365 Gay

(Williamsville, NY) A professor who was fired from a small private college says he was discriminated against for being heterosexual [1], Hungarian and a man; that his bosses favored gay colleagues known as the Merry Men; and that he was let go in retaliation for complaining to the state. The college says he was simply unqualified and that a state investigation that found probable cause this month to support his allegations was "poor and incomplete." Dr. Csaba Marosan, 53, is awaiting his day in court against Trocaire College in Buffalo, a two-year school founded by the Sisters of Mercy. "This is not just about Csaba Marosan," the Hungarian-born science professor said Thursday at his home in suburban Williamsville. "It's a lot bigger than that." Marosan said the Rev. Robert Mock, associate dean of academic affairs, and Vice President Thomas Mitchell targeted him for disciplinary action and then terminated him. The school says Marosan's contract was not renewed because his medical degree did not meet an accrediting board's requirements and there were issues with his teaching style. "If (the allegations) were true, there would be nobody working there," Trocaire attorney James Grasso said. "All of those allegations that he presented were based on his personal belief. There was no evidence to back them up because they're simply not true." But the Human Rights investigators found that evidence supported Marosan's allegations that he was terminated in retaliation for filing a discrimination complaint. "The evidence reveals no issue with complainant's teaching performance or his credentials until after he filed a complaint and even indicates that they promoted him with those same qualifications," the decision said. Marosan, who was hired in 2000, filed an initial complaint in April 2009, saying administrators had made comments about his Hungarian accent and customs, passed him over for promotions in favor of younger, less qualified employees and treated him less favorably than women on the staff. After being let go in December, he amended the complaint in April to add the allegations of discrimination based on sexual orientation. Two staffers who were part of the group known as the Merry Men were made science department directors "even though they had less experience and education than anyone else in the department," Marosan's complaint said. He said he did not mention the preferential treatment of homosexuals from the start because he did not want to be perceived as homophobic. Grasso said Marosan filed his initial complaint shortly after being counseled following student complaints that he had used sexually explicit language in class. The state's findings noted at least one of the students had been coached by Mock into complaining. There was no finding of sexual harassment against Marosan, the report and school said. Grasso called the division's investigation "poor and incomplete." "They never came out to the school, they did the interviews by telephone even though they were only 10 minutes away," Grasso said. "He was supposedly denied promotions into two positions for which he never even applied." Marosan, who holds a medical degree from Semmelweis University and is not licensed to practice in the United States, said he plans to air his concerns about Trocaire to the U.S. Education Department. In the meantime, he is awaiting the scheduling of a public hearing before an administrative law judge, the next step following the Human Rights Division's probable cause finding. He said he wants changes at the school and to ensure that faculty members who have defended him are not hurt professionally by their support. [1] http://www.365gay.com/news/wed-watercooler-anti-straight-discrimination-case/

Supporters of California's gay marriage ban filed an appeal Thursday of a federal judge's ruling striking down the voter-approved law. The appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was expected, as lawyers on both sides of the legal battle repeatedly vowed to carry the fight to a higher court if they lost. On Wednesday, a federal judge in San Francisco overturned California's Proposition 8, which restricts a marriage to one man and one woman. U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker ruled the law violates federal equal protections and due process laws. The 9th Circuit court has no deadlines to hear the case, which will be randomly assigned to a three-judge panel. It's expected that the panel will order both sides to submit written legal arguments before scheduling a hearing. The outcome in the appeals court could force the U.S. Supreme Court to confront the question of whether gays have a constitutional right to wed. "This ruling, if allowed to stand, threatens not only Prop 8 in California but the laws in 45 other states that define marriage as one man and one woman," said Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, which helped fund the 2008 campaign that led to the ban's passage. Currently, same-sex couples can legally wed in the U.S. only in Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire and Washington, D.C. The appeal was filed by Protect Marriage, a coalition of religious and conservative groups that sponsored Proposition 8 and wound up defending it after California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown refused. Walker, meanwhile, said he would consider waiting for the 9th Circuit to render its decision before he makes his opinion final and requires the state to stop enforcing the ban. The judge ordered both sides to submit written arguments by Friday on the issue. Hundreds of same-sex marriage supporters celebrated the verdict at public gatherings in San Francisco, West Hollywood and New York City, while acknowledging they have watched court victories evaporate before. California voters passed Proposition 8 five months after the state Supreme Court legalized same-sex unions and an estimated 18,000 same-sex couples already had tied the knot. Joe Briggs, 32, an actor who attended a West Hollywood gathering, said he was thrilled to hear about the ruling but was curbing his enthusiasm because of the legal fight still ahead. "It's a long process. Last time we were allowed to marry for like a day and then they took it away," said Briggs, who wore a T-shirt with an image of Batman and Robin kissing. "But at the same time, we have a black president — so let's just get on with it! It's about equality." Walker's decision came in a lawsuit filed by two same-sex couples and the city of San Francisco that sought to invalidate Proposition 8 under the same constitutional principles that led to bans on interracial marriage being overturned. The 13-day trial was the first in a federal court to examine if the U.S. Constitution prevents states from denying gays the right to wed.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty said in a visit to Iowa that voters should work to remove judges who overturn bans on same-sex marriage. This is the fourth visit Pawlenty has made to Iowa recently, where he is most probably campaigning for the Republican nomination for president in 2012 according to the Minnesota Independent [1]. [2] The Iowa Supreme Court overturned the state’s ban on same sex marriage in April 2009. Conservatives in Iowa have initiated a campaign to oust judges if they voted against the marriage ban. Pawlenty said at an Iowa state fair that he sees nothing wrong with this campaign and that he would likely appoint conservative judges [3]. [1] http://minnesotaindependent.com/63527/pawlenty-says-voters-should-toss-pro-gay-judges [2] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/news-Tim_Pawlenty-gov-top.jpg [3] http://www.wkbt.com/global/story.asp?s=12970127

