California’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriages is unconstitutional, according to a ruling announced Tuesday by an appeals court.

The long-awaited ruling by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court is likely to lead to more appeals, and marriages probably will remain on hold until that process ends.

The case was pending for months because the court wanted a ruling from the state Supreme Court on whether proponents of Proposition 8 had legal standing under the state’s citizen’s initiative process to appeal the ruling.

Here’s the decision:

10-16696 #398_Decision

What’s next? Appeals and more appeals:

ProtectMarriage, the backers of Proposition 8, can appeal Tuesday’s decision to a larger panel of the 9th Circuit or go directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. The high court is expected to be divided on the issue, and many legal scholars believe Justice Anthony Kennedy will be the deciding vote.

Gays and lesbians were entitled to marry in California for six months after the California Supreme Court struck down a state ban in May 2008. The state high court later upheld Proposition 8 as a valid amendment of the California Constitution.

While the Proposition 8 case was still pending in state court, two same-sex couples sued in federal court to challenge the ban on federal constitutional grounds.

***

Tweet of the day: @arizonashane “Given the opportunity, the 9th Circus would strike down the Constitution as unconstitutional.

Chick-Fil-A isn’t the only one in the restaurant industry targeted by the progressive mob over the past month.

The SEIU has been waging open-borders attacks on restaurant chain Chipotle simply because the company complied with federal immigration law and fired employees unable to provide valid documentation that they’re here legally. Less than two weeks ago, the Purple Army dispatched its goons to Minneapolis to disrupt business at a downtown Chipotle. Similar protests were staged at Chipotle locations in CA, CO, CT, DC, FL, IL, NY and VA. Judging from this video, the Big Labor business-bashers are having quite the party making a living by impeding the work of others:

Persuasion of Power (TM).

While the White House rushed this week to promote entrepreneurship and help businesses grow, the administration should have been telling its radical allies to do the economy a favor: Leave law-abiding American businesses alone.

***

A Christian business in the Left’s crosshairs
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2011

Here’s a modest proposal for liberals who say they support job creation: Stop smearing successful, law-abiding private companies whose values don’t comport with yours. I’m looking at you, New York Times.

Chick-Fil-A is an American success story. Founded by Georgian entrepreneur Truett Cathy in 1946, the family-owned chicken-sandwich chain is one of the country’s largest fast-food businesses. It employs some 50,000 workers across the country at 1,500 outlets in nearly 40 states and the District of Columbia. The company generates more than $2 billion in revenues and serves millions of happy customers with trademark Southern hospitality.

So, what’s the problem? Well, Chick-Fil-A is run by devout Christians who believe in strong marriages, devoted families, and the highest standards of character for their workers. The restaurant chain’s official corporate mission is to “glorify God” and “enrich the lives of everyone we touch.” The company’s community service initiatives, funded through its WinShape Foundation, support foster care, scholarship, summer camp, and marriage enrichment programs. On Sunday, all Chick-Fil-A stores close so workers can spend the day at worship and rest.

For the Left, these Biblically-based corporate principles constitute high social justice crimes and misdemeanors. Democrats are always ready to invoke religion to support their big government, taxpayer-funded initiatives (Obamacare, illegal alien amnesty, increased education spending, and FCC regulatory expansion, for starters).

But when an independent company – thriving on its own merits in the market place — wears its soul on its sleeve, suddenly it’s a theocratic crisis.

Over the past month, several progressive activist blogs have waged an ugly war against Chick-Fil-A. The company’s alleged atrocity: One of its independent outlets in Pennsylvania donated some sandwiches and brownies to a marriage seminar run by the Pennsylvania Family Institute, which happens to oppose same-sex marriage.

In the name of tolerance, the anti-Chick-Fil-A hawks sneered at the company’s main product as “Jesus Chicken,” derided its no-Sunday work policy, and attacked its operators as “anti-gay.” Michael Jones, who describes himself as having “worked in the field of human rights communications for a decade, most recently for Harvard Law School,” launched an online petition drive at www.change.org “demanding” that the company disavow “extreme anti-gay groups.” Facebook users dutifully organized witch hunt drives against the company on college campuses.

