In a unanimous decision, the three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit overturned a lower court’s ruling and concluded that the videotapes should remain under seal.

Siding with the ban’s supporters, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled the public doesn’t have the right to see the footage that former Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker had produced with the caveat it would be used only by him to help him reach a verdict.

Chief Judge Walker “promised the litigants that the conditions under which the recording was maintained would not change — that there was no possibility that the recording would be broadcast to the public in the future,” a three-judge 9th Circuit panel said in a unanimous opinion.

via: Associated Press

“Regrettably, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has decided not to unseal the video record of the historic twelve-day public trial of Prop. 8,” said Chad Griffin, Board President of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, the sole sponsor of the federal court challenge to Proposition 8.

“It speaks volumes that the proponents of Proposition 8 spent millions on a political campaign to publicize their views, yet they have done everything they can to stop the public from seeing the weak case they put on at trial,” Griffin said, in a statement.

The same 9th Circuit panel is also considering whether Proposition 8 is constitutional. That decision, which could come any day, is expected to go to the U.S. Supreme Court.

© Kristina Lapinski, GAY USA the Movie

EricJames Borges

Exorcisms, beatings and extreme Christianity pervaded his young life and did not “cure” him. “Disgusting, perverted, unnatural and going to hell” is what his parents told him as he was kicked out of his home.

On Jan., 11, 2012, EricJames committed suicide, shocking his friends and his co-workers at The Trevor Project. SDGLN Contributor Melanie Nathan attended one of his funerals, and obtained a copy of one of his suicide notes that gives insight on what he was thinking. This is her exclusive story.

“To my friends you gave me life and love, never think this was your fault … To Lady Gaga, you have been a fearless relentless proud LGBT advocate …”

- Excerpt from a suicide note by Eric James Borges.

Never before had the sound of “Edge of Glory” been so inconceivable; EricJames Borges chose Lady Gaga, and not only for the echo that would pave his heavenly journey but as a benefactor, leaving the last of his life’s dealings to his icon:

Five hundred dollars would go to Lady Gaga’s Born This Way Foundation, $500 to the Trevor Project, $521.56 to the Human Rights Campaign and almost $2,500 to his rescuer, Jennifer McGuire, for her upcoming same-sex wedding. “I want it to go where it deserves; to life, love and equality.”

Unlike during his life, 19-year-old EricJames Borges was in control at the end; he uploaded the music and chose the people; he designed his own funeral service and it was poignant. This past Saturday, Borges was celebrated at one of three memorials held in Visalia, and the one I attended was held by the small California Central Valley town’s grieving LGBT community, those describing themselves as his new family.

His religious-extremist parents had been invited but did not attend.

Mere months before, EricJames came out, recorded an “It Gets Better” video, made a short film and gave anti-bullying suicide prevention workshops to other teens; yet he could not sustain his own pain and committed suicide just two weeks ago.

I obtained an exclusive and copyrighted copy of one of his suicide notes addressed to Jennifer McGuire (page three is found to the right), and EricJames wanted all to know that he was grateful to the Trevor Project: “I do not want my passing to reflect poorly on the Trevor Project,” he clarified. “That organization was the best decision I ever made in my life.”

A confused community packed the convention hall, trying to grasp the pain that could have caused this young suicide, further perplexed that even after the rescue which took him from a world of shame and torture to one of acknowledgment and safety, he would still want to die.

And so he did, in the home of a tender stranger, who took him in like her own, and whom he described in his last note as “mother-like” to him. She gave him love, safety, comfort and a Christmas like none other he had experienced in his life.

While officiate and friend, William Van VanLandingham, the director of the local chapter of Trevor Project, noted that “we are not here to point fingers,” Jennifer McGuire, the kind stranger who had opened her home to EricJames and grown to love him, spoke to the mourners candidly:

“I am not going to avoid the elephant in the room. He tells his story better than any of us could in his short film and ‘It Gets Better’ video, but I need it to be spoken out loud – and said for him … his parents tortured him – there is no other word to describe it. What he shared in his video was the tip of the iceberg, and that’s only compared with what he shared with me, and I am sure there was more.

“His parents tortured him by not protecting him from the extensive bullying. His parents tortured him through their relentless, extremist religious teachings. His parents tortured him with shame and intolerance and emotional and physical abuse that most of us can’t even begin to imagine. And yes, I blame them, and not just a little, but for a majority percentage … His parents killed him.”

