On April 29, the federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals granted plaintiffs' motion for expedited review in Lemons v. Bradbury, the lawsuit filed by out-of-state groups seeking to revive last year's failed referendum against Oregon's domestic partnership law by forcing elections officials to change the way they treat signatures on voter petitions. The original review schedule set by the Court likely would have resulted in a decision sometime next year, but Friday's order means the case could be decided as early as July.

Basic Rights Oregon has more information including updated Lemons v Bradbury timeline, court docs etc. That's here.

Related posts from Gay Rights Watch:

One of the judicial nominees Bush has been threatening a recess appointment for was recently arrested for DUI wearing a little black dress, fishnet stockings and stilletto heels.

Of course Federal Judge Robert Somma has resigned. The best part? He phoned in his resignation from a vacation spot in the Caribbean.

Via Pensito Review:

Somma's Mercedes-Benz E320 sedan hit a pick-up truck from behind about 11:29 p.m. on Feb. 6, the police report said. No one was hurt.

Somma, who lives in Newbury, Mass., fumbled in his purse for his driver's license before handing it to the officer who later arrested him, the police report shows.

"He had a difficult time locating his license in his purse. He passed over it multiple times before removing it," officer Paul J. Thompson wrote in his report.

The officer offered no other details with regard to the judge's attire or accessories. Nor would representatives of the Manchester Police Department or the city solicitor's office, which worked out the negotiated plea agreement with Somma's lawyer...

But lots of other people did offer those details, of which Audrey Hepburn would have been proud.

When authorities removed him from the vehicle, they said he wore a black women's cocktail dress, fishnet stockings and high heels.

But in his mug shot, the judge appears to be wearing blue eye shadow. Way to wreck a really chic look, Robert.

And where, you might ask, was the judge going that night dressed that way?

Somma told police he had been at the Breezeway Pub where he had one gin and tonic about two hours earlier, the police report reveals. He later said he drank two gin and tonics.

The Breezeway Pub, at 14 Pearl St., bills itself as "New Hampshire's favorite gay and alternative bar," according to its web site.

The arresting officer reported Somma smelled of alcohol, slurred his speech and fell backwards against the door frame while getting out of his car.

Labels: dick of the week, federal court, republican, scandal

Officials in the Poway school district near San Diego did not violate the First Amendment rights of a student they punished for wearing a homophobic T-shirt to class, a federal judge ruled.

Tyler Chase Harper sued the school district in 2004, arguing that his rights were violated when he was removed from class for wearing the anti-gay shirt on the Day of Silence, which is intended to promote tolerance of gays and lesbians. The shirt read "I Will Not Accept What God Has Condemned" on one side and "Homosexuality Is Shameful, Romans 1:27" on the other side.

The next day, he wore the same shirt, but it had been altered to read "Be Ashamed [of What] Our School Has Embraced." School administrators asked him to remove his shirt on the second day because they said it violated their dress code, which bans promotion of "violent or hateful behavior."

Harper refused, and he was removed from class and assigned to the front office to complete his day's remaining schoolwork.

"The main point of the case is free speech, and students have their right to be heard on campus," Kevin Theriot, one of Harper's attorneys, told The Advocate in May. "Just because other students don't agree, doesn't mean that he can't voice [his opinions]."

The case made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which eventually nullified it because at that point Harper had already graduated from high school. His sister Kelsie then took his place in the case, where it is now. When her brother first went to the federal court, he won.

On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge John Houston overturned the court's earlier decision. Houston decided not to issue an injunction to stop the district from enforcing the policy in 2006. A year later, he threw out the case against the district.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Houston's decision not to issue an injunction, according to the San Diego Union-Tribune.

Houston wrote Tuesday that Poway school district's "interest in protecting homosexual students from harassment is a legitimate pedagogical concern that allows a school to restrict speech expressing damaging statements about sexual orientation and limiting students to expressing their views in a positive manner."

Free-speech advocates and the Harpers' legal team are distraught over the decision, which states that school districts are within their rights to protect students by limiting freedom of expression.