Over the weekend, New York Times reporter Kim Severson gave the Chick-Fil-A bashers a coveted Sunday A-section megaphone – repeatedly parroting the “Chick-Fil-A is anti-gay” slur and raising fears of “evangelical Christianity’s muscle flexing” with only the thinnest veneer of journalistic objectivity. Severson, you see, is an openly gay advocate of same-sex marriage equality herself and the former vice-president of the identity politics-mongering National Gay and Lesbian Journalists Association. In a bitter op-ed on gay marriage laws not changing quickly enough, she asserted: “I don’t want the crumbs. I want the whole cake.” Severson has voiced complaints about her social and economic status as an unwed lesbian with a partner and child in several media publications.

None of this was disclosed in Severson’s advocacy journalism hit job on Chick-Fil-A. But therein lies the unofficial motto of the Gray Lady: All the ideological conflicts of interest unfit to print.

Progressive groups are gloating over Chick-Fil-A’s public relations troubles exacerbated by the nation’s politicized paper of record. Not because they care about winning hearts and minds over gay rights or marriage policy, but because their core objective is to marginalize political opponents and chill Christian philanthropy and activism. The fearsome “muscle-flexing” isn’t being done by innocent job-creators selling chicken sandwiches and waffle fries. It’s being done by the hysterical bullies trying to drive them off college grounds and out of their neighborhoods in the name of “human rights.”

Remember: These were the same tactics the left-wing mob used in California to intimidate supporters of the Proposition 8 traditional marriage initiative. Individual donors were put on an “Anti-Gay Black List.” Businesses who contributed money to the Prop. 8 campaign were besieged by fist-wielding protesters. The artistic director of the California Musical Theatre was forced to resign over his $1,000 donation.

Message: Associate with the wrong political cause and you will pay. So much for national “civility.”

***

Related: Peter Wood takes on campus anti-Christian bigotry.

Organized bullying has become almost a settled feature of American college life. It draws much of its sense of legitimacy from professors who extol victim-group self-empowerment and who offer valorous stories from past protests to gin up enthusiasm for turning disagreements into grievances and grievances into demands. The moral capital of the Civil Rights struggle and the Women’s Movement is spent again and again in ever-more trivial protests: this one against a vendor of chicken sandwiches. Collective action targeted against people and institutions that cannot easily defend themselves is a tactic honed to perfection by the campus left. It works all too often.

Higher education, however, is ill-served by this spirit of censorship. If we want students to learn the principles and arts of governing our republic, for starters they will need to learn the importance of living alongside those who hold views that clash with their own. The campaign against Chick-fil-A also illustrates the tendency of higher education to lose itself in symbolic causes at two or three removes from reality. Attacking Chick-fil-A for the religious beliefs of its owners makes about as much practical sense as banning trays from the cafeteria to save the world from global warming. Higher education ought to teach students to recognize the difference between effective social advocacy and make-believe. These campaigns erase that distinction.

Higher education has recently seen some strenuous efforts to elevate “civic education” to a key concern of the undergraduate curriculum. The Association of American Colleges and Universities last fall issued a “national action plan for civic learning,” and the Lumina Foundation last week presented “civic education” as one of its five benchmarks for all of higher education. Should we consider the campaign against Chick-fil-A as an illustration of this new spirit of campus civic-mindedness? It looks rather like no-holds-barred political activism. I wonder whether higher education is losing its ability to tell the difference.

Latest update: A glimmer of common sense and decency prevails.“Chick-fil-A is back at the two main dining areas at Indiana University South Bend.”

Flashback: Christian-targeted dating website eHarmony is forced to offer same-sex dating services.

The ruling is here.

From the ruling’s conclusions of law: “Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment. Each challenge is independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both unconstitutional burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creats an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation.”

The decision from Judge Vaughn Walker is no surprise if you watched his show trial antics over the last several months.

Prop. 8 supporters are seeking a stay of the ruling:

In court papers filed Tuesday night, lawyers for the Proposition 8 defense team asked Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker for a stay of his ruling if the outcome is to declare the law unconstitutional. The motion indicates that the Proposition 8 lawyers will immediately ask the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to review the ruling if Walker rules against them.

Analysis and round-ups at Legal Insurrection and Hot Air.