Editor’s Note: If you or someone you know needs support, please don’t hesitate to call the Trevor Project‘s Lifeline at 866-488-7386.

In the early morning hours of New Year’s Day, Jeffrey Fehr, 18, hanged himself at his family’s home in Granite Bay, Calif., according to The Sacramento Bee.

Since that day, his parents, Pati and Steve Fehr, said they have searched their hearts and minds for answers.

Though Jeffrey, who was gay, had recently ended a relationship and had been treated for depression, they believe something more insidious put him on the path toward suicide. They are convinced that a lifetime of taunts and bullying contributed to his decision to take his own life.

“We will second-guess ourselves forever,” his father said. “But we do know that for years and years, people knocked him down for being different. It damaged him. It wore on him. He could never fully believe how wonderful he was, and how many people loved him.”

The Sacramento Bee

Jeffrey came out during his sophomore year while attending Granite Bay High School, and although he was accepted and embraced by his parents, his family said Jeffrey was the target of schoolyard bullying as early as third grade.

“He would come home from school and cry,” said older brother Tyler, 21. “He would say he felt alone, that he wasn’t accepted for the things he liked.”

By the sixth grade, classmates would call him “fag,” said Pati Fehr, and high school proved to be no haven.

“He would literally hang his head when I dropped him off,” Steve Fehr recalled. “It was just awful for him.”

Jeffrey’s downward spiral seemed to begin after he graduated high school last year and started college, reports the Bee.

At the time of his death, Jeffrey was a student at Sierra College and a member of a competitive cheerleading squad that recently won national honors.

But in the week prior to taking his life, Jeffrey reportedly drove to Los Angeles to visit his boyfriend — when he returned, he told his parents they had broken up.

Friends and family speculate that his breakup may have been “the last straw” for a young man who never felt fully accepted.

More at The Sacramento Bee.

Tidmus’ death was reported on his Facebook page by his brother:

“My name is Lindsay Tidmus, Mike’s brother. It is with a heavy heart that I inform his Facebook friends of Mike’s passing. He left us this morning after a battle with cancer.”

On his Facebook page, Mike Tidmus described himself as “Just your basic left-leaning, snark-loving, disbelieving, AIDS-aware online hangout for intelligent ‘mos and the folks who love us.”

Born Aug. 22, 1951, in Toronto, Canada, Tidmus worked in Europe and the United States before settling in San Diego in 2008. He had built a successful career as a creative director, art director, writer and photographer for advertising and marketing firms.

Tidmus wrote a popular blog miketidmus.com, where he wrote about heterosexual privilege, “Poor Oppressed Christians,” “ChristoFascism,” “Crazy Fundies” and other issues facing the LGBT community.

On his blog, Tidmus was proud to be an outspoken opponent of religious oppression of LGBT rights, and he noted that he was a long-time survivor of AIDS.

The news of Tidmus’ death brought an outpouring of grief and appreciation.

Word began spreading late Wednesday among shocked and saddened friends and acquaintances. Not accepted by his birth family, EricJames was striking out on his own, trying to deal with his personal situation, but also wanting to help others.

Sadly, even involvement with the Trevor Project was not enough to help him navigate the turbulent waters of young adulthood.

A young film maker, EricJames posted this video on November 10, 2011, in which he also appears — the subtext of his video was described as “love is universal.”

EricJames also made a “It Gets Better” video, and posted it in December of last year.

I met EricJames recently, at the launching of My LGBT Plus, a youth oriented resource site, based in Fresno, California. A brief introduction left me with the impression of a fine young man, and I regret that I did not get to know him better.

Friends have begun planning a memorial, details will be updated here as they become available.

Our condolences to the family and friends of EricJames.

If you are finding it difficult to deal with the issues of being LGBTQ, The Trevor Project is available, with peer counselors available to talk to you about problems you may be facing.

Update: Laura McGinnis, Communications Director at The Trevor Project sent LGBTQ Nation this statement:

We are deeply saddened to hear about the tragic death of EricJames Borges, and our hearts go out to his family and friends, and his community. EricJames was a dedicated, trained volunteer. Our main concern right now is that those affected by his death feel supported and can get the care they need. If you or someone you know needs support, please don’t hesitate to call the Trevor Lifeline at 866-488-7386.