(St. Paul, Minn.) Protesters have been rallying outside Target Corp. or its stores almost daily since the retailer angered gay rights supporters and progressives by giving money to help a conservative Republican gubernatorial candidate in Minnesota. Liberal groups are pushing to make an example of the company, hoping its woes will deter other businesses from putting their corporate funds into elections. A national gay rights group is negotiating with Target officials, demanding that the firm balance the scale by making comparable donations to benefit candidates it favors. Meanwhile, the controversy is threatening to complicate Target's business plans in other urban markets. Several city officials in San Francisco, one of the cities where Target hopes to expand, have begun criticizing the company. "Target is receiving criticism and frustration from their customers because they are doing something wrong, and that should serve absolutely as an example for other companies," said Ilyse Hogue, director of political advocacy for the liberal group MoveOn.org, which is pressing Target to formally renounce involvement in election campaigns. But conservative organizations are likely to react harshly if Target makes significant concessions to the left-leaning groups. The flap has revealed new implications of a recent Supreme Court ruling that appeared to benefit corporations by clearing the way for them to spend company funds directly in elections. Companies taking sides in political campaigns risk alienating customers who back other candidates. Target's $150,000 donation to a business-oriented group supporting Republican Tom Emmer, an outspoken opponent of gay marriage, was one of the first big corporate contributions to become known after the U.S. Supreme Court threw out prohibitions on corporate spending in elections earlier this year. The Minneapolis-based chain has gone from defending the donation as a business decision to apologizing and saying it would carefully review its future giving. But the protests have continued. Demonstrators gathered near Target's Minneapolis headquarters on Thursday, and two Facebook groups focused on gay rights are organizing protests at Target stores nationwide this weekend. Immigrant rights supporters have joined the protests, citing Emmer's tough stance on illegal immigration. The company is in talks with the Human Rights Campaign, a national gay rights organization that wants Target and electronics retailer Best Buy Co., which gave $100,000 to the same group backing Emmer, to match their donations with equal amounts to help gay-friendly candidates. Fred Sainz, the group's vice president for communications, said he is optimistic both companies will respond to the demand. Target has long cultivated a good relationship with the gay community in Minneapolis, and its gay employees have protested the donation. "The repair has to be consistent with the harm that was done," Sainz said. MoveOn, which had feared a heavy flow of corporate donations to groups that help conservative candidates after the Supreme Court decision, protested outside Target headquarters last week. On the other side, conservatives have begun to rally to support Target, but in smaller numbers. A Facebook page urging "Boycott Target Until They Cease Funding Anti-Gay Politics" has more than 54,000 fans. A page declaring "I will NOT Boycott Target for supporting a Conservative candidate" has a little more than 400 fans. A Target spokeswoman said the company had nothing to add to chief executive Gregg Steinhafel's statement of apology last week. At Richfield Minn.-based Best Buy, a spokeswoman said the company is reviewing its process for political donations and intended the Minnesota contribution to focus "solely on jobs and an improved economy." Emmer has said he views the Target giving as an exercise in free speech and wants to keep his campaign focused on economic issues. Target and rival Wal-Mart Stores Inc. have been trying to expand into urban markets after years of saturating the suburbs. Just last month, Target opened its first store in Manhattan, in East Harlem. The company has 1,700 stores in the U.S. but only 150 stores in cities, and 50 more in cities with more than 100,000 people nearby. In San Francisco, Target got a warm reception when it originally outlined plans to open two stores. That's shifted since the Minnesota controversy erupted. "It just illustrates their disconnect, I think, from a city that they would want to establish a successful business in," said Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi. Target stores would be serving "the epicenter of the LGBT rights movement." Target and BestBuy's donations went to MN Forward, a business-focused group that has run ads supporting Emmer and his lower-taxes message. The group is staffed by former insiders from Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty's administration and has also backed a few Democratic legislators. MN Forward has continued to collect corporate money after the backlash against Target, bringing in $110,000 through Tuesday from businesses including Holiday Cos. gas stations and Graco Inc., a maker of pumps and fluid handling equipment.

[1] Lots can be said about Glenn Beck. He's an active race baiter, obsessive about connecting his perceived political adversaries to Nazi ideology, Kool-Aid drinker of conspiratorial historical analysis,  and a guy who loves his own tears (drama queen). However, he's not predictable. In the whole Shirley Sherrod [2] sage, Beck was one of the few not to take baseless shots at the former Agriculture Department official. Now it looks like he's a gay marriage supporter. Or at the very least unconcerned about the topic. He and fellow Fox News talking head Bill O'Reilly were chewing over Judge Vaughn Walker's Proposition 8 decision [3]. The O'Reilly, who is freaked out by difference in all  its forms, asked Beck why didn't cover the gay marriage debate. "Honestly, I think we have bigger fish to fry," Beck said. "You can argue about abortion or gay marriage or whatever all you want. The country is burning down...I don't think marriage, that the government actually has anything to do with...that is a religious right." Compare this attitude to New York Times' columnist Ross Douthat [4]. He argues to accept gay marriage is to "give up on one of the great ideas of Western civilization: the celebration of lifelong heterosexual monogamy as a unique and indispensable estate. That ideal is still worth honoring, and still worth striving to preserve. And preserving it ultimately requires some public acknowledgment that heterosexual unions and gay relationships are different: similar in emotional commitment, but distinct both in their challenges and their potential fruit." Beck and Douthat are center/right, but this disagreement crystallizes the whole debate over marriage equality. There are those (and they are all over the political map) who put a special premium on straight marriage.  Some will even grant straights are not very good at adhering to the ideal, but  it is "worth striving to preserve." Cool, but I'm missing how gay marriage impacts the life of the ideal. If gay marriage opponents want to protect straight relationships, they should make divorce harder to get. Put restrictions on people who get married more than once (a multiple marriage tax). For argument's sake let's grant Douthat's point. Isn't the "ideal" strengthened when it's spread around? Or to ask it another way, isn't equality best when everyone can share it? For the record: it hurts me to the quick that today Beck and I are one the same side. [1] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/Glenn-Beck-top.jpg [2] http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/29/sherrod-announces-shell-sue-breitbart/ [3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/12/glenn-beck-gay-marriage-n_n_679691.html [4] http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/09/opinion/09douthat.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