The latest slave to fashion? Cindy McCain, following in the oh-so-edgy-for-Tinseltown footsteps of her daughter, MEghan:

Who’s silencing these Prop. 8 opponents? They’re more overexposed than Mariah Carey’s bosom. They can talk and talk and talk without fear of retribution, intimidation, or physical violence:

Meanwhile, Prop. 8 supporters and donors have been hounded, threatened, blacklisted, beaten, and forced to resign from their jobs for exercising their political free speech.

On Friday, a liberal San Francisco Chronicle columnist decried the latest thug tactics against a 96-year-old Mormon community activist who is now the target of an anti-Prop. 8 witch hunt:

I certainly understand the anger fomented by one individual’s generous contribution to the clearly mean-spirited campaign of Proposition 8. But, I’m not so sure I agree with the message being sent by gay and lesbian activists in the case of 96-year-old Lorenzo Hoopes.

The civic-minded Oakland citizen – with more than 50 years’ experience in public service – is currently the target of gay-rights activists who say his $26,000 contribution in support of the 2008 ballot initiative that reversed the state’s same-sex marriage law makes him unfit to hold public office.

And to make their point, critics have launched a campaign to block his reappointment to the board of directors of the Paramount Theatre, a city-owned landmark in downtown Oakland.

On its face, the campaign to remove Hoopes from an inconsequential seat on an inconsequential public board appears to be as mean-spirited as the same-sex marriage ban itself. Hoopes, who is Mormon, wasn’t on anyone’s radar screen until after the ballot initiative won voter approval in November 2008.

Since then, his reappointment has become such a hot-button issue that Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums withdrew Hoopes’ nomination from the Oakland City Council’s agenda package this week. A Dellums’ spokesman said the mayor wanted more time to consider the reappointment. Given his support for same-sex marriage, Dellums will likely withdraw the Hoopes nomination, said one mayoral aide. As mayor, Dellums has appointment power to all city boards and commissions.

Hoopes’ opponents believe that anyone who played a role as significant as he did on the ballot initiative should not be allowed to serve in any public capacity. His contribution was the largest by any Oakland resident.

But it’s even more than that: They want Hoopes to feel the same public humiliation felt by the gay community as the result of a vicious series of televised campaign ads paid for by people like him.

…The nation’s changing culture is proof positive that Hoopes’ standard of marriage is no longer the only valid viewpoint of society’s ultimate union, but in a democracy based on individual religious and political freedoms, seeking to exclude – or completely ban – others for not sharing your politics is just as wrong.

Cindy and MEghan McCain’s silence on the continued thuggery of their anti-Prop. 8 duct-tape wielders speaks volumes.

***

Ann Althouse: “I get that she supports same-sex marriage, but what does that have to do with anybody forcibly silencing her? If you have something to say, lady, just say it and quit blaming others.”

I noted the highly unusual scheme hatched by liberal California Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker to turn the Prop. 8 challenge court proceedings into a show trial.

The US Supreme Court has just blocked Walker’s plans to put the trial on a delayed YouTube broadcast while it considers the legal issues:

The Supreme Court is blocking a broadcast of the trial on California’s same-sex marriage ban, at least for the first few days.

The federal trial is scheduled to begin later Monday in San Francisco. It will consider whether the Proposition 8 gay marriage ban approved by California voters in November 2008 is legal.

The high court on Monday said it will not allow video of the trial to be posted on YouTube.com, even with a delay, until the justices have more time to consider the issue. It said that Monday’s order will be in place at least until Wednesday.

Bench Memos’ Ed Whelan has background on the stay application here.

In the NYT, Ed Meese looks at the many ways the deck has been stacked against Prop. 8 proponents:

The entire premise of this litigation is disquieting — that traditional marriage is nothing but “the residue of centuries of figurative and literal gay bashing,” as David Boies, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, has written. According to the plaintiffs, there is just no rational basis for government to privilege marriage between a man and a woman. Thus, in their minds, Proposition 8, which was supported by more than seven million California voters, could have been adopted only as a result of “animus,” as the complaint puts it, toward gays and lesbians.

It’s disquieting that the trial is taking place in San Francisco, probably the venue most likely to support gay marriage. More than 75 percent of San Francisco voters opposed Proposition 8. That’s quite a home-court advantage for same-sex marriage advocates.

But most disquieting for supporters of traditional marriage is a series of pretrial rulings issued by Judge Vaughn R. Walker that have the effect of putting the sponsors of Proposition 8, and the people who voted for it, on trial.

