WebProNews

Tag: prop 8

  • Proposition 8 To Receive HBO Documentary

    Proposition 8 To Receive HBO Documentary

    For those unfamiliar with Proposition Eight (or, as it’s usually referred to, “Prop 8”), how is life underneath that giant rock? Sorry I haven’t dropped by for a visit yet, I’ve just been so busy lately and, well, you know how things can get.

    Now, all joking aside…. For those unfamiliar with Prop 8, the nitty gritty of the situation is that during the 2008 California state elections, same-sex marriage opponents placed a ballot proposition on the voting tickets, asking voters to check “yes” or “no” on allowing same-sex marriages to take place in their state. Following lawsuits and a long, winding road of legal battles and red tape, Prop 8 was officially declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of The United States (SCOTUS) on June 26, 2013. This is the most basic summation of events; for more detailed information, readers should look here and here.

    The rulings against Prop 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) were cause for celebration amoung many LBTQAI+ individuals and their allies, with big names including Mark Zuckerberg, Barack Obama, and even Brad Pitt voicing both their disapproval of the law and their joy at it’s unconstitutional ruling. With June being Pride month, parades and celebrations became even more joyful and festive in light of the tremendous victory for human rights.

    Many hope that the rulings against Prop 8 and DOMA will lead to marriage equality across the country, and the writer definitely shares in their sentiments.

    The long, historical battle over Prop 8 is now set to become an HBO documentary. The Hollywood Reporter says that directors Ben Cotner and Ryan White have had “exclusive” access over the past five years with many of the major parties involved in the case, including the four plaintiffs and the legal team headed by conservative Ted Olson and liberal David Boies.

    Director Ryan White says, “We are excited to share that experience with the world.”

    The writer is sure that many are just as eager to partake in said experience, though there is no word yet on when the documentary will debut.

  • Paul Deen Accuser: This Was Never About the N-Word

    Lisa Jackson, a former manager at restaurants owned by Paula Deen and her brother Bubba Hiers, has spoken through her attorneys about the racism controversy surrounding Deen. In a statement provided to CNN, White said that the attention over Deen’s use of the “n-word”, brought to light in her deposition in the civil suit brought by White, is missing the greater point of her charges.

    “This lawsuit has never been about the N-word,” Jackson says in the statement. “It is to address Ms. Deen’s patterns of disrespect and degradation of people that she deems to be inferior.”

    Deen has challenged White’s charges of racial discrimination and her right to bring them in a civil suit due to the fact that White herself never experienced any racial discrimination. She is white. Deen’s attorneys have referenced the principle of “standing” – that a plaintiff in a civil case must demonstrate that they were personally injured by the defendants behavior, not just witness to others’ injuries. They cite the recent SCOTUS decision to not even hear arguments relating to California’s Prop 8 appeal due to lack of standing on the part of the challengers.

    White’s statement addressed her position regarding the racial discrimination, saying, “I may be a white woman, but I could no longer tolerate her abuse of power as a business owner, nor her condonation of Mr. Hier’s despicable behavior on a day-to-day basis. I am what I am, and I am a human being that cares about all races, and that is why I feel it is important to be the voice for those who are too afraid to use theirs.”

    Whether a civil court determines that being the voice for others is enough to constitute standing remains to be seen. What is sure is that Paula Deen has lost millions of dollars in business, endorsement deals and publishing since her statements in deposition became public. Lisa Jackson may or may not ever see any money from the case, but her charges have hit their target right where it hurts nonetheless.

  • Same-Sex Couples Rush to Walk-In Weddings

    Same-Sex Couples Rush to Walk-In Weddings

    In the County Administration building in downtown San Diego it is called “Walk-in Wednesday”. Most days of the week, couples need to make an appointment to come in and get married. On Walk-In Wednesday, couples can show up, get their license, and get married right then and there without an appointment.