“I’m absolutely elated,” Wells said. “The pressing issue of my family being destroyed has been dealt with for the time being.”

On Wednesday, Wells, 56, received a letter from U.S. Customs & Immigration Services that potential deportation action on Makk, 49, won’t happen for at least two years.

Wells said he received the news while watching the Republican presidential candidates on television and feeling discouraged by their anti-gay rhetoric when he received an unexpected phone call.

“It was Nancy Pelosi calling,” Wells said. “She called to tell me that the problem had been solved and Anthony had been given deferred action and that my family would be together. The deferred action was good for two years. That gave me such a feeling of joy and relief.”

Wells and Makk met with House Minority Leader Pelosi (D-Calif.) to discuss their situation in D.C. during an October meeting, according to The Advocate.

Makk said he was “over the moon happy” upon hearing about the deferred action because it means his efforts to stay in the United States haven’t been in vain.

“To be able to remain here legally has been important to us, and it always has been,” Makk said. “The fact that they don’t grant this [deferred action] to many people at all makes this even more special.”

Under current immigration law, straight Americans can sponsor their foreign spouses for residency in the United States through a marriage-based green card application, but the same option isn’t available to gay bi-national couples because the Defense of Marriage Act prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage.

Consequently, foreign nationals in same-sex marriages could be deported if they’re undocumented or upon the expiration of their green cards. Makk was in the United States from 2000 to 2010 under a business visa, but after his company shut down, he lost his visa status and faced separation from the country.

For Wells, the prospect of being separated from his spouse was distressing because he has AIDS and depends on his spouse for care.

McInerney, 17, did not speak at the hearing, but his attorney Scott Wippert said his client was sorry for killing King, 15.

Brandon McInerney

The family of Lawrence King said in court that they could not forgive their son’s killer.

“You took upon yourself to be a bully and to hate a smaller kid, wanting to be the big man on campus,” King’s father, Greg King, said on behalf of his wife. “You have left a big hole in my heart where Larry was and it can never be filled.”

In a deal reached with Ventura County prosecutors last month, McInerney agreed to avoid a retrial and to plead guilty to second-degree murder, as well as one count each of voluntary manslaughter and use of a firearm. A mistrial was declared in September when jurors couldn’t reach a unanimous decision on the degree of guilt.

Several jurors, in interviews with the media after McInerney’s trial, said that he shouldn’t have been tried as an adult.

Teachers and students saw a dispute growing between King and McInerney leading up to the February 2008 killing, which culminated in McInerney shooting King twice in the head in a computer lab at E.O Green Junior High School.

McInerney, then 14, had reached an emotional breaking point after King made repeated, unwanted sexual advances toward him and other boys, defense lawyers claimed.

The case drew widespread attention and raised questions about how schools should deal with students and sexual identity issues.

Talk show host Ellen DeGeneres, who is openly lesbian, weighed in on her television show shortly after the shooting, telling her audience that LGBTQ persons shouldn’t be treated as second-class citizens.

Because of pre-trial publicity, the trial was moved from Ventura County to Chatsworth in the San Fernando Valley section of Los Angeles.

Ventura County Prosecutors said the shooting was first-degree murder and that McInerney should be punished as an adult.

They argued the shooting was a hate crime, an aspect jurors rejected, after authorities found white supremacist materials in his home.

Defense attorneys, who unsuccessfully argued to keep the case in juvenile court, said it was voluntary manslaughter because McInerney lost control of his emotions. They said the teen was beaten by his father and was described as a bright student who lost his motivation.

King’s father also blamed the school district for not doing more to address the brewing feud between the two teens and their son’s flamboyant behavior.

“Instead of protecting him from himself and his poor impulse control, they enabled and encouraged him to become more and more provocative,” Greg King said.

During the sentencing hearing, King’s family and Ventura County Deputy District Attorney Maeve Fox wore buttons with the teen’s face on it, while some of McInerney’s supporters wore powder blue wristbands that read “Save Brandon.”

After serving nearly four years since the murder and with the additional 21 years handed down Monday, McInerney will be released just before his 39th birthday. His murder conviction was stayed, and the plea deal agreed to after the mistrial called for him to be given the maximum sentence under California law for voluntary manslaughter — 11 years — and use of a firearm — 10 years, Fox said.