(San Francisco) The federal judge who overturned California's same-sex marriage ban has more bad news for the measure's sponsors: he not only is unwilling to keep gay couples from marrying beyond next Wednesday, he doubts the ban's backers have the right to challenge his ruling. Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker on Thursday rejected a request to delay his decision striking down Proposition 8 from taking effect until high courts can take up an appeal lodged by its supporters. One of the reasons, the judge said, is he's not sure the proponents have the authority to appeal since they would not be affected by or responsible for implementing his ruling. By contrast, same-sex couples are being denied their constitutional rights every day they are prohibited from marrying, Walker said. The ban's backers "point to harm resulting from a 'cloud of uncertainty' surrounding the validity of marriages performed after judgment is entered but before proponents' appeal is resolved," he said. "Proponents have not, however, argued that any of them seek to wed a same-sex spouse." Walker gave opponents of same-sex marriage until Aug. 18 at 5 p.m. to get a ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on whether gay marriages should start before the court considers their broader appeal. Their lawyers filed an request asking the 9th Circuit to intervene and block the weddings on an emergency basis late Thursday. They argued the appeals court should grant a stay of Walker's order requiring state officials to cease enforcing Proposition 8 "to avoid the confusion and irreparable injury that would flow from the creation of a class of purported same-sex marriages." Depending on how the 9th Circuit rules, same-sex couples could begin tying the knot in California as early as next week or be put off while the appeal works its way through the court and potentially the U.S. Supreme Court as well. California voters passed Proposition 8 as a state constitutional amendment in November 2008, five months after the California Supreme Court legalized same-sex unions and an estimated 18,000 same-sex couples already had married. In refusing to suspend his ruling for more than a few days, Walker agreed with the lawyers who sued to strike down the ban that it's unclear if Proposition 8's sponsors have legal standing to appeal. Although he allowed the coalition of religious and conservative groups that sponsored the measure to defend the lawsuit during the 13-day trial over which he presided, the judge said appellate courts have different rules for deciding when a party is eligible to challenge a lower court. Based on his interpretation of those rules, it appears the ban's sponsors can only appeal his decision with the backing of either Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger or Attorney General Jerry Brown, Walker said. But that seems unlikely as both officials refused to defend Proposition 8 in Walker's court and said last week they see no reason why gay couples should not be able to tie the knot now. Walker also turned aside arguments that marriages performed now could be thrown into legal chaos if Proposition 8 is later upheld by an appeals court. He pointed to the 18,000 same-sex couples who married legally in the five months that gay marriage was legal in California as proof. San Francisco Chief Deputy City Attorney Therese Stewart, who during the trial helped argue that Proposition 8 should be overturned, said that while it will not be up to Walker to decide the eligibility issue, "it's very realistic" that the 9th Circuit could reach the same conclusion. "We allocate the decision-making authority over how to enforce and defend and prosecute the laws to the executive branch," Stewart said. "Do you want every Tom, Dick and Harry second-guessing what the attorney general does and challenging every ruling the attorney general chooses not to?" The ban's backers addressed the potential for such a roadblock in their emergency stay request, saying California's strong citizen initiative law permits ballot measures proponents to defend their interests when state officials refuse to. "We are confident we do have standing to seek the appellate review here, and we realize this case has just begun and we will get the decision overturned on appeal," said Jim Campbell, an Alliance Defense Fund lawyer who is part of the legal team defending Proposition 8. Other legal analysts think the appeals court will allow the group that raised $40 million to pass Proposition 8 to formally challenge Walker's ruling. "What Judge Walker's ruling means is you can sponsor a proposition, direct it, research it, work for it, raise $40 million for it, get it on a ballot, successfully campaign for it and then have no ability to defend it independently in court," said Dale Carpenter, a University of Minnesota constitutional law professor who supports same-sex marriage. "And then a judge maybe let you be the sole defender in a full-blown trial and then says, 'by the way, you never can defend this.' It just seems very unlikely to me the higher courts will buy that." Walker's order clearing the way for same-sex marriages to resume in California for the first time since 52 percent of the state's voters approved Proposition 8 nonetheless raised hopes among gay couples who flocked to government offices to await word that they soon will be able to exchange vows. "We just want equal rights. We're tired of being second-class citizens," said Amber Fox, 35, who went to the Beverly Hills Municipal Courthouse on Thursday morning in hopes of marrying her partner. The couple wed in Massachusetts in June but wanted to make it official in their home state. Teresa Rowe, 31, and her partner, Kristin Orbin, 31, said they were still happy with the decision even though the ceremony didn't happen. The couple went to San Francisco City Hall early Thursday morning to fill out a marriage license application. "It's sad that we have to wait a little longer, but it's been six years," Rowe said.

The public protests against Target may have subsided for now, but the controversy over the company’s $150,000 donation to a group that ran ads for an anti-gay gubernatorial candidate persists. Reports say that gay lobbying group Human Rights Campaign is in talks with Target to “make it right.” [1] Target, based in Minnesota, donated $150,000 to MN Forward, an economically conservative group that says it focuses on tax reform, spending reform, and education reform. On the group’s website, it presents arguments for these issues in a pro-corporation, pro-business frame. MN Forward [2] backed Minn. gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer, who is decidedly anti-gay. When advocates of gay rights heard about Target’s donation, they boycotted. The protests and boycotts led Target CEO Gregg Steinhafel to apologize [3], saying the donation was made to further pro-business causes and that he never intended on supporting an opponent to gay rights. In a letter to Target employees he wrote, “While I firmly believe that a business climate conducive to growth is critical to our future, I realize our decision affected many of you in a way I did not anticipate, and for that I am genuinely sorry.” He added, “The diversity of our team is an important aspect of our unique culture and our success as a company, and we did not mean to disappoint you, our team or our valued guests.” The Chicago Tribune [4] reported that Target executives are now in closed-door negotiations with the Human Rights Campaign. HRC vice president Fred Sainz said they are discussing ways that Target can start “making it right,” including donating to candidates who support gay rights. "Among the bullets in our gun is their continued relationship with the LGBT community," said Sainz. "Gay and lesbian customers are among Target's most loyal customer base,” in part because Target is seen as a more progressive alternative to WalMart. Target has plans to construct two new stores in San Francisco. The Tribune reported that HRC could threaten to publicly oppose the construction of these new branches, which could do damage in gay-friendly San Francisco. [1] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/news-target-shopping-cart-top.jpg [2] http://www.mnforward.com/issues/ [3] http://www.365gay.com/news/target-apologizes-for-minn-political-donation/ [4] http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sc-dc-0812-target-gays-20100811,0,3008856.story

“The trouble with atheism,” my friend said with a smile, “is that you don’t get any holidays.” Sometimes even tired jokes can be insightful. The friend was a Catholic priest, speaking to me (an atheist) as I spent a week with him and several dozen other priests and brothers. I feel surprisingly at home in such an environment, having once been a candidate for priesthood myself. To cite another tired but true phrase, you can take the boy out of the Church, but you can’t take the Church out of the boy. (The boy asks indulgence from his readers for what’s going to be a strangely personal column.) [1] I left the Church, and ultimately, theism, with some ambivalence. While I’m well aware of the Church’s sins—especially against my LGBT sisters and brothers—I’m also the grateful recipient of its gifts: a rich intellectual and aesthetic tradition, a passion for justice, a commitment to human dignity, a willingness to grapple with the “big questions.” To be sure, its members and leaders have not always lived up to these ideals. But for the most part, I experienced the Church as a community of remarkable people striving to do their best in a broken world. I left it, not from anger, but from philosophical dissatisfaction. In the words of the 17th-century philosopher Thomas Hobbes, the mysteries of religion are like “wholesome pills for the sick, which swallowed whole, have the virtue to cure; but chewed, are for the most part cast up again without effect.” As a philosopher, I couldn’t help chewing, trying to make rational sense of it all. In time the doctrines of the “One True Church” started looking no more compelling than the many competing “false” ones. Eventually the whole endeavor of organized religion seemed inadequate: attempts to explain mysteries by appealing to even greater mysteries. I stopped believing. That was fifteen years ago. In recent years, I’ve become more outspoken about my skepticism, as I’ve recognized the dangers of people’s thinking that they have infallible backing for their beliefs and prejudices. Yet none of that erased my awe at mystery or my longing to understand. I continued to harbor faith in some thread connecting all things, even while I declined to call that elusive thread “God.” Any being who was abstract enough to escape the theological baggage would be too impersonal to be worthy of worship. And yet, even a skeptic’s faith can be tested. On my second day with the priests I received the shocking news that my best friend from junior high through college was in a coma. Michael (not his real name) and I had last corresponded back in March, when I mentioned him in a column [2]. Shortly thereafter Michael learned he had an aggressive cancer—something he kept from most friends, including me. The day after being released from the hospital following chemotherapy, he suffered a stroke. Neurologists weren’t detecting any brain activity, and his partner and family were beginning to discuss removing his ventilator. That’s when I learned of his illness. My priest-friends, naturally, started praying. I appreciated the gesture but declined to join them. Even as a theist I had problems with petitionary prayer: If God always knows and does what’s best, why petition him? Wouldn’t it be unjust for Michael’s fate to hinge on the prayers of strangers? In any case, such questions became moot for me as a skeptic: there are indeed atheists in foxholes. I was singing with the priests when I got the phone call. To the surprise of his doctors and family, Michael had woken up. Let me be clear: I no more attribute this positive turn to divine intervention than I would have attributed his death to divine neglect. Again, if God always does what’s best, then it’s self-serving to praise him only when one likes the results. What tested my skepticism was NOT Michael’s unexpected surfacing. (He’s still responsive, by the way, though his condition is precarious.) What tested it, rather, was spending time with this community of fellow truth-seekers and longing once again to be a part of it. Unlike some members of their hierarchy (not to mention their congregations), these men didn’t claim to have all the answers. They acknowledged God as mysterious. But they prayed nonetheless. I still don’t understand how to pray before a mystery: to praise its glory, to ask its assistance, to beg its forgiveness. But I feel oddly connected to those who do. It’s not the holidays I miss, but the community of seekers that goes with them. John Corvino, Ph.D. is an author, speaker, and philosophy professor at Wayne State University in Detroit. His column “The Gay Moralist” appears Fridays at 365gay.com. This November he will be one of the speakers at the Skepticon conference in Missouri: http://skepticon.org/index.php To learn more about John or see clips from his DVD, visit www.johncorvino.com. [1] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/news-episcopal-church-top.jpg [2] http://www.365gay.com/opinion/corvino-remembering-prom/

