"We need to vote them off the bench to send a message across Iowa that we, the people, still have the power," said Bob Vander Plaats, a Republican politician who is spearheading the campaign. "Not only will it send a message here in Iowa, but it will send a message in California, in Arizona and across the country that the courts have really taken on too much power." The Iowa campaign is a new front in the fight over same-sex marriage, a hot-button issue this year after a federal judge in California invalidated Proposition 8, that state's voter-approved ban on same-sex unions. This week, former Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman disclosed that he is gay and that he supports the federal court's action in California, a case that probably will go to the U.S. Supreme Court. His announcement further fueled the emotional debate over the topic, given his stature in the GOP and his earlier involvement in efforts to mobilize voters by exploiting opposition to same-sex marriage. The effort in Iowa worries not only gay rights advocates but some legal experts who say it is wrong to punish judges for an unpopular decision.

Subscribe to Joe.My.God.

The lawsuit, filed Aug. 13 by David Shupe-Roderick, 25, and Ryan W. Dupree, 21, is the first legal challenge in recent memory to Wyoming’s law defining marriage as being a contract solely “between a male and a female person.” The couple, who are representing themselves, filed the lawsuit after the Laramie County Clerk's Office refused three times to issue them a marriage license. That's unequal treatment, they said, and they're asking U.S. District Judge Alan B. Johnson to stop the state from enforcing any laws that block gays and lesbians from access to civil marriage. “We determined that a lawsuit was the only possible way for them to get to recognize us as people,” Shupe-Roderick said. “I think it’s time that Wyoming lives up to its title. You know they call themselves the Equality State? Well, they’re not so equal.”

Subscribe to Joe.My.God.

1972
The U.S. Supreme Court dismisses Baker v. Nelson, an appeal of a Minnesota Supreme Court ruling that found limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples did not violate the state constitution. The Court finds the case does not ask a substantial federal question, and some argue that dismissal set a binding precedent that could influence the Court's eventual consideration of Proposition 8.

1993
The Hawaii Supreme Court rules in Baehr v. Miike, finding that laws denying same-sex couples the right to marry violated state constitutional equal protection rights unless the state could show a "compelling reason" for such discrimination and sending the case back to trial court. The ruling was later credited with sparking a backlash in the form of laws and constitutional amendments defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Hawaiian voters later passed a referendum giving the legislature jurisdiction over marriage, bypassing state courts.

2010
In two separate cases, a federal judge in Boston rules July 8 that the federal Defense of Marriage Act violated the Constitution by denying federal benefits to married gay men and lesbians and by forcing Massachusetts to discriminate in order to obtain federal funds. Meanwhile, in California on Aug. 4, U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker rules that Proposition 8 violated gays' and lesbians' due process rights. The decision is currently on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

Subscribe to Joe.My.God.

Even with all the medical directives, powers of attorney, and other documents drawn up that the right wing of our nation would have you believe grant the same rights of marriage to same-sex couples, the prejudice of bigots and cranks can still destroy the lives of our fellow citizens.  Such is the case with Harold and Clay, who were an elderly same-sex couple living in Sonoma County, California.

Without authority, without determining the value of Clay and Harold’s possessions accumulated over the course of their 20 years together or making any effort to determine which items belonged to whom, the county took everything Harold and Clay owned and auctioned off all of their belongings. Adding further insult to grave injury, the county removed Clay from his home and confined him to a nursing home against his will. The county workers then terminated Clay and Harold’s lease and surrendered the home they had shared for many years to the landlord.

Three months after he was hospitalized, Harold died in the nursing home. Because of the county’s actions, Clay missed the final months he should have had with his partner of 20 years. Compounding this tragedy, Clay has literally nothing left of the home he had shared with Harold or the life he was living up until the day that Harold fell, because he has been unable to recover any of his property. The only memento Clay has is a photo album that Harold painstakingly put together for Clay during the last three months of his life.

With the help of a dedicated and persistent court-appointed attorney, Anne Dennis of Santa Rosa, Clay was finally released from the nursing home. Ms. Dennis, along with Stephen O’Neill and Margaret Flynn of Tarkington, O’Neill, Barrack & Chong, now represent Clay in a lawsuit against the county, the auction company, and the nursing home, with technical assistance from NCLR. A trial date has been set for July 16, 2010 in the Superior Court for the County of Sonoma.

Marriage is more than about hospital visitation rights.  Had Harold and Clay had the right to marry, none of this would have been possible.  The bigoted actions of those who perpetrated this crime against these two elderly citizen was given the weight of law and carried out by the county government.  Those responsible for this travesty of justice must be punished for their crimes.

You can help – make a donation to the National Center for Lesbian Rights as they fight to prevent any more Harolds and Clays from happening again.  Get involved and assert your rights to be free from government molestation.  EQUAL MARRIAGE NOW!

So while a ridiculous woman like Elizabeth Taylor can get married again and again and again, the vast majority of LGBT people in the world can’t get even get married once!

Liz:  show some wisdom and realize that marriage just isn’t for you.  Although, Mr. Winters is very sexy!

If you’ve been following the proceedings of Perry v Schwarzenegger, the trial of the constitutionality of Proposition 8, then you know that the past 12 court days have been full of high emotional content and scientific fact.  From the opening day, when the plaintiffs took the stand and explained how not being able to marry their same-sex partner has damaged them, through to the expert witnesses who explained about the history of marriage, the history of gay and lesbian discrimination, and more, then you’ve seen the plaintiffs, led by the amazing attorneys David Boies and Ted Olson, building in a very systematic way how and why Proposition 8 is unconstitutional and harms gay and lesbian people.

Equally, you’ve seen the defense attorneys completely unable to impeach either the credibility of the plaintiff’s expert witnesses or their factual testimony.  What’s more, the defense so-called expert witnesses were so utterly unprepared and lacking in expertise that when David Boies cross-examined them, I almost felt sorry for them.  He truly humiliated Professor Kenneth Miller, who’s supposed expertise in the ballot initiative process (and especially as it related to gay and lesbian people) was exposed for the completely empty and shallow body that it is.  Miller must have felt about three inches tall when Boies was finished crushing him like an aluminum can.

But it was the sparring with David Blankenhorn that really nailed the defense’s coffin shut.  Challenged on every facet of his expertise, Blankenhorn not only agreed with the plaintiffs that same-sex marriage would benefit not just the people who want to marry, the children of such couplings, and society’s furtherance of tolerance and equality, he also denied that he was even an expert, but was merely “repeating things that they say,” that “these are not my own conclusions,” and “I’m a transmitter here of findings of these eminent scholars.”  His cartoonish puffery and sanctimonious buffoonery on the witness stand shredded all possible credibility with the judge.

So for now, the trial is over.  February 26th is the deadline for the submission of more documents to the judge, as well as the date which we hope the judge will set the date for closing arguments.