David Blair-Loy, the legal director for San Diego and Imperial County American Civil Liberties Union, told the newspaper that the ruling is troubling. The organization filed a friend-of-the-court brief on the student's behalf, siding with religious groups they normally argue against.

"And let's face it: What about high school is not psychologically damaging?" Blair-Loy said in the article. "This student wore a T-shirt that expressed an idea. It's an idea we don't agree with at the ACLU, but that is the essence of free speech. It's not just for ideas you like."

Via Planetout

Labels: anti gay, california, federal court, lawsuit

I just published a very matter of fact post on today's court hearing, but what doesn't come through is my incredible anger, disgust and contempt (and as most of you know, I typically don't have a problem holding back my feelings on this blog).

I'm outraged that these out-of-state, anti-gay extremist groups who have infiltrated the courts are parading around as "trying to fix the process". It's a lie. It's a joke. It's bullshit.

Up until the point that they filed suit, all they spouted was anti-gay filth. Absolute filth. The Portland based attorney brought in on the anti-gay side by the out-of-state group was there at the legislative hearings on the bill. He testified against the bills - and not only in 2007, but in 2005. He has a long track record.

These forces are masquerading themselves as saints attempting to alter the Oregon initiative process - when in reality it has little to do with the process itself, but the end result. The end result being to advance their extremist, out-of-state, anti-gay agenda here in Oregon.

They are blind to the facts of the issue. Blind to the fact that these INCREDIBLY basic rights and responsibilities that come with Oregon's Domestic Partnerships do nothing more, though more importantly nothing less than grant committed same-sex couples and their families safety and security. The basic right to take care of one another in times of crisis.

So hey, fuck you, fuck your falsehoods, fuck your lies and fuck your "god". For my God is one of love and compassion, not one of hatred and bigotry. Leave us alone and get the hell out of Oregon - this is not your state to screw over and you have NO right to attack my family and steal what is not yours for the taking. You have tainted my state and for that the people of Oregon will not forget you. You are a stain in our history books.

Be it in Lemons v. Bradbury - or in November when Oregonians decide, fairness, justice and equality will prevail. Lets not forget a major ruling back in Parman v Oregon earlier this year. Judge Eric Bloch ruled that if Oregon's Domestic Partnership law did not go into effect, it would cause a "constitutional crisis".

So no matter what - Domestic Partnerships will happen, it is just a matter of when and these anti-gay groups need to realize that they are fighting the inevitable.

Whew. Glad I got that out.

Labels: anti-gay, domestic partnership, federal court, lawsuit, oregon

Starting at 10am this morning, a federal court has been hearing from both sides of the Lemons v. Bradbury issue.

They'll here from a myriad of people including the Secretary of State's office, handwriting experts, anti-gay attorney's from the Alliance Defense Fund and of course Basic Rights Oregon and their counsel.

While the fate of Oregon's Domestic Partnership law may or may not be decided today - at least we have made it to this day. Judge Mosman, who is hearing the case, made it clear at the first hearing in late December that he saw the harm that a delay in this law would cause, therefore he wanted to keep the timeline as short as possible.

So today we could see two outcomes. He could rule from the bench based on the close to 5 hours of testimony - or he could make a ruling in about a week to two weeks.

We should know in just a few hours. Stay tuned.

Labels: domestic partnership, federal court, HB 2007, lawsuit, oregon

Early estimations say that there could be upwards of 1500 people filling Terry Shrunk Plaza at 5:30 tonight - all rallying for equality. As most of you know Friday is the federal court hearing on Oregon's Domestic Partnership law. We probably won't know the fate of the law on Friday as the judge is expected to take some time to make his ruling. Possibly a few weeks.

Not caught up on everything that has happened? Here is some of our recent coverage:
DELAYED: Oregon Domestic Partnership Law
Squashed: The Hope and Dreams of Oregon Families
Oregon Domestic Partnership Law Delay: What's Next?
Photo Journal: Portland's Candlelight Vigil
Judge Mosman Grants BRO's Motion to Intervene in Lemons v Bradbury


Stand Up and Be Counted TONIGHT. For more info on TONIGHT'S rally - click here.