Paul Darcy Armstrong was sentenced to at least 11 years in jail for the murder of Felipe Flores in Sydney, Australia, 19 years ago. Armstrong picked up Flores at a Sydney gay bar on September, 2 1991, according to the Australian Associated Press [1]. [caption id="attachment_16234" align="aligncenter" width="325" caption="Felipe Flores"] [2][/caption] A half-hour after Flores’ friends saw him leave the bar with Armstrong, Flores’ body was found at a site known as “lovers’ lane.” "The deceased had been brutally beaten to death," said Justice Terrence Buddin, the judge who sentenced Armstrong. "The victim was subjected to a savage and sustained beating. Mercifully it appears Mr. Flores died almost immediately following the attack." The judge said that the attack was probably sparked by Flores revealing his HIV-positive status to Armstrong. Armstrong was diagnosed with HIV eight years later in 1999. Armstrong was arrested in 2008 after DNA testing matched him with matter found under Flores’ fingernails and bodily fluids on his shirt. He was sentenced to 17 years in prison, but will be eligible for parole after 11 years and six months. [1] http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/more-than-11-years-jail-for-gay-killing-20100812-1212a.html [2] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/news-felipe-flores-top.jpg

What a big day for California! [Also - apologies for earlier outages. We were swamped with traffic after Prop 8 and our servers kept crashing] A wrapup: *Judge Vaughn Walker denied the stay of his decision lifting the Prop 8 gay marriage ban [1], but issued a temporary stay until August 18 so the Court of Appeals can look into the matter. This means that there will be no marriages until after the 18th - and then only if the Court of Appeals either refuses to look at the case or uphold's Walker's decision. After the Court of Appeals makes a decision, then either side can appeal to Justice Kennedy - who oversees the courts in California - and then the entire Supreme Court. All this is only about the stay on overturning Prop 8, not Prop 8 itself. Whether or not there will be an appeal of Walker's decision to overturn Prop 8 and restore gay marriage (and there may not be an appeal [2]) will be decided separately. *Read Judge Walker's Prop 8 stay denial [3]. *Read John Culhane's [4]clear-eyed analysis. * Read NCLR's great breakdown [5]of what happens next. *Read Richard Kim's [6]look at why the anti-marriage movement is falling apart. * Walker:  "In deciding whether a stay is appropriate, the court looks to four factors: (1) whether proponents have made a strong showing that they are likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether proponents will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether the stay will substantially injure other interested parties; and (4) whether the stay is in the public interest." * Response from plaintiff's lawyer Ted Olson: “The overwhelming evidence at trial established beyond any doubt that Proposition 8 denies gay men and lesbians the fundamental right to marry and treats them unequally, without any rational basis for doing so, and that it causes them irreparable and immediate harm.  “The Court's decision today recognizes that there is no reason to delay allowing gay men and lesbians to enjoy the same rights that virtually all other citizens already enjoy."  * Response from Lambda Legal: "Although we're disappointed that Judge Walker elected today to give the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals a chance to consider the issue of the stay, we are gratified that he has denied the request to put his historic ruling on hold during any appeals. "He has applied the standard legal tests in the standard way and reached the only logical conclusions given the overwhelming evidence produced at trial: nobody is harmed - especially not the backers of Prop 8 - by restoring equality in marriage to California's same-sex couples. Nobody suffers when everyone is treated equally. There's enough equality to go around. "To maintain the stay, the Ninth Circuit will have to find that Prop 8's proponents are likely to win on appeal or will suffer irreparable harm if same-sex couples again are allowed to marry. But at this point, the truth is crystal clear, as last week's decision explains: the only people suffering harm are lesbian and gay couples whose constitutional rights are violated every day that Prop 8 remains in force, and who simply seek the same rights everyone else already enjoys." * Response from Equality California: "Monumental! U. S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker has denied Yes on 8 proponents their request that he stay his decision which declared that Prop 8 unconstitutional, paving the way for couples to get married. " This is an incredibly joyful moment in our history, not only for all of the committed couples who will finally be able to get married, but also because a fundamental constitutional freedom has been restored in our great state. "Our victory today is due in no small part to the State of California’s stance on the case. Governor Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown both asked the court to lift the stay and allow marriages to commence. Both have refused to defend Prop. 8 in court, preventing the State’s talented attorneys and vast legal resources from playing a role in this case." * Tweeted response from the anti-gay National Organization for Marriage: Walker has taken his activism to a next level, refusing to stay decision. This will backfire at #SCOTUS [7]. * Response from the anti-gay Tony Perkins, of the Family Research Council: "Once again, Chief Judge Walker has disregarded the will of the people of California by interpreting the U.S. Constitution in a way that imposes his own personal beliefs. We support Protect Marriage's immediate appeal to the Ninth Circuit to stay this decision until the conclusion of the case. "Voters in 30 states have protected marriage in their state constitutions because they understand the importance of a mom and a dad to children. The social science data is overwhelming and clear - children do best when raised by a mom and dad. Judge Walker's opinion completely stepped over these findings by the international research community. Now, by refusing to stay his ruling until all appeals are adjudicated, Judge Walker is cynically attempting to limit the options of the appellate courts by creating a legion of same-sex couples whose marriages could be nullified. In essence, Judge Walker is presenting an unnecessary challenge to the U.S. Supreme Court." [1] http://www.365gay.com/news/breaking-prop-8-walker-says-no-stay-on-gay-marriage/ [2] http://www.365gay.com/opinion/culhane-is-the-prop-8-case-over [3] http://www.scribd.com/doc/35800604/Final-Stay-Order [4] http://www.365gay.com http://www.365gay.com/opinion/culhane-prop-8-stay-analysis/ [5] http://www.nclrights.org/site/PageServer?pagename=issue_marriage_ExtendedStayFAQ081210 [6] http://www.thenation.com/blog/154022/gay-marriage-back-california-country-yawns [7] https://twitter.com/search?q=%23SCOTUS