The call for the gay clergy not to attend came from the Archdiocese of San Francisco, sources said.

Rick Gerharter

Rev. Jane Spahr

George Wesolek, spokesman for the archdiocese, confirmed that Archbishop George Niederauer made the decision.

“The basic reason is that Archbishop Niederauer felt the themes for vespers should better reflect the themes of Advent,” Wesolek told theB.A.R.

Wesolek said the decision came shortly before November 27, the first Sunday of Advent.

The Reverends Jane Spahr and Roland Stringfellow were among those asked not to participate, as was retired Episcopal Bishop Otis Charles. All three were scheduled to take part in Most Holy Redeemer’s Advent vesper services.

Spahr, a retired Presbyterian minister, is well-known for her advocacy of marriage equality. She has repeatedly been brought up on church charges related to her marrying same-sex couples. A church court in August 2010 found her guilty of officiating the weddings of 16 same-sex couples. But at the same time the tribunal praised Spahr’s ministry over the years and her compassion. She founded a church group in the 1990s for gay Presbyterians.

In an email, Spahr confirmed she was disinvited from Most Holy Redeemer’s services. She was to speak Wednesday, December 14. Spahr said that the people at Most Holy Redeemer “felt so badly” about the decision.

“It saddens me that Otis, Roland, and I will not have the opportunity to come and be with you,” Spahr wrote in an email to Most Holy Redeemer, which she shared with the B.A.R. “There is so much prejudice, misinformation, and mystery still about who we are either as LGBT people or advocates and allies.”

Spahr added that the Most Holy Redeemer parish has “been in the forefront of loving people through HIV and giving us the opportunity to thrive in expressing the fullness of who we are as we integrate our sexuality and spirituality.”

“Your ministry there in the Castro has helped save so many lives,” she wrote. “How sad for the archbishop that he is missing the depth and breadth of your ministry and how he still sees you as ‘one issue’ rather than the fullness of who you are. The heart of your ministry embraces true hospitality and welcome, the kind of ministry Jesus lived.”

She said that congregants at Most Holy Redeemer “do not have to apologize” for the archbishop’s decision.

“We will pray that his heart will open as he experiences your love and grace,” she added.

A woman who answered the phone at Most Holy Redeemer Tuesday said that Father Steve Meriwether, the senior pastor, was not in the office this week. A message left for Mike Poma at the Castro church was not immediately returned.

Stringfellow is the welcoming congregations coordinator at the Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies in Religion and Ministry at the Pacific School of Religion. He was a community grand marshal in this year’s San Francisco LGBT Pride Parade.

He told the B.A.R. that he was neither shocked nor surprised at being disinvited.

“I was disappointed,” he said.

Stringfellow, who was to appear December 21, said he was able to help congregants with a conversation around being welcoming when the church hierarchy isn’t. He hopes to meet with a small group of people in February to explore that issue.

Charles was the Episcopal bishop of Utah and was married to a woman for many years. After his retirement in 1993, he came out as a gay man, divorced his wife, and moved to San Francisco. In October 2008 he married Felipe Sanchez-Paris, Ph.D. in a civil ceremony in San Francisco. The couple had a church wedding in 2004 that was covered in the San Francisco Chronicle.

He told the B.A.R. that he received a call the night before his scheduled appearance “indicating that my participation in a liturgical service was unacceptable to the Chancery (in all likelihood, the archbishop): presumably, my participation as the first openly out gay bishop, legally married according to the laws of the state of California, might suggest approval of gay marriage.”

Charles, too, indicated he was not that surprised by the archbishop’s decision.

“Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for the Roman Catholic hierarchy to denigrate, subtly and not so subtly, LGBT people and those who stand with them. The sad fact of this disrespect for the dignity of every human being is the apparent message it sends: silence, invisibility, and even duplicity are valued as life choices,” he added.

“To be open, honest, and authentic will be costly,” Charles said.

Interestingly, Most Holy Redeemer was honored by the archdiocese in October when the church received the McGucken Award for its worship space. The church was selected by the Archdiocese Worship Commission and the Environment, Art, and Architecture Committee as “an excellent example of environment where the setting further lends to the highest level and accessibility of liturgy for all worshippers, and is recognized as a model in our archdiocese.”