Judge Walker’s decisions have been surprising because they differ from those of other judges who have previously scrutinized marriage laws — in Iowa, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey and elsewhere in California, for example. In those instances, the courts have decided legal challenges to state marriage laws based on legislative history, scholarly articles and testimony by social scientists and other experts. They have, in some cases, looked for evidence of legislative intent in the statements published in official voter information pamphlets.

But in this case, Judge Walker has ruled that things like TV advertisements, press releases and campaign workers’ statements are also relevant evidence of what the voters intended. The judge went so far as to order the Proposition 8 campaign to disclose private internal communications about messages that were considered for public use but never actually used. He has even ordered the campaign to turn over copies of all internal records and e-mail messages relating to campaign strategy.

Most troubling, Judge Walker has also ruled that the trial will investigate the Proposition 8 sponsors’ personal beliefs regarding marriage and sexuality. No doubt, the plaintiffs will aggressively exploit this opportunity to assert that the sponsors exhibited bigotry toward homosexuals, or that religious views motivated the adoption of Proposition 8. They’ll argue that prohibiting gay marriage is akin to racial discrimination.

To top it all off, Judge Walker has determined that this case will be the first in the Ninth Circuit to allow cameras in the courtroom, with the proceedings posted on YouTube. This will expose supporters of Proposition 8 who appear in the courtroom to the type of vandalism, harassment and bullying attacks already used by some of those who oppose the proposition.

Thankfully, some of Judge Walker’s rulings have been overturned. For example, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals blocked the disclosure of internal communications among the core Proposition 8 organizers. But there is no question that virtually every ruling by Judge Walker so far has put advocates of traditional marriage at an increasing disadvantage.

Judicial activism + far Left radical activism = Courtroom intimidation.

Yesterday, liberal California Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker issued an unprecedented ruling that will put the trial involving a challenge to the Prop. 8 same-sex marriage ban on YouTube.

SFGate.com reports:

Next week’s trial in San Francisco of a lawsuit challenging the initiative that banned same-sex marriage in California won’t be televised live, but it will be videotaped for delayed Internet release on YouTube, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker in San Francisco ordered the video coverage, the first for a federal trial in California, over the objections of Proposition 8′s sponsors. Their lawyer argued that allowing the proceedings to be viewed outside the courthouse would violate their right to a fair trial by intimidating their witnesses.

“The knowledge that you’re testifying to untold thousands or millions … can cause some witnesses to become more timid” and induce others to be overly dramatic, attorney Michael Kirk told Walker.

Prop. 8′s campaign committee, Protect Marriage, has maintained that some of its supporters have been harassed, and that witnesses whose testimony was widely seen would face further danger. Walker will have the power to order that individual witnesses’ faces be concealed or their voices muted on the YouTube uploads. Kirk said such actions would only draw attention to the witnesses. But Walker said this case seemed ideal for a pilot program, approved last month by the federal appeals court in San Francisco, to allow telecasting of selected nonjury civil trials. He cited the wide interest in the case and said most of the witnesses will be campaign officials or academic experts accustomed to speaking in public.

“I’ve always thought that if the public could see how the judicial process works, they would take a somewhat different view of it,” the judge said.

I generally support more sunshine in all government proceedings. But the judge’s unusual method of securing video coverage is extremely troubling. This isn’t a sincere educational effort to provide transparency to the public. It’s a flagrant attempt at making Prop. 8 a show trial — and intimidating Prop. 8 backers who will be called to testify.

Ed Whelan at Bench Memos lays out Walker’s agenda thoroughly. Start here, then go here, and here. Writes Whelan: “Walker is rushing to override longstanding prohibitions on televised coverage of federal trials so that he can authorize televised coverage of the Proposition 8 trial. Televised coverage would generate much greater publicity for ringmaster Walker’s circus. And, whether Walker desires the effect or is somehow blind to it, televised coverage would surely also heighten the prospect that witnesses and attorneys supporting Proposition 8 would face harassment, intimidation, and abuse. In his eagerness to stack the deck against Proposition 8 and its defenders, Walker has resorted to procedural shenanigans and outright illegality.”