Earlier this afternoon, Judge Vaughn Walker issued another explosive ruling [1]in the Prop 8 case: There will be no stay of his decision declaring Prop 8 unconstitutional while the case works its way up through the appellate process. He did, however, allow the current stay to remain in place through next Wednesday, August 18 (at 5 pm PDT) to allow the Prop 8 proponents (or, I suppose, the state or AG) to ask the appellate court to hear and grant an emergency appeal of this latest holding. [2] For all of the political posturing on the wisdom of the stay, the legal analysis is really quite straightforward. In deciding whether to grant a stay, courts consider four factors: (1) whether the party seeking the stay has a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) whether the party seeking the stay would suffer irreparable harm absent the stay; (3) whether some other interested party would be harmed by the stay (or the lifting of it); and (4) whether the stay is in the public interest. As Walker notes, the first two of these factors are the most important. If neither of those supports granting the stay, recent Supreme Court precedent suggests that the analysis needn't proceed to the last two. The Court has also emphasized that the party seeking the stay must show not a chance, but a likelihood of success on the merits, and that a judge has wide discretion on whether to issue a stay. A fairly heavy burden, in all. And the Prop 8 proponents didn't come close. First, the judge who'd spent months trying and deciding the case against them wasn't apt to find that they now have much chance of success on the merits. Worse for them, it's not even clear that they have standing to appeal [3](for reasons I explained earlier today , and that Walker made clear are serious obstacles).  Likelihood of success on the merits of the claim is hard to argue when it's entirely possible (probable, I'd say) that you aren't even a proper appellant. You can't win if you're not even in the game. So really, this came down to irreparable harm. And the Prop 8 proponents had a fatal problem on this score. In fact, Judge Walker's analysis of why the Prop 8 proponents failed to satisfy this standard dovetails nicely with one of the points I've been making all along about the legal flaccidity of the case against marriage equality: The irreparable harm is suffered entirely by the couples who can't marry, not by the state (which is, remember, the "real" defendant here) or anyone else. Moreover, the Prop 8 proponents aren't the "state," despite their efforts to conflate their interests and the states'.  (In fact, the state's position against the stay puts lie to the argument that the Prop 8 proponents and the state have a community of interest, let alone identity.) And the court didn't think much of the Prop 8 proponents' newly discovered concern for the other parties - the same-sex couples. According to proponents, these marriages would be in a confusing limbo were they permitted to happen before the case is fully resolved. But, the court noted, the couples can make that call for themselves, and in any case, the on-again/off-again marriage right situation has already been dealt with in California, and the couples' status is clear enough: Those married between the Supreme Court's order requiring marriage equality and the passage of Prop 8 taking that right away are valid. The court could have stopped there, but nonetheless moved on to the third factor: harm to other parties. The failure of the Prop 8 proponents to show harm for purposes of the stay mirrors the problem they had at trial - the trial they rightly feared. Not a shred of evidence supports their conclusion of harm, and their speculative tales of apocalypse can't stand, legally or morally, against the real and obvious harm suffered by gay and lesbian couples and our children. But wait! There's no harm to same-sex couples in having to wait, they argued, because domestic partnership law confers the same benefits and, after all, if getting married were that urgent, the couples would have done so back in 2008 when they had the chance. I'm not going to waste time or your intelligence by responding to these arguments. The one place that the Prop 8 proponents have a colorable argument is in the fourth factor: the public interest. From their perspective, the public expressed its "interest" in passing Prop 8, and - to continue this line of argument - that decision is entitled to respect. Judge Walker rejected this conclusion based on evidence at trial that Prop 8 actually harms the state, and supports its conclusion with a citation to the Attorney General and a concern that taking away rights is harmful to all citizens. This last point could be a bone of contention - if the reviewing (Supreme?) court decides that, in this case, the fourth factor should weigh more heavily than it has otherwise suggested it should. Then, we'd have to consider who gets to decide what the public interest is, and how such decisions are to be reviewed. Again, let's not lose sight of one important fact: The court gave the supporters time to appeal. So nothing may happen for awhile yet. But every decision exposing the bankruptcy of the opposition arguments is a victory. [1] https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/files/Final_stay_order.pdf [2] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/news-prop-8-protest-sacramento-sign-capitol-top.jpg [3] http://www.365gay.com http://www.365gay.com/opinion/culhane-is-the-prop-8-case-over/

San Francisco-- A federal judge put gay marriages on hold for at least another six days in California, disappointing dozens of gay couples who lined up outside City Hall hoping to tie the knot Thursday. Judge Vaughn Walker gave opponents of same-sex weddings until Aug. 18 at 5 p.m. to get a ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on whether gay marriage should resume. Gay marriages could happen at that point or be put off indefinitely depending on how the court rules. [1] Walker struck down the state's voter-approved gay marriage ban last week in a case many believe is destined for the Supreme Court. But he moved to suspend gay weddings until he could consider arguments from both sides on whether the marriages should be allowed during an appeal of his ruling. He now says gay marriage should resume, but he gave conservatives the extra time to get the appeals court to weigh in. California voters passed Proposition 8 as a state constitutional amendment in November 2008, five months after the California Supreme Court legalized same-sex unions and an estimated 18,000 same-sex couples already had tied the knot. Lawyers for gay couples, California Gov. Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown filed legal motions Friday asking that same-sex marriages be allowed to resume immediately. Walker said on Thursday that ban proponents didn't convince him that anyone would be harmed by allowing same-sex marriages to resume. "The evidence at trial showed, however, that Proposition 8 harms the state of California," Walker said. Walker also turned aside arguments that marriages performed now could be thrown into legal chaos if Proposition 8 is later upheld by an appeals court. But Walker said such weddings would appear to be legal even if the ban is later reinstated. He pointed to the 18,000 same-sex couples who married legally in the five months that gay marriage was legal in California as proof. Walker also said that no one can claim harm by allowing same-sex weddings to go forward, but banning them harms gays. Finally, Walker said it also appears doubtful that the opponents of the ban have any right to appeal his decision striking down a state law that he said should have been defended by either Gov. Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Brown. Schwarzenegger and Brown each last week urged Walker to allow same-sex marriages to resume immediately and its unlikely they will join the appeal of Proposition 8. "I am pleased to see Judge Walker lift his stay and provide all Californians the liberties I believe everyone deserves," Schwarzenegger said after the ruling. The case now goes before a special "motions panel" of three judges at the appeals court, the largest and busiest federal appeals court in the nation with jurisdiction over nine western states. The panel consists of two judges appointed by Democrats and a third by a Republican. President Ronald Reagan appointed Judge Edward Leavy to the appeals court in 1987. Leavy, who is semi-retired, has served as judge in the state and federal courts in Oregon since 1957. President Bill Clinton nominated Judge Michael Daly Hawkins to the court in 1994 and Judge Sidney Thomas in 1995. Hawkins, based in Phoenix, served as Arizona's U.S. Attorney under President Jimmy Carter and also worked as a special prosecutor for the Navajo Nation from 1985 to 1989. Thomas, who keeps his chambers in Bozeman, Mont., made President Obama's short list to fill the U.S. Supreme Court vacancy that was filled last week by Elena Kagan. A new three-judge panel will be chosen sometime next year to decide the appeal. Lawyers for both sides have been ordered to file their legal arguments by the end of the year. [1] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/blog-prop-8-rally-top.jpg

