“We understand the inextricable link between the families, servicemembers and readiness, and this survey is a way to try to better understand that,” Army Gen. Carter F. Ham, U.S. Army Europe commander said recently in an interview.

The spouse survey is not as lengthy or as comprehensive as the one sent to servicemembers, and it “zeroes in” on family readiness, Ham said. Unlike the other survey, the spouse survey is in hard copy rather than in the digital e-mail form sent to troops.

“We know there’s a very real connection between family readiness and military readiness,” Ham said. “We want to make sure we understand what that dynamic might be if the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy were to change.”

The spouse surveys were mailed to 80,000 reserve-component and 70,000 active duty spouses.

The brief order by a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals prevents an early showdown on the marriage question at the U.S. Supreme Court. Challengers of the marriage ban said they would not appeal Monday’s order.

U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn R. Walker decided Aug. 4 that Proposition 8 violated the U.S. Constitution and later ordered gay marriage to resume at 5 p.m. Wednesday unless a higher court intervened. The panel’s decision gave no explanation for overturning Walker’s order directing the state to once again marry same-sex couples.

The panel agreed, however, to hear the Proposition 8 challenge on an expedited basis and hold arguments the week of Dec. 6.

“California voters spoke clearly on Prop 8, and we’re glad to see their votes will remain valid while the legal challenges work their way up through the courts. Invalidating the people’s vote based on just one judge’s opinion would not have been appropriate and would have shaken the people’s confidence in our elections and the right to vote itself,” said Andy Pugno, general counsel for ProtectMarriage.com, the defendants in the Perry vs. Schwarzenegger case.

Loyola Law School professor Richard Hasen, however, said Monday’s order was strategically advantageous for supporters of same-sex marriage, no matter how disappointed many couples may be. If the panel had refused to place a hold on Walker’s ruling, the supporters of Proposition 8 were prepared to seek a stay from the Supreme Court. The high court is believed to be divided on the question of gay marriage, with Justice Anthony Kennedy considered a swing vote. A vote on a hold might have pushed the justices into taking an early position on the question.

“I think there are strategic reasons why even the most ardent supporter of gay marriage could opt for a stay,” said Hasen, an expert in federal court stays. “The concern is that rushing things to the Supreme Court could lead to an adverse result [for supporters of gay marriage.] If this case takes another year to get to the U.S. Supreme Court, there could be more states that adopt same-sex marriage and more judicial opinions that reach that conclusion. ”

Hasen said the hold “takes the heat” off Kennedy and takes the case “off the front burner for a while.”

The 9th Circuit panel, which consisted of a conservative, a moderate and a liberal, also indicated that the court has serious questions about whether the Proposition 8 sponsors have legal authority to appeal Walker’s conclusions about the constitutionality of the ban. Normally, only those directly affected by a judge’s order can appeal it. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown, the defendants in the case, have refused to appeal the order to resume gay marriages.

Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., one of the attorneys challenging Proposition 8, said he was grateful that the 9th Circuit “recognized the importance and the pressing nature of the case” by agreeing to expedite it.

Chad H. Griffin, a political strategist who launched the legal challenge, said the order “ensures that we will triumph over Prop.8 as quickly as possible.” He said his American Foundation for Equal Rights was prepared to take the constitutional battle to the Supreme Court.

Many couples lined up last week in hopes of being able to marry in the aftermath of Walker’s ruling.

Walker presided over a trial on Proposition 8 in January and heard testimony on such issues as whether people could choose their sexual orientation and whether same-sex marriage harmed opposite-sex marriage. In deciding to overturn Proposition 8, Walker said it had been motivated by moral disapproval and violated the equal protection and due process guarantees of the federal Constitution.

McCollum, a Republican running for governor, was asked at a news conference Wednesday to clarify how he felt about gay foster parents. A Baptist publication earlier this week published an interview in which he said state law should be changed to keep gay people from being foster parents.

McCollum says it is inconsistent for Florida to ban gay adoptions but allow gay foster parents. He says he wants to wait for the Florida Supreme Court to rule on Florida’s gay adoption ban before deciding to take action.

And the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the denial of our citizens of the equal rights to equal access to justice under the law, is a violation of our fundamental rights. Yes, it’s encouraging that many states are moving towards equality on the basis of sexual orientation, and I’m very, very pleased about that. … We can’t wait for the voters to decide that that immeasurable harm, that is unconstitutional, must be eliminated.

Zakaria, who received the ADL’s Hubert Humphrey First Amendment Freedoms Prize five years ago, gave back the honor to ADL for publicly siding “with those urging the relocation” of the center, which would be located near the site of the September 11, 2001, attacks.

“I cannot in good conscience hold onto the award or the honorarium that came with it and am returning both,” he said.

And so the typical policy among Democrats is to do as little as possible for as long as they can.

Figuring that if the Republican party never changes its position, they can string along the LGBT community for a long while before they have to lay their marker down and risk the vote of any single voter who opposes gay rights.

“The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples,” Walker wrote. The ruling struck down Proposition 8 as a violation of federal constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process. Supporters of the marriage ban vowed an immediate appeal.

Walker cited extensive trial evidence to support his finding that there was not even a rational basis for excluding gays and lesbians from marriage. Higher courts defer to trial judges on issues of fact, but still could determine that Walker was wrong on the law.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger praised the ruling.

“For the hundreds of thousands of Californians in gay and lesbian households who are managing their day-to-day lives, this decision affirms the full legal protections and safeguards I believe everyone deserves,” the governor said. “At the same time, it provides an opportunity for all Californians to consider our history of leading the way to the future, and our growing reputation of treating all people and their relationships with equal respect and dignity.”