Former federal district judge Paul Cassell weighs in: “Without getting into the merits of Proposition 8 or the legal challenges to it, I agree with Whelan that it seems highly unusual for a judge to authorize televised proceedings for this particular case as part of some new “pilot” project to see how televised proceedings work. Surely if there were going to be a test run of a new idea, it should be in a more run-of-the-mill case rather than this particular highly controversial one. Moreover, it does appear that public comment process has been completely short-circuited.”

Indeed, the public comment process seems to have been wholly fixed in favor of anti-Prop. 8, nutroots-fueled feedback.

The MoveOn-backed left-wing group “Courage Campaign” conveniently coordinated an e-mail campaign backing Walker’s solicitation of public comment on his YouTube order. I’m on the group’s e-mail list and received this on Jan. 5:

Dear Michelle –

This is extremely urgent and extremely important.

U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker — who will be overseeing a federal court challenge to Prop 8 starting this Monday (January 11) — is considering whether or not to open the court room to TV cameras.

The court just announced that it is seeking public comment on the proposal to televise the trial — and that all comments must be submitted to the court by a Friday deadline.

The interest in this case is unprecedented. And not surprisingly, supporters of Prop 8 — who eliminated the right of same-sex couples to marry — do NOT want the trial to be televised.

Opponents of Prop 8 — led by attorneys David Boies and Ted Olson — are seeking to televise the case in the interests of full transparency. They want this historic trial to be watched by as many Americans as possible. And, of course, we agree.

We have just this one chance to make our voices heard — thousands of Americans calling for equality, transparency and accountability. That’s why we’re teaming up with CREDO Action to collect as many signatures as possible asking Judge Walker to televise the case. We need your signature now:

SIGNATURE DEADLINE: FRIDAY 9 a.m.:

http://www.couragecampaign.org/TeleviseTheTrial

Together, along with our friends at CREDO, we will hand-deliver your signatures to Judge Vaughn Walker on Friday before the deadline.

This case presents issues that are very important to the public, and will affect millions of people. However, if the case is not televised, only a tiny fraction will ever be able to watch the trial in person.

By televising the trial, the public will be able to see for themselves the arguments and evidence presented by both sides, and will therefore have more confidence in the outcome of the trial.

That’s why we think the Prop 8 court case should be televised and we’re collecting as many signatures as possible to submit to Judge Vaughn Walker. Click here to sign now and say “YES — the Prop 8 trial should be televised.” SIGNATURE DEADLINE: FRIDAY 9 a.m.:

http://www.couragecampaign.org/TeleviseTheTrial

If you know other people who believe the Prop 8 trial should be televised as well, please forward this message to them ASAP.

Thank you so much for making your voice heard at this critical time. We will update you as soon as further news develops.

Rick Jacobs
Chair, Courage Campaign Institute

Yesterday, the group followed up:

BREAKING: Judge Walker rules; 82,103 say “televise Prop 8 trial!”

Yesterday, we asked you to respond to Judge Vaughn Walker’s request for public comment on potentially televising the Prop 8 federal trial that starts Monday. In less than 24 hours, an amazing 82,103 people have signed the letter from the Courage Campaign Institute and CREDO Action.

Despite Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling below (please read on), we still need you to sign the letter. With right-wing groups like the National Organization for Marriage and Focus on the Family gathering signatures to stop any broadcast of the Prop 8 trial, we need to spread the word ASAP.

GOAL: 100,000 signatures. DEADLINE: Friday 9 AM:

http://www.couragecampaign.org/TeleviseTheTrial

Dear Michelle –

The news is spreading like wildfire. And it’s both good and bad.

From a San Jose Mercury News article:

“Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker approved court-operated cameras in his courtroom for delayed release on YouTube, but rejected a bid by media organizations to televise the proceedings themselves for live broadcast.”

This decision is NOT final: Judge Walker is leaving the public comment period open until Friday, pending a ruling on his decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

While we are pleased that the trial may be on a delayed broadcast via YouTube at least, our call for full transparency — a televised broadcast that network news and cable channels can pick up live, as it happens — has not been met.

And, it’s entirely possible that the 9th Circuit Appeals Court may overrule Judge Walker’s ruling, shutting down all broadcasting — even a delayed daily YouTube broadcast. Lawyers representing supporters of Prop. 8 have already opposed broadcasting the trial in any form whatsoever and are likely to fight Walker’s ruling.