Support for same-sex marriage [1]is increasing at an accelerated pace, according to fivethirtyeight’s Nate Silver. Silver updated a 2009 graph analyzing public opinion of gay marriage to include polls from this year. The graph shows 49 percent of the country is in favor of marriage equality, with 51 percent opposing. Silver explained that the statistical methods he used weight the end points heavier, so CNN’s poll this week that found 52 percent support gay marriage versus 46 percent oppose it affected his numbers greatly. The CNN poll [2] asked two questions about gay marriage to approximately 500 people. The first asked if “gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to get married” and the second asked if “gays and lesbians should have a constitutional right to get married.” The response to the first question was much closer- 49 percent saying there is a constitutional right and 51 percent saying there is not. On whether there should be a constitutional right, the pro-gay marriage side was 6 points ahead. Even throwing out this latest poll, Silver said, marriage equality supporters were only six points behind- 46 percent pro-gay marriage compared to 51 percent anti-gay marriage. On average, support has been increasing at a rate of one to 1.5 points a year, but this most recent data shows an increase of four points over the last 16 months. Silver said one factor leading to the acceleration of support could be that gay rights groups only recently started calling for full marriage equality, rather than just civil unions. [3] Let’s hope the findings of this graph aren’t a phallic, er, I mean, false alarm. [1] http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/08/opinion-on-same-sex-marriage-appears-to.html [2] http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/08/11/rel11a1a.pdf [3] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/news-marriage-equality-graph-top.jpg

LGBTPOV [1] published the below, from the West Hollywood city clerk. Other California cities should have similar regulations/expectations.  Once the stay is lifted [which for now is 5 p.m., Aug. 18 - jv], ceremonies will be performed on a first-come first-served basis between the hours of 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday-Friday. Please continue to check our website for updates as we plan to eventually only perform ceremonies by appointment. To obtain a civil ceremony you must first visit one of the County’s branch offices (see the listing below) and obtain a marriage license. While obtaining your license you must let the County know that you are planning to have a civil ceremony at the City of West Hollywood and ask to pre-pay for your ceremony. Please read the information below for more details on obtaining a marriage license. 

Once you have obtained your license please got to Kings Road Park – 1000 N. Kings Road Park, West Hollywood, CA 90069 – to have your civil ceremony. (Remember – Please bring all paperwork and receipts provided to you by County when coming to City Hall for your civil Ceremony.) The Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder’s Office branch offices are listed below and at their website [2] Their marriage information line is 562/462-2137. The closest branch to West Hollywood is the Beverly Hills Branch, highlighted below. COUNTY BRANCH OFFICES AVALON – Catalina Branch Court – (310) 510-0026 (Call for appointment) BEVERLY HILLS – 9355 Burton Way, 1st Floor – (310) 288-1261 – Hrs: 8:30 a.m. – 3:00 p.m., M-F 
Closed the 3rd Wednesday of each month due to court closure. LANCASTER - 1028 W. Avenue J2 – (661) 945-6446 – Hrs: 8:30 a.m. – 3:00 p.m., M-F LAX COURTHOUSE – 11701 S. La Cienega Blvd, 6th Floor – (310) 727-6142 – Hrs: 8:30 a.m. – 3:00 p.m., M-F LOS ANGELES – 4716 East Cesar Chavez Avenue – (323) 260-2991 – Hrs: 8:30 a.m. – 3:00 p.m., M-F LOS ANGELES – 7807 S. Compton Avenue – (323) 586-6192 – Hrs. 8:30 a.m. – 3:00 p.m., M-F NORWALK – 12400 Imperial Highway – (562) 462-2137 – Hrs: 8:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m., M-F VAN NUYS – 14340 West Sylvan Street – (818) 376-3700 – Hrs: 8:30 a.m. – 3:00 p.m., M-F If you wish to obtain a marriage license, couples are encouraged to complete the application for a marriage license online. It’s easy and saves time. Click on “Marriage Licenses and Ceremonies.” Once the online application is completed, you must pay for and pick up your marriage license at any location listed on the County’s website. Both couples must be present to pick up the license. Please see the requirements for obtaining a marriage license below. Please note that once you obtain your license, you must have a ceremony to solemnize your marriage within 90 days. You are not married until you have the ceremony. The ceremony can either be a civil ceremony or a private ceremony performed by someone with the authority to solemnize a marriage. For more information about who can perform a ceremony, please visit the County’s website. In order to obtain a marriage license: • Both parties must provide valid photo ID (driver’s license, passport, state ID card, resident alien card). If a person’s ID does not contain their full legal name they must provide a certified copy of their birth record or a social security card. 
• Both parties must appear to apply for and pick up their marriage license. There is a fee of $90 for a public marriage license and $85 for a confidential license. The fee for a civil marriage ceremony is $25. And the fee to have a certified copy of you marriage license mailed to you is $13. (Cash, check or money orders will be accepted. If paying by check, valid identification i.e. driver’s license of the signer is required and must be presented at time of request.) 
• If a person has been divorced within the last two years they must bring in a certified copy of their divorce decree. 
• Parties who have entered into a State Register Domestic Partnership must provide proof of termination, if the termination occurred within the last two years or less. If the termination was more than two years, written proof may not be required, but the date of the termination must be provided at the same time the license is requested.  
• Parties marrying the same partner, who each entered into a State Register Domestic Partnership must present a copy of the Declaration of Domestic Partnership. Changing your name when you get married The Name Equality Act of 2007 (AB 102, Chapter 567, Statutes of 2007) gives specific rights to parties at the time they are applying for a California marriage license to choose and list on the marriage license the name that each party will go by after marriage. Parties are not required to have the same name, nor are they required to change their name. For specific rules and information regarding name changes please visit the County’s website [3]. Since its incorporation in 1984, the City of West Hollywood has been one of the most ardent advocates for the legal rights of same-sex couples and the right to marry. It was one of the first cities in the country to pass a resolution in support of same-sex marriage. The City, along with a number of other cities in California, filed an amicus brief in the case in support of same-sex marriage rights. The City of West Hollywood is known throughout the world for its pioneering efforts on behalf of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered (LGBT) rights and established one of the first domestic partnership laws in the country in 1985. For more information, please call our marriage hotline at 323-848-6332 and leave a message. Messages will be returned promptly. [1] http://www.lgbtpov.com/ [2] http://www.lavote.net/CLERK/Marriages.cfm [3] http://www.lavote.net/CLERK/Marriages.cfm

