"Police arrested a man in his 30s who swung karate kicks at several people walking down the ‘gay golden mile’ on Monday night.
Gay equality campaigner Simon Margan was left with a shattered eye socket – he was victim number three of one man’s six-assault anti-gay rage, he believes.
Wearing chunky military-style boots, the man, believed to be aged in his 30’s, began his rampage from Taylor Square and continued to outside Gloria Jean’s two blocks away, around 9pm on Monday, Margan tells Same Same.
'I’d seen him before, tearing down gay event posters and mumbling about ‘eradicating gays’. He tried to kick me and at first he missed – I stood back, but he took aim, hitting me in the eye. I’d thought he’d had a knife. I screamed for help, as my face started bleeding. The attacker had been so calm. He didn’t say anything. I think his attacks were premeditated – he was doing it because he hated gays.' His assailant did not seem drunk, Margan adds."
A man was apprehended at the scene. He faces nine charges.
As some of you might remember, as as reported here, a federal district judge in Massachusetts ruled the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional under the 10th Amendment, which protects the prerogatives of the States, and the 5th Amendment, which ensures equal protection. Judge Joseph Tauro's opinions are available here and here.
No, I'm not bothering you with old (but still good) news. Lost in a frenetic day dominated by the Left Coast was that "back east", Judge Tauro entered final judgment in both cases, captions Gill v. Office of Personnel Management and Massachusetts v. Department of Health and Human Services. Final judgment is a little archane: It is the written determination of a lawsuit by the judge who presided at trial, which makes rulings on all issues and completes the case. It's like hitting the "Send" button on your email. The moment you send it, the email is out there and you can bet someone is going to read it. But, only after those few seconds when you can still hit "Unsend" or "Recall" is the email officially (and in some cases, unfortunately) out there. Though it is a little more complicated than that, you get the idea.
This case has so far not been appealed to the First Circuit, the appellate court sitting in New England. This means that, as to Massachusetts, certain parts of DOMA, and its enshrined discrimination against same-sex couples, are officially unconstitutional.
Thanks to loyal reader, Jason C., for making sure I'm on the ball. And, to any Eli's out there, excuse the Cambridge-centered post.
UPDATE: Clarification
Good afternoon, dear readers. My apologies for an unclear post, so I would like to clarify a few things here. Any confusion and errors in the original post are entirely my responsibility and while nothing I said was wrong, it was certainly unclear. I should know better and will do a better job going forward.
I did not mean to imply that this case is over. Entering final judgment, as some of the comments have noted, means that the clock for an appeal begins, giving the loser in the case -- in this case, branches of the federal government -- a set deadline to file papers with the First Circuit. The open period is 60 days, so we will probably be looking at these cases again in two months. in the earlier draft of this post, I meant to convey the fact that there has yet to be any appeal or sign that the federal government will appeal. But, now that we have final judgment, we can start the waiting game.
President Obama has indicated that he wants DOMA repealed, which would be a great step forward for marriage equality. The Department of Justice, in keeping with what many believe is its obligation to enforce laws on the books until the legislative branch acts, has been placed in a position where it has defended DOMA in various district courts. The question here is a little different: Having defended DOMA in front of Judge Tauro, will the federal defendants in this case elect to appeal to the First Circuit? We have to wait and see.
UPDATE: Response to some comments.
I'd also like to take this opportunity to respond to some of the excellent comments and questions in the comments section.
I hope many of the questions have been answered by my clarification. Again, my sincere apologies both for the delay in answering these questions and for writing an unclear sentence.
@1truBob: You asked about what this means on Main Street, i.e., this ruling's effect on social security benefits, etc. Good question. We lawyers and law professors often lose sight of the fact that a fascinating legal inquiry has real implications! One of the principal effects of DOMA is that it bars the federal government from granting any rights that it grants to opposite-sex married couples to same-sex married couples. It was meant as a Last Stand against states that have marriage equality. If this ruling stands -- after any appeals -- married, same-sex couples in Massachusetts would have access to all those rights and benefits that comes with being married in the eyes of the federal government.
But, there's the rub. If you go back and read these opinions, they only apply to Massachusetts, or, more specifically, the ruling that parts of DOMA are unconstitutional impacts the lives of married, same-sex couples in Massachusetts. If the plaintiffs -- Gill and Massachusetts Attorney General Coakly -- win on appeal, a First Circuit decision may, and I have to repeat may, enforce Judge Tauro's decision across the First Circuit, which includes New Hampshire, Maine, Rhode Island and Puerto Rico. I do not see that happening because the case is unique to Massachusetts. Then again, as a former appellate attorney, it was often my job to limit holdings and narrowly construe cases, so this might be some professional bias here.