    And after the Supreme Court decision that effectively overturned Prop 8 in California, followed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals waiving the 25-day wait for same-sex marriages, couples lined up to get hitched.

    According to Val Wood, Chief Deputy Recorder-County Clerk, San Diego County, all couples need to do is show up before 5:00 p.m. with valid, unexpired identification, fill out some paperwork on a clipboard while in line, and they are set to go. He said that it does expedite things if they have gotten their paperwork filled out ahead of time, but it is not necessary.

    San Diego’s Walk-In Wednesday will continue all summer until September 25 so that more couples can go forward with wedding plans. Some couples may have had plans for marriage between the time same-sex marriage was approved in California and when Prop 8 took it back away again. They have been waiting a long time for the whole issue to wind its way through the courts. Even after Prop 8 was overturned, its appeal to Circuit Court and then the Supreme Court held up any same-sex marriages.

    Opponents of same-sex marriage had gone back to the Supreme Court just a few days ago to protest the sudden onslaught of marriages, saying that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had violated their own rules by waiving a 25-day the wait after the SCOTUS decision. The Supreme Court turned down their request for an emergency stay on marriages.

  • Paula Deen Tries for Prop 8-Style Dismissal

    In a move that combines two of last week’s biggest headlines, Paula Deen is trying a legal maneuver that she hopes will get some of the heat off her beleaguered image and empire. First, a little background.

    As we explained yesterday, the reason the news from the United States Supreme Court was so good for Prop 8 opponents last week was not because the Court found FOR same-sex marriage. Rather, it was because the Court declined to hear any argument at all in the case, finding instead that those parties that were contesting the district court ruling that Prop 8 was unconstitutional had no “standing” to argue the case.

    That term, “standing”, is very important in matters of civil jurisprudence. Essentially, what that means is that any plaintiff in a lawsuit must show that they themselves were directly harmed in some way by the actions of another. The Court was saying that the backers of Prop 8 were in no position to be harmed by the overturn of the amendment. Gay marriage did not hurt them. So SCOTUS didn’t even bother to hear arguments in the case. They simply tossed it out as baseless because the plaintiffs had no “standing”.

    The same principle of a plaintiff needing “standing” is what has gotten several “birther” lawsuits thrown out of court over the past several years. No one was able to prove that they were personally damaged by not having seen a birth certificate for President Obama that they thought passed muster. The suits have been tossed out before the whole game even started.

    This principle is important because it prevents me from going to work, witnessing a co-worker in an argument with another person in which the “n-word” or some other form of harassment gets used, then taking it upon myself to sue the offender simply as a bystander. If anyone is going to sue, it must be the person harmed or offended.

    As we also reported yesterday, Paul Deen’s accuser Lisa Jackson has charged that Deen and her brother Bubba Hiers fostered a working environment rife with sexual harassment and racial epithets. Most of those charges seem to be specifically leveled at Hiers. But she did specifically accuse Deen of using racial epithets. It is that accusation that has led to all the public crying and denials for the past week.

    But the question is: did White have “standing” to complain about racial epithets? As many have pointed out, White is, well, white. She is not African-American. Therefore, the “n-word” was never leveled at her by anyone. Surely her attorneys would have had some notion of “standing”. So White contends that she is “African-American adjacent”. She claims that her nieces are mixed race, with a black father. Therefore she was offended by the alleged use of the “n-word” in her presence because she has family that is black.

    However, Paula Deen has already retorted that Lisa White’s nieces are not black. They are Hispanic. Whether that is true or not, it is certainly established that White herself is, well, white. And as such, she can not claim racial discrimination of herself. So Deen and Hier’s attorneys are now quoting from the SCOTUS statements dismissing the Prop 8 suit, pointing specifically to the notion of “standing”. They say that the lines of questioning about racial discrimination should have never even been a part of the suit.