Today,  Judge Vaughn Walker denied a stay on gay marriages in California. UPDATE: Walker issued a temporary stay until 5 pm., Aug. 18, so that the Appeals Court can consider the matter. This means that gay couples in California may get married immediately. Proposition 8, voted in by the electorate in November 2008, limited marriage to opposite sex couples in California. The decision on the stay [1]comes after last week's historic decision denying the constitutionality of Prop 8 [2] in California. In his decision, Walker wrote: “Plaintiffs seek to have the state recognize their committed relationships, and plaintiffs’ relationships are consistent with the core of the history, tradition and practice of marriage in the United States.” It is not clear whether Walker's decision overturning Prop 8 can be appealed [3]; if it is decided that the defendant-intervenors have standing and may appeal, the case will advance to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals [4]– the nation’s largest and most unpredictable federal appeals court. This is a breaking news update - We'll have more soon. [1] http://www.365gay.com/news/prop-8-judge-to-receive-stay-arguments-today/ [2] http://www.365gay.com/news/prop-8-unconstitutional-ballot-measure-overturned/ [3] http://www.365gay.com/opinion/culhane-is-the-prop-8-case-over/ [4] http://www.365gay.com/news/gay-marriage-before-nations-largest-appeals-court/

Jarod McIntosh [1], a culinary specialist on board the U.S.S. Wyoming posted his Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell story online. He said that in April, he took his cell phone onto the submarine, which was a restricted area. Camera devices are prohibited from these areas, and McIntosh’s phone was a camera phone. He said it was confiscated and searched for classified material. “Of course there was no classified material on my cellphone, but there was pictures of me and my boyfriend Doug- some very personal pictures that I would have rather nobody seen, let alone my boss basically,” said McIntosh. A few weeks after the incident McIntosh was “informed by my captain that I would be getting an other-than-honorable discharge for m the United States Navy.” “My captain made it very clear that he didn’t care what my orientation was and that I was still a great sailor and he wanted me on board.” He said he is challenging the decision. He ended the video by saying, "That's my story and I hope that it can help somebody. Repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Watch McIntosh's explanation of what happened below. [1] http://www.news4jax.com/news/24602171/detail.html

When Prop 8 was found unconstitutional last week, celebrities took to Twitter [1] to show their support. With albums releasing and films debuting, stars sat down with gay news outlets this week and added more to their thoughts on gay rights. Read what Katy Perry, Julia Roberts, and Daniel Radcliffe have to say to the LGBT community (and without that pesky 140 character limit) below. Katy Perry talked about her dedication to her gay fans and her love of drag in an interview with The Advocate [2] this week. She said she kept gay men in mind when creating her new record, “especially with a hilarious song called ‘Peacock’ that has obvious innuendo. It’s like an anthem for the go-go bars that gay boys will be singing at the top of their lungs.” [3] And on her love for drag she said, “I have watched every episode of RuPaul’s Drag Race [4]. Sometimes I want to dress up like myself and go onstage as a drag queen to see if anyone knows the difference. I’m two degrees away from a drag queen anyways. I love a queen where you really have to question if it’s a guy or a girl — that magical mystery when you just don’t know.” As for her controversial “I Kissed a Girl,” which some thought exploited lesbians, Perry said, “I think it’s just something that everybody feels more comfortable talking about. It’s more out in the open. People are more comfortable in their own skin now because our culture is moving forward.” Perry’s father is was a minister, and she says she was “raised with the idea that being gay was taboo and not right.” But now she said, “I’m glad I’ve had my eyes opened.” On gay marriage: “It’s absurd that it’s not equality for all. The fact that we’re still dealing with it is stupid.” Julia Roberts sat down with interviewers this week to discuss the film “Eat, Pray, Love [5],” based on Elizabeth Gilbert’s book of the same title. The movie takes place in Italy, Indonesia and India, where the cast and crew traveled to film. [6] When asked if she hopes to see gay rights progress in those countries (homosexuality only became legal in India in 2009), Roberts said, “Everywhere. Even in America, we think we’re such forerunners and we haven’t worked out all the kinks either- and I think that love is the ultimate theme of our lives and to let everybody love in the best way they can in the most nurturing way with whoever that person is that they choose, that chooses them- if we could get that down, I think it would solve a lot of other problems.” And the director Ryan Murphy, who is openly gay, said of gay rights, “I think it will change in our lifetime. I think the more and more people who are out about who they are and proud about who they are changes things. I did sense when I was in those countries that things were changing.” Daniel Radcliffe [7], perhaps best known as his character Harry Potter, made tabloid headlines when he became friends with Our Lady J. He sat down with the trans artist for and discussed, among other things, his involvement with the Trevor Project [8], a suicide prevention organization for LGBT youth. [9] [10] [11] [12] He said he wanted to pick a charity that he and his family “really, really believe in, and Trevor absolutely was one of them.” He added, “When I got to have a tour of the New York call center, my admiration for the projects, but also for the place and the people, tripled. The systems they have in place, the actual way the call center works on a practical level, is so brilliant and efficient. It’s something I’m very, very proud to be able to be involved with.” When J asked him about global prejudices against the LGBT community, Radcliffe said, “If you take any family with parents who are bringing their kids up in a narrow-minded way that includes homophobia, it will take a very profound moment of realization to change those deep-seated views.” [1] http://www.365gay.com/news/celeb-gay-marriage-supporters-take-to-twitter-to-react/ [2] http://advocate.com/Arts_and_Entertainment/Music/Gurl_Crush/ [3] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/news-katy-perry.jpg [4] http://www.logotv.com/shows/rupauls_drag_race/season_2/series.jhtml [5] http://www.towleroad.com/2010/08/towleroad-tv-julia-roberts-talks-eat-pray-love-gay-rights-equality.html [6] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/news-Julia_Roberts_in_May_2002-top.jpg [7] http://out.com/detail.asp?page=1&id=27226 [8] http://www.thetrevorproject.org/ [9] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/news-daniel-radcliffe-top.jpg [10] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/news-daniel-radcliffe-top.jpg [11] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/news-our-lady-j-2-top.jpg [12] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/news-daniel-radcliffe-2-top.jpg