This is where appellate strategy comes in. This is a fairly good assessment of some of the interesting twists and turns this case could take and why strategy on appeal is supremely important.
The way our system works is that a single federal district judge in, say, Boston, cannot automatically hold sway over the law in, say, Topeka, Kansas. We do that because we believe in federalism in this country. We believe in state's rights and the existence, to some varying extent, of the right of different states to act differently when it comes to state issues. Marriage is usually one of those state issues, which is why there are so many conservative legal scholars who believe DOMA is unconstitutional. By legislating on marriage -- traditionally a state issue -- the federal legislature violated the 10th Amendment, which reserves for the States powers not delegates to the federal government.
But the decision of a circuit court of appeal could impact more than just one state. In the DADT case out west, Witt v. Department of the Air Force, the Ninth Circuit held that accusations of homosexual activity have to be based on credible sources. That is law in every Ninth Circuit state, not just California or Idaho. But, the district court's decision in Witt was different that Judge Tauro's decision in these cases. In Witt, the judge did not limit his conclusion to citizens of California. Judge Tauro explicitly limited ruling to the people of Massachusetts. An appellate court would have to maximize its decision without being asked to have an effect on other states. I'm not saying it cannot happen, but its hard to see it.
UPDATE: Some implications of Judge Tauro's decision
Many commentators and analysts appear to be missing something profound -- namely, the implications that Judge Tauro's decisions have on other issues, such as health care reform and other federal regulatory programs. Part of Judge Tauro's decision relies on an empowered 10th Amendment, which is a talisman among conservatives and legal scholars on the right. Conservatives have argued against everything from the New Deal to civil rights legislation to health care reform on the basis of the 10th Amendment, which appears to limit federal regulatory intervention in areas not specifically delineated to them in the Constitution. Of course, it's not as simple as that. A 10th Amendment on 'roids can duke it out with a Commerce Clause on HGH and it's not clear who wins that cage match. It's a battle that's been going on since the late 1800s and shows no signs of abating.
Judge Tauro may have given liberals and marriage equality advocates a great result, but legal scholars on the left should be somewhat concerned about the reasoning he used to get there.
SF Mayor Gavin Newsom offers his congratulations and thoughts on yesterday's announcement from Judge Walker that the stay on the Prop 8 decision would be lifted in a week.
Longtime Provincetown resident John Waters gives an interview to The Paris Review and discusses his writing habits, and his recent appearance on The Colbert Report:
"You have to give the totally straight face with him because he is such a good straight man. It was so funny, right before we went on, backstage, it was me and the kid who wrote the article about General McChrystal that toppled the government [Michael Hastings], and I loved the journalist, and we were talking because I used to write for Rolling Stone. So I was showing him my Rolling Stone press card, and right before we go on, Colbert looks at us, because he’s always in character, right, even before, and he says, 'I like one of you.' Which is really funny and I knew it was funny; but I think the young author was horrified. I knew it was part of the act, but what a terrible thing to say!"
Waters adds that his latest project, Fruitcake, about a boy who steals meat from the grocery store, is still looking for a distributor.
Annette Bening gets on board with daughter's gender reassignment.
R-71 petitions stay sealed for now: "U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle ruled Wednesday to extend a restraining order that bars public release of the signatures while the case moves forward. He said that if the names were disclosed before a hearing on the case, it would essentially make the case moot."
Panel rules that Mike Verdugo, the Hollywood, Florida police officer fired for appearing in gay porn, can keep his police certification: "Hollywood Police Lt. Scott Pardon, a department spokesman, declined to comment on the FDLE ruling, which places Verdugo on a one-year probationary period and requires him to take a state-approved ethics-training course."
Target in closed door negotiations with HRC over donations to anti-gay candidates: "The public demonstrations have died down, but the company is locked in closed-door negotiations with largest gay activist organization in the country, the Human Rights Campaign, which is demanding that the giant retailer make an equivalent or greater donation to groups supporting equal rights candidates. And the group seems to have found a powerful lever: The threat to come out against the construction of two new stores that Target has planned in San Francisco – a city in which gay rights groups have exceptional political influence."
Barney Frank slams NOM after hearing lesbian counter-protester was punched at rally: “People have a constitutional right to express themselves as they wish, and that right obviously applies even to people who for some reason have dedicated much of their lives to trying to diminish the lives of other. I do not understand what it is that drives people to spend so much time trying to take away the rights of those of us who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender, but they should understand that the freedom to do so in no way insulates them from those who disagree with their agenda from making their presence clear. For someone engaging in that right of peaceful counter-demonstration to be assaulted by a NOM attendee is wholly unacceptable and the leaders of this organization should be taking steps not simply to prevent any such behavior in the future, but to exclude from their ranks anyone who was engaged in it in the past.”
Recent Comments