He said the ruling was “by no means California’s first milestone, nor our last, on America’s road to equality and freedom for all people.”

Proponents of Proposition 8 had asked Walker to block enforcement of his ruling immediately, but Walker declined. The proponents of the ballot measure said they would immediately appeal.

Walker could still put the ruling on hold pending appeal after hearing more arguments, but his ruling today directed city and state officials to stop enforcing the marriage ban.

Walker’s historic ruling in Perry vs. Schwarzenegger relied heavily on the testimony he heard at trial. His ruling listed both factual findings and his conclusions about the law.

Supporters of Proposition 8 argued during the trial that same-sex marriage would undermine the institution of marriage and that children fare best with both a mother and a father.

The challengers presented witnesses who cited studies that showed children reared from birth by gay and lesbian couples do as well as children born into opposite-sex families. They also testified that the clamor for marriage in the gay community had given the institution of marriage greater esteem.

The trial appeared to be a lopsided show for the challengers, who called 16 witnesses, including researchers from the nation’s top universities, and presented tearful testimony from gays and lesbians about why marriage mattered to them.

The backers of Proposition 8 called only two witnesses, and both made concessions under cross-examination that helped the other side.

The sponsors complained that Walker’s pretrial rulings had been unfair and that some of their prospective witnesses decided not to testify out of fear for their safety.

When Walker ruled that he would broadcast portions of the trial on the Internet, Proposition 8 proponents fought him all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and won a 5-4 ruling barring cameras in the courtroom.

The trial nevertheless was widely covered, with some groups doing minute-by-minute blogging. Law professors brought their students to watch the top-notch legal theater.

Wednesday’s ruling stemmed from a lawsuit filed last year by two homosexual couples who argued that the marriage ban violates their federal constitutional rights to equal protection and due process.

Filed in anticipation of a California Supreme Court ruling upholding Proposition 8, the suit was the brainchild of a gay political strategist in Los Angeles who formed a nonprofit to finance the litigation.

The group hired two legal luminaries from opposite sides of the political spectrum to try to overturn the ballot measure. Former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson, a conservative icon, signed on with litigator David Boies, a liberal who squared off against Olson in Bush vs. Gore, the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that gave George W. Bush the presidency in 2000.

Gay-rights groups had opposed the lawsuit, fearful that the U.S. Supreme Court might rule against marriage rights and create a precedent that could take decades to overturn.

But after the suit was filed, gay rights lawyers flocked to support it, filing friend-of-court arguments on why Proposition 8 should be overturned.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown refused to defend the marriage ban, leaving the sponsors of the initiative to fill the vacuum. They hired a team of lawyers experienced in U.S. Supreme Court litigation.

Voters approved Proposition 8 by a 52.3% margin six months after the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage was permitted under the state Constitution.

The state high court later upheld Proposition 8 as a valid amendment to the state Constitution.

An estimated 18,000 same-sex couples married in California during the months it was legal, and the state continues to recognize those marriages.

Walker, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush, heard myriad witnesses testify about the history of marriage, the nature of homosexuality and the degree of power gays and lesbians possess in the political system during the 2 1/2-week trial in January.

Most of the testimony favored marriage rights for homosexuals. Walker’s decision is expected to be appealed to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and then up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The California Supreme Court ruled 4 to 3 that gays and lesbians were entitled to marry under the state Constitution in an historic ruling in May 2008. Voters passed Proposition 8 six months later, amending the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

Walker will decide whether California’s ban on same-sex marriage violates equal protection and due process rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

An Open Letter to Target and Best Buy

When lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender consumers — not to mention our millions of supportive friends and family members — used to think about Target and Best Buy, we saw two shining examples of corporations that respected the equality and dignity of every American. As nationwide retailers, both of your brands gave other corporations a standard to which they could aspire. In fact, your consistent ratings of 100 percent on the Human Rights Campaign Foundation’s Corporate Equality Index were a solid signal of your commitment to a diverse workforce. As a community, we are grateful for that commitment and we fully expect it will continue.
Now, Americans are questioning their loyalty to your brands with word of significant contributions to the political action committee MN Forward that hopes to install one of the most strident opponents of equality in the Minnesota Governor’s mansion. With these contributions, you have severely damaged those carefully cultivated reputations and violated the spirit of the gold standards bestowed on you. In fact, the long-term effects on families that shop at Target and Best Buy throughout Minnesota and the U.S. will be devastating.
At this critical time in Minnesotans’ quest for equality, MN Forward and the candidates they are supporting would turn Minnesota backward, away from the promise of equal opportunity and fairness that we hold dear. No matter your motivations in making these donations, they didn’t occur in a vacuum. Same-sex couples in your home state are denied the equality given to other couples in marriage and many state leaders are poised to right that inequity very soon. $250,000 in contributions to those who would stand in the way is a punch in the gut to those of us who want to see all families treated fairly. What may have sounded like a “good business decision” in the board room turns out to be a horribly short-sighted business decision when millions of consumers lose respect for your companies.
With the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United, the landscape for political contributions has changed in ways that no one fully appreciates yet. Your foray into this uncharted water has proved choppy and should serve as a warning to other corporations mindful of the perceptions of LGBT and allied consumers. It’s time to make things right. The very least you can do to begin rebuilding your image among fair-minded consumers is to make equivalent donations to groups that support candidates who will put all Minnesota families first and fulfill the promises of our highest ideals.