Millions of lives across America will be affected by this federal trial challenging Prop 8. That’s why more than 80,000 people have already signed our letter asking for a televised trial. To keep up the pressure before the public comment period closes on Friday, please sign here now:

GOAL: 100,000 signatures. DEADLINE: Friday 9 AM:

http://www.couragecampaign.org/TeleviseTheTrial

With right-wing religious groups like NOM and Focus on the Family organizing against televising the trial, we need as many signatures on this letter as possible.

If you know other people who believe the Prop 8 trial should be televised so that as many people as possible can see it, please forward this message to them ASAP.

Thank you so much for your incredible response to this critical action. We will update you again as soon as news breaks.

Rick Jacobs
Chair, Courage Campaign Institute

The anti-Prop. 8 mob has its thumbs on the scales of justice. Brace for a courtroom circus.

I noted a leading Maine gay activist’s threat against traditional marriage proponents the day after Election Day.

There’s more:

Police are investigating a pair of threats against gay marriage opponents in Maine.

Marc Mutty from Stand for Marriage Maine says a threatening voicemail message was discovered Monday morning at campaign headquarters in which a female caller said, “You will be dead. Maybe not today, not tomorrow. But soon you’ll dead.” Police in Yarmouth are investigating.

Augusta police say a separate voicemail threat targeted Michael Heath, former leader of the Christian Civic League of Maine and its successor, the Maine Family Policy Council. Heath wasn’t actively involved in the gay marriage campaign, but he fought against a gay rights law in campaigns in 1998, 2000 and 2005.

Nope, no Krugman columns decrying the “insane rage” of the Left yet.

Where are all the civility police to decry the climate of hate?

Voters on Tuesday repealed the state’s same sex marriage law after an emotionally charged campaign that drew large numbers to the polls and focused national attention on Maine.

…”In a defiant speech to several hundred lingering supporters, No on 1 campaign manager Jesse Connolly pledged that his side “will not quit
until we know where every single one of these votes lives.””

“We’re not short-timers; we are here for the long haul,” Connolly told the crowd, some of whom wiped away tears as he spoke. “Whether it’s just all night and into the morning, or next week or next month or next year, we will be here. We’ll be fighting, we’ll be working. We will regroup.”

How long until gay marriage proponents start decrying America’s “climate of hate?”

3, 2, 1…

Maine voters have torpedoed a state law that would have allowed gay couples to marry.

With 84 percent of the precincts reporting, gay-marriage foes had 53 percent of the vote Tuesday.

The outcome amounts to a heartbreaking defeat for the gay rights movement — particularly since it occurred in New England, the corner of the country most supportive of gay marriage.

At issue was a law passed by the Maine Legislature last spring that would have legalized same-sex marriage. The law was put on hold after conservatives launched a petition drive to repeal it in a referendum.

Gay marriage has now lost in every single state — 31 in all — in which it has been put to a popular vote. Gay-rights activists had hoped to buck that trend in Maine.

Following in the footsteps of the anti-Prop. 8 mafia, two gay activist groups have announced plans to “out” Washington state citizens who sign petitions to oppose expanding same-sex partnership laws.

Via the Seattle Times:

A group called WhoSigned.org says it will publicize the names of people signing petitions for Referendum 71, which seeks a public vote to overturn a new expansion of Washington’s same-sex partnerships.

WhoSigned.org says it’s partnering with the gay rights group KnowThyNeighbor.org to put the names online.

In a statement Monday, WhoSigned.org says it expects people who see the names online to contact the signers for what may be uncomfortable talks about gay rights.

Now, imagine the uproar if the roles were reversed and anti-gay marriage activists were publicizing the names of petitioners supporting same-sex partnership expansion laws.

But when they do it, they’re not creating a “climate of hate.” They’re just exercising their free speech.

It’s the theme of the day.

For those not in San Francisco or LA to celebrate/mourn Tuesday’s Prop 8 ruling, the progressive techies over at CREDO Mobile offer a way to find the nearest pro-same sex marriage rally by using SMS.

Here’s how: “Just text in the word RALLY along with your zip code to our CREDO shortcode: 27336 (it spells out CREDO on a non-smartphone).”