    All this may be too little too late, even if it succeeds. And it still leaves the sexual harassment side of the suit. But one really has to ask: Why did Deen’s lawyers take this long and let her sit through a deposition answering those questions before bringing up the notion of “standing”? This is not an obscure principle. It was so common, in fact, that White tried to cover it with her own “African-American adjacent” statements.

  • Same-Sex Marriage Emergency Stay Filed With SCOTUS

    With the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling last week that opponents to same-sex marriage in California had no standing to appeal the overturn of Prop 8, same-sex marriage proponents were ready to fire up the wedding planning in earnest. But everyone said it could take a month before all the bells could start ringing. Someone apparently forgot to tell the folks in California. The ruling happened on Wednesday. On Friday they were cutting the cake.

    And now opponents of same-sex marriage are running back to SCOTUS to stop the weddings. They have filed an emergency petition. But on what basis? SCOTUS ruled. It was in a few papers.

    The organization ProtectMarriage issued a statement on Friday that explained their reasons for thinking they have basis for appeal to SCOTUS now.

    We just received word that the Ninth Circuit, without waiting for the Supreme Court’s decision to become final and depriving us of our right to ask for reconsideration, has rushed forward to order same-sex marriage licenses.

    This outrageous act tops off a chronic pattern of lawlessness, throughout this case, by judges and politicians hell-bent on thwarting the vote of the people to redefine marriage by any means, even outright corruption.

    Homosexual marriage is not happening because the people changed their mind. It isn’t happening because the appellate courts declared a new constitutional right. It’s happening because enemies of the people have abused their power to manipulate the system and render the people voiceless.

    The resumption of same-sex marriage this day has been obtained by illegitimate means. If our opponents rejoice in achieving their goal in a dishonorable fashion, they should be ashamed.

    It remains to be seen whether the fight can go on, but either way, it is a disgraceful day for California.

    The entire issue hinges on a mater of wording and timing. The ProtectMarriage folks explain it this way.

    When the Ninth Circuit originally put in place its stay to prevent same-sex marriage pending Supreme Court action, it stated clearly that “the stay shall continue until final disposition by the Supreme Court.” Under Supreme Court procedural rules, “final disposition” comes when the Supreme Court issues a “mandate” to the Ninth Circuit, at least 25 days after announcing its opinion in the case. The 25-day waiting period is provided to allow parties such as Prop 8′s proponents to petition the Supreme Court for a re-hearing of the case.

    Today’s petition asks the Supreme Court to find that the Ninth Circuit had no jurisdiction to order same-sex marriages on Friday, since the case had not yet come back down from the nation’s highest court.

    However, there are some interesting twists to whether the Ninth Circuit Court’s statement about waiting until final disposition is even still in effect. What SCOTUS actually did was not to declare Prop 8 invalid. That had already been done by the original district court ruling in California. SCOTUS ruled that proponents of Prop 8 had no “standing” to appeal the district court’s decision. Thus they never heard any further argument in the case. But they also ruled that the Ninth Circuit should have never heard the case in the first place either, and ordered the decision of the Ninth – possibly including the stay itself – to be vacated. The argument could be made that such a vacating also undoes the statement by the Ninth about waiting until the “final disposition” of SCOTUS.

    ProtectMarriage went even further in their statement, raising the question about why so many people seemed ready to perform marriages within minutes of the Ninth ordering them valid again on Friday.

    Suspiciously, the Ninth Circuit’s announcement late Friday ordering same-sex marriages came as a surprise, without any warning or notice to Proposition 8′s official proponents. However, the same-sex couple plaintiffs in the case, their media teams, San Francisco City Hall, L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and the California Attorney General all happened to be in position to perform same-sex marriages just minutes after the Ninth Circuit’s “unexpected” announcement.

    Most statements issued by this group appear to come from one man, an attorney named Anthony Pugno, who serves as General Counsel for ProtectMarriage. Pugno ran for a California State Assembly seat in 2012, but lost to the incumbent Republican in a 69-to-31 percent shellacking.