straight Grandmother, if you are on Facebook, send me a PM and I will reply with my email. That way as we get the final scheduling worked out, I can email you in case you are in DC during either one of those trips.

  • 134. Rhonda  |  July 1, 2010 at 1:09 am

    STEVENS, J., concurring
    page 2-3 footnotes

    1 The dissent appears to accept that Hastings may prohibit discrimination on the basis of religious status, though it rejects the notion that Hastings may do the same for religious belief. See, e.g., post, at 22, n. 5, 28. If CLS sought to exclude a Muslim student in virtue of the fact that he “is” Muslim, the dissent suggests, there would be no problem in Hastings forbidding that. But if CLS sought to exclude the same student in virtue of the fact that he subscribes to the Muslim faith, Hastings must stand idly by. This proposition is not only unworkable in practice but also flawed in conception. A person’s religion often simultaneously constitutes or informs a status, an identity, a set of beliefs and practices, and much else besides. (So does sexual orientation for that matter, see ante, at 22–23, notwithstanding the dissent’s view that a rule excluding those who engage in “unrepentant homosexual conduct,” App. 226, does not discriminate on the basis of status or identity,post, at 22–23.) Our First Amendment doctrine has never required university administrators to undertake the impossible task of separating out belief-based from status-based religious discrimination.

    This seems to say that homosexual conduct is a status or identity such as religion does. Am I correct in my reading of this?

    <3 Rhonda

  • 135. JC  |  July 1, 2010 at 7:19 am

    Just passing along KQED's take on it:

  • 136. Lance  |  July 2, 2010 at 12:56 am

    Who would have thought, a Christian group suing a public university just helped our cause.

    <3 Lance

  • 137. Free games&hellip  |  May 11, 2011 at 7:49 am

    Catch it…

    […]Cool website[…]…

  • 138. porn&hellip  |  May 11, 2011 at 7:49 am

    Get it…

    […]Here is another great site[…]…

  • 139. Tegaderm Film&hellip  |  May 11, 2011 at 1:41 pm

    tegaderm film dressings…

    Honestly this is a great site worth linking to…

  • 140. Woodworking Plans&hellip  |  May 11, 2011 at 4:51 pm

    Steve’s Site…

    […] You may leave a reply, or trackback from your personal web site. Read more from the original source: iHealthy: « Squidoo weblog Share and […]…

  • 141. wordpress tutorial&hellip  |  May 11, 2011 at 5:31 pm

    Inet Reader…

    […]follow the other links to read more[…]…

  • 142. Oatmeal Diet&hellip  |  September 2, 2011 at 6:04 am

    Oatmeal Diet…

    […]the time to read or visit the content or sites we have linked to below the[…]…

  • 143. Nik Antropov Jerseys&hellip  |  October 30, 2011 at 2:41 pm

    Read was interesting, stay in touch?…

    […]please visit the sites we follow, including this one, as it represents our picks from the web[…]?…

  • 144. Asparagus And Cancer&hellip  |  December 14, 2011 at 6:03 am

    Asparagus And Cancer…

    […]below you’ll find the link to some sites that we think you should visit[…]…

  • 145. Ron Hainsey Jerseys&hellip  |  December 22, 2011 at 11:15 pm

    Online Shopping Article…

    […]Supply Premier Soccer Jersey,Football Jersey,baseball Jersey,Basketball Jersey,Icehockey Jersey Shopping[…]……

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!