Also - check out Jeana Frazini's (Exec. Dir. of Basic Rights Oregon) guest piece on Blue Oregon.

Labels: basic rights oregon, domestic partnership, federal court, lawsuit, oregon

In an April 2003 story in the Oregonian entitled, "Smith's Pick Stirs Gay-Rights Controversy", it talks about the now District Court Judge Michael Mosman as possibly having an anti-gay side.

From the Oregonian:
What once seemed like a slam-dunk nomination for the federal judiciary in Oregon could turn into a test of political wills for Oregon's two senators, Republican Gordon Smith and Democrat Ron Wyden.

Michael Mosman, the U.S. attorney in Portland, is Smith's choice for a vacant district judgeship and is still regarded as a favorite of the Bush White House. But recent revelations of Mosman's views on gay rights, first expressed in 1986, have delayed his selection and what otherwise would likely be easy Senate confirmation.

Now, gay-rights groups are demanding explanations from Mosman, putting Smith's carefully crafted reputation as a friend to the homosexual community on the line. Wyden, meanwhile, could be the only defense against a filibuster by the Senate's increasingly restive Democratic minority if he chooses to support Mosman's nomination.

The senators have cooperated in filling the vacancy created when U.S. District Judge Robert E. Jones took senior status in 2000. But they could face rough going if national gay-rights groups actively oppose Mosman's nomination.

"If the gay-rights community makes this nomination a litmus test, then quite frankly, they're in the middle of it and they're going to have to take sides," said Jim Moore, an independent political analyst in Portland.

It's unclear whether that will happen. But gay-rights activists say they're still waiting for answers from Mosman.

"What I want him to show is that he has come to understand that relationships need to be judged on their quality, not whether they are gay or straight," said Roey Thorpe, executive director of Basic Rights Oregon, an advocacy group in Portland.

Mosman, 46, emerged as the top candidate in January after Ray Baum, a lawyer for Smith's family business, withdrew. But controversy erupted in March, when Basic Rights disclosed Mosman's role in a pivotal 1986 case, Bowers V. Hardwick (read about the case on Wikipedia here).

The group uncovered and presented to Smith two "bench memos" that Mosman had written as a clerk to Supreme Court Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. Mosman urged Powell to uphold Georgia's anti-sodomy law against a claim that police invaded a man's privacy by arresting him in his home.

Read the entire story here.

Labels: basic rights oregon, domestic partnership, federal court, gay rights, oregon

UPDATE: 3:20pm - Calls made to various sources for a status update. No status to report as of yet. More to come.

Due to the State's motion to quash the subpoenas to the county clerks, the Court rescheduled the TRO/PI hearing for 2PM Friday afternoon. The Judge will conduct a telephone hearing at 10AM on the State's motion to quash the subpoenas.

We were going to be there live blogging at 10am this morning and now that it is postponed we cannot make the 2pm.

We'll provide an update as soon as we hear what happens.

Labels: domestic partnership, federal court, lawsuit, oregon

We'll be blogging live from the first oral arguments this Friday starting at 10am. The case, Lemons v. Bill Bradbury (Oregon Secretary of State) and a bunch of other random people that the sue happy "Alliance Defense Fund" and "Restore America" are challenging after their inability to get their anti-gay referendum on the ballot. They are seeking an injunction/restraining order to stop Domestic Partnerships from going into law on January 1st. They've had since October to file this suit and they waited until now.

Basic Rights Oregon has submitted a friend of the court brief and have retained the counsel of Margaret Olney - not to mention the fact that they have an amazing legal team from the best firms across the state who work pro bono. All great people.

In any case, we'll be there. Hopefully they will have wireless and allow laptops - otherwise we'll be blogging via iPhones!

Labels: domestic partnership, federal court, lawsuit, live blogging, oregon