Pretty amazing commentary from Rachel Maddow. Video and transcript below. Visit msnbc.com for breaking news [1], world news [2], and news about the economy [3]   On the show last night, we heard from three people whose American military careers are being ended because of Don't Ask, Don't Tell: U.S. Army Captain Jonathan Hopkins [4], U.S. Military Academy Cadet. Sgt. Katherine Miller [5] and U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach [6]. Ended right now. The $25 million that you and I, the taxpayers, have spent on Victor Fehrenbach's training as an F-15 fighter pilot is down the tubes. The decade of investment that you and I paid for that built Jonathan J. Hopkins into a striker brigade combat team commander -- that's down the tubes. That's over. The $350,000 investment that you and I made in building Cadet Sergeant Katie Miller into a top 10 at West Point, Yale-caliber scholar who could also bench press you, if need be - that's down the tubes.  All of that is over. None of those three men and woman wants it to be over. They want to serve. But as we take our time winding down this policy that everyone says will be ending, as we shamble toward justice, we as a country are continuing to put the lives of these individuals through the meat grinder every day. Col. Fehrenbach has filed a lawsuit because his legal team thinks his discharge orders are due at any minute. Capt. Hopkins was discharged this week. Cadet Sergeant Miller's resignation was processed this week on the sole basis of the continued enforcement of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the policy that everyone says it is going to end when they get around to it maybe early next year. What's the rush? Why are we kicking people out now, in the meantime, while we are waiting for the views of the commander-in-chief and the defense secretary and the chairman of the joint chiefs-of-staff to be implemented? If you are changing the policy soon, why not hold off the ruination of lives under the policy now, in the meantime? Why not do that? I'll tell you why. Because that would take some political capital. That would take some guts. And liberals, according to this White House, ought to be drug tested [7] if we're expecting to see that from this White House right now. Stop complaining and be happy for what you have. Lieutenant Dan Choi, Colonel Fehrenbach and Captain Hopkins and Cadet Sergeant Miller are all expendable, because doing what it would take to save them would be hard for the White House. So go ahead and watch their careers destroyed but stop complaining about it. I talked at the top of the show tonight with Gail Collins about how one way to motivate your natural base for an election is to make your base afraid of what the other side has to offer. And that is true. That works. That works on both sides. It works for conservatives about liberals and it works for liberals about conservatives.  But one less soul-sucking way to motivate your base and to win an election and to keep winning elections and to, frankly, have history look kindly upon you is to get your base to cheer for you -- not just to cheer against someone else, but to see you standing up, not just to bad guys with worse ideas than you, but you standing up for what is right because you know it is right, because we know you know it's right, even though you also know standing up for it is hard. That is how you regain the enthusiasm of your base. That is how you win the respect of your base. That is how you win the respect of the country. And admit it: that is how you win your own self-respect, too. If Don't Ask, Don't Tell is going to end, the president could stop enforcement of the policy pending that change. Why isn't he? "The Rachel Maddow Show" telecasts weeknights, 9-10 pm ET on MSNBC. Bill Wolff is executive producer. [1] http://www.msnbc.msn.com [2] http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507 [3] http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072 [4] http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/38668288#38668288 [5] http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/38668341#38668341 [6] http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/38668562#38668562 [7] http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/113431-white-house-unloads-on-professional-left

(Boise, Idaho) A gay rights group wants a federal court in Idaho to block the U.S. Air Force from discharging an aviator under the "don't ask, don't tell" law that bars openly gay and lesbian military members from service. Servicemembers Legal Defense Network filed its lawsuit Wednesday in federal court in Boise, asking for a temporary restraining order to stop the Air Force from discharging Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach until a full hearing can be scheduled. It also wants the law declared unconstitutional. Fehrenbach, a 19-year military member who has been decorated for his combat valor in Iraq, disclosed he was gay in 2008 as he defended himself against allegations investigated by the Boise Police Department that he raped another man. Fehrenbach said he had sex with the man, but it was consensual. He was cleared of the rape allegations, including by the Air Force Office of Special Investigations, which found them to be without merit, according to court documents filed Wednesday. But he still faces ouster from the military. Servicemembers Legal Defense Network indicated it filed its lawsuit because it believes Fehrenbach's discharge is imminent, following the recent review of his case by officials on the Air Force Personnel Board. "Lt. Col. Fehrenbach could be discharged within days," the Washington, D.C.-based group said. For two years now, Fehrenbach said he has been stuck at a desk, rather than being allowed to deploy as a weapons systems officer in an F-15E jet to combat theaters in Iraq or Afghanistan. "I have been waiting more than two years for the Air Force to do the right thing by letting me continue to proudly serve my country," Fehrenbach said in a statement. "To say that I'm disappointed with where things stand would be a monumental understatement. I'm ready, willing, and able to deploy tomorrow, but I'm barred from deployment, because of this unjust, discriminatory law." The policy prohibits the military from asking about the sexual orientation of service members but requires discharge of those who acknowledge being gay or are discovered to be engaging in homosexual activity. The U.S. House of Representatives voted May 27 for repeal, and the Senate is expected to take up the issue this summer. In July, lawyers for a GOP gay rights organization, the Log Cabin Republicans, asked a federal judge in California during a two-week trial to issue an injunction halting the military's ban on openly gay members. Government lawyers urged the judge to let lawmakers decide. A decision is pending, though Judge Virginia A. Phillips may wait to see if Congress acts. Fehrenbach fears he'll be discharged before any changes. For instance, an openly gay soldier was honorably discharged from the New York Army National Guard on July 22 under don't ask, don't tell. "If discharged, Lt. Col. Fehrenbach will lose his job, income, right to pension (since he is being discharged approximately one year short of the twenty year mark), health and life insurance, and all other benefits associated with being an Air Force officer," according to court documents filed Wednesday. He "will be terminated from a career which is central to his life and identity, and has been for nearly nineteen years," the documents said. Attempts to leave an after-hours phone message for the U.S. Department of Defense were unsuccessful and an e-mail seeking comment from the agency wasn't immediately returned. A press official at the Mountain Home Air Force Base also didn't answer a phone call from The Associated Press seeking a comment late Wednesday. Fehrenbach is stationed at the facility, about 50 miles east of Boise, where he is assistant director of operations for the 366th Operations Support Squadron.

(San Francisco) The federal judge who overturned California's same-sex marriage ban is set to rule Thursday on whether gay marriages should resume immediately in the state or await an appeals court's input. Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker announced late Wednesday that he would issue his decision by noon on requests to impose a stay that would keep Proposition 8 in effect while its sponsors appeal his decision. The announcement came after lawyers for gay couples, California Gov. Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown filed legal motions Friday asking that same-sex marriages be allowed to resume immediately. Those motions were filed two days after Walker struck down California's voter-approved gay marriage ban as unconstitutional. In his 136-page decision, Walker said gay marriages should begin immediately, but agreed to suspend weddings until he could consider the legal arguments. California voters passed Proposition 8 as a state constitutional amendment in November 2008, five months after the California Supreme Court legalized same-sex unions and an estimated 18,000 same-sex couples already had tied the knot. Opponents of same-sex marriage said they want Proposition 8 to stay in effect until their appeal of Walker's ruling is decided by higher courts. They have argued in court papers that resuming gay marriage now would cause legal chaos if the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals or U.S. Supreme Court eventually reverse Walker's ruling. Santa Cruz County Clerk Gail Pellerin, president of the California Association of Clerk and Elected Officials, said county agencies that issue marriage licenses will be ready to serve same-sex couples whenever they get the green light. Before deciding the case, Judge Walker heard 13 days of testimony and arguments. Defense lawyers argued that the ban was necessary to safeguard the traditional understanding of marriage and to encourage responsible childbearing. The judge dismissed the notion that gay Americans were seeking a new right as opposed to one already guaranteed them under the Constitution. He said that preventing gays from marrying does nothing to strengthen heterosexual unions or serve any purpose that justifies the ban's discriminatory effect. "Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital unions," the Walker wrote. "Like opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples have happy, satisfying relationships and form deep emotional bonds and strong commitments to their partners."