The CREDOers walk us through it:

1. Go to “compose SMS”

2. Key in the shortcode 27336 where you would normally put a phone number.

3. Type in the following to the message area:rally 91102

4.If live in Fresno and you text that we’ll SMS you the following info:

Prop 8 Rally in Fresno Tue.@6pm. Meet at Fresno City Hall, 2600 Fresno Street. Questions: ca-fresno@marriageequality.org -CREDO Mobile & Courage Campaign

If you live in Bakersfield and you text rally 93306 into 27336 you find out there are actually three rallies:

Prop 8 Rally in Bakersfield Tue@5pm. 3 locations: Mall View & Mt. Vernon, OR Outback Steakhouse Stockdale Hwy, OR Rosedale and Coffee. Questions: wlwedd@aol.com

Nope, the paper did NOT provide similar services for Tea Party activists. But Garofoli — an Anderson Cooper wannabe, apparently — provided plenty of derisive commentary about “teabagging.”

Bias? What liberal bias?

I’ll be darned. Stay tuned for more details.

AP news alert: “California high court upholds gay marriage ban but allows existing same-sex marriages to stand.”

LATimes: “The California Supreme Court today upheld Proposition 8’s ban on same-sex marriage but also ruled that gay couples who wed before the election will continue to be married under state law. [Updated at 10:04 a.m.: The court also ruled that gay couples who wed before the election will continue to be married under state law.] The decision virtually ensures another fight at the ballot box over marriage rights for gays. Gay rights activists said they may ask voters to repeal the marriage ban as early as next year, and opponents have pledged to fight any such effort. Proposition 8 passed with 52% of the vote.”

Translation: They’ll be back.

Will the anti-Prop. 8 mob restrain itself? Stay tuned.

The blacklisters, tolerance bullies, vandals, and religion-bashers will not be forgotten.

In a C-SPAN interview that aired this weekend, Obama said he hoped for hearings on his eventual nominee in July, followed by a final confirmation vote before Congress recesses in August. Given his schedule this week — including a trip to Las Vegas and Los Angeles on Tuesday and Wednesday — speculation is that the president could make public his choice early Thursday or Friday.

The Washington Times has questions about short-lister Elena Kagan. Not the first time we’ve seen soft-on-terrorism machinations by an Obama leftist:

As the Wall Street Journal’s “Political Diary” reported May 21, Ms. Kagan was in the middle of Clinton White House deliberations that put a kibosh on legal action against a group of eco-terrorists in Oregon who were blocking some legal logging operations.

To quote from a House task force investigation in 1999, “these ‘environmentalist’ protesters erected barricades and other structures (out of timber) in the roadways and in the forest; they dug trenches and deliberately washed out the roadways in several areas, polluting the waterways downstream with runoff; they polluted the area with human waste; they built ‘booby-traps’ of trenches and sharpened metal spikes designed to maim intruders or damage vehicles; they chained and locked themselves to buried cement structures; and at least one protester was heavily armed.”

The Forest Service and local law enforcement, with approval from the FBI, the local U.S. Attorney and federal marshals, were ready to move in against the demonstrators. Then, on June 12, 1996, a high-level group of White House officials, including Ms. Kagan, met and ordered that the arrest plans be aborted.

The House task force focused most on allegations that Ms. Kagan, then the domestic policy aide and associate White House counsel, had failed to investigate suspicions that a particular administration employee had leaked law enforcement plans to the eco-terrorists. Such a failure to investigate an illegal leak would have been a dereliction of Ms. Kagan’s duty.

It’s more important to know Ms. Kagan’s stance on the bigger question of whether to abort the arrests and the role of political considerations in the decision. It was an election year for President Clinton, and environmentalist groups were a key part of his coalition.

Speaking of leftists, the Left Coast is bracing for a ruling on Prop. 8. I’m sure the opponents of California’s traditional marriage ballot measure will conduct themselves with all the civility, decency, and restraint of a Perez Hilton no matter how the verdict turns out. Which is to say: Gird your loins.

The decision is expected at 10am and will be available here.

Here’s your follow-up to the vulgar gossip blogger Perez Hilton’s attack on Miss California USA Carrie Prejean. On MSNBC (natural habitat of slimers), Hilton says he takes back his apology for calling Prejean a “dumb b*tch” and then pours on even more slime by laughing that while he called her that epithet he was really thinking of the “c-word.”

MSNBC host Norah O’Donnell says nothing to distance herself from the misogynist attack: