Kevin And Don Respond To Being Self Loathing
Looking back at their journey from the Stonewall Democratic Club to Log Cabin Republicans, they claim it was one that was actually started by the democrats. After being told that marriage as not a priority on the agenda in 1995, they became disillusioned with the DEMS. For a decade they felt like they did not belong until they met the republicans of the Log Cabin Republican Club and discovered they too shared a dream of marriage equality. This blog is now a digital time capsule of their time as Republicans and moderated by a friend and supporter.
Thursday, August 30, 2012
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
@GLBTimes Court review of Prop. 8 opposed by Gay Rights Groups. We beg to differ. #DOMA is in 2 parts #PROP8 could strike down all unconstitutional amendments.
With the first Monday in October now only about five weeks away there is much speculation about whether the United States Supreme Court will grant certiorari in the Proposition 8 case, Perry v. Brown (formerly Perry v. Schwarzenegger), 671 F.3d 1052 (2012).
Some legal scholars surmise that since the ruling did not expand the precedent upon which it is based, Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), that the Court will most likely deny cert. I beg to differ. Perry, should be accepted by the Supreme Court on October 1, 2013 because the 9th Circuit decision limited the holding of Romer, to situations where gays and lesbians were previously granted certain rights.
Romer, addressed the constitutionality of a referendum that amended the Colorado state constitution that would have prevented any city, town or county in the state from taking any legal action to recognize gay and lesbian rights.
Romer, applied to laws that were prospective in nature. Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority in Romer made it clear that State Constitutions may not prevent the government from taking any legislative, executive, or judicial action to recognize gay and lesbian rights.
In applying Romer, to Perry, Judge Reinhardt, writing for a three judge panel, ignored the prospective aspects of Romer, and instead held that under Romer, and an equal protection analysis, a state may not remove the right to marry once the right has been granted. This misapplies Romer, and therefore I strongly believe that cert should be granted.