The three-person panel for the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco also indicated during a two-hour hearing that they would not release the videotapes of the2010 trial over the ban, known as Proposition 8. The tapes have been under seal since the end of the proceedings.

Jane Philomen Cleland

Thom Watson, left, and Jeff Tabaco, who want to get married, attended the rally Thursday afternoon before oral arguments in the federal Proposition 8 case.

The appellate court judges first heard arguments in the case last December on whether now-retired U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker was correct in determining that the ban was unconstitutional. But they had delayed their ruling in the matter so that California’s Supreme Court could issue guidance on whether the initiative backers could bring forth their appeal. [The state court recently ruled that they could defend the measure before the federal courts since California's governor and district attorney have refused to do so.]

Following that hearing last December, Walker acknowledged for the first time that he is in fact gay and has been with his current partner for 10 years. The San Francisco Chronicle had outed Walker prior to his issuing his decision in the case, but Walker did not publicly acknowledge his sexual orientation while he remained on the bench.

Based on Walker’s disclosure in an interview with a number of reporters, Prop 8′s backers sought to vacate Walker’s judgment on the grounds he should have recused himself from presiding over the Prop 8 case. They contend that he would personally benefit should the courts uphold his ruling because he would then be able to marry his partner.

“The law requires any and all facts known to the judge that are relevant to disqualification must be disclosed,” Charles Cooper, an attorney for Prop 8′s backers, told the appellate justices during the December 8 hearing.

In this instance, Copper said, “if Walker desired to marry his partner, then he stands in the same shoes as the plaintiffs before him.”

In this case the plaintiffs are two same-sex couples who want to marry but cannot due to the passage of Prop 8 by California voters in 2008.

Cooper later said if Walker’s decision is upheld and he does indeed marry his partner, it would be “the single darkest day in American jurisprudence.”

Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt of Los Angeles retorted, “Let’s hope however it comes out, it won’t be a dark day.”

Reinhardt and his fellow panelists, Circuit Judge N. Randy Smith of Pocatello, Idaho, and Senior Circuit Judge Michael Daly Hawkins of Phoenix, all expressed doubts about the Prop 8 backer’s arguments for recusal.

Hawkins early on interrupted Cooper to ask, based on his reasoning, if a “married judge could never hear a divorce case?”

Cooper replied that he didn’t “see the difficulty with that.”

And Smith repeatedly questioned Cooper what evidence there is to suggest that Walker wanted to get married.

“Do we have anything in this record to show that is what he desired to do? You all talk about ‘if.’ But I don’t find anything to show he did,” said Smith.

Smith said he was inclined to agree with current District Court Judge James Ware, who reviewed the matter and found no reason why Walker should not have heard the case.

Reinhardt questioned how far a gay judge would need to go in disclosing their interest or disinterest in getting married. He also asked if the standard for recusal would differ if the judge were gay and single.

“A gay or lesbian judge that desires to marry has an obvious interest in the outcome of the case,” said Cooper.

David Boies, an attorney for the plaintiff couples, argued that the only reason Walker would need to recuse himself was if he had a personal relationship to anyone involved in the case. Whether he wanted to marry or not is of no concern, said Boies.

“The mere fact a judge may benefit from a favorable ruling is not sufficient to recuse,” he argued.

Should the court determine that Walker should have not heard the case because he is gay and might marry someday, Boies said that would create a “pernicious effect” and “an intolerable double standard for minority judges.”

The justices have combined the two appeals on the recusal question and the merits of Walker’s decision. They are expected to issue their ruling on both matters sometime in early 2012.

No matter how they decide, the case is expected to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, which could occur as soon as next fall.

Tapes likely to remain sealed

They likely will issue their decision on whether to release the trial videotapes at the same time.

A number of media outlets, as well as the lawyers for the plaintiffs, have sought the release of the trial tapes in order for them to be publicly broadcast. They argue that the transcript and taped depositions in the case are already public record and there is no legitimate reason not to keep the videotapes under seal.

Attorney Theodore Olson argued that the videotapes are merely the written transcript “with video and sound.”

Backers of the anti-gay ban have argued that allowing the public to see the taped trial would result in intimidation and harassment of their witnesses. And they also stressed that Walker had said that “the potential for broadcast had been eliminated” when he entered the tapes into the trial record.

Because of the judge’s assertions no one would see the tapes, the lawyers for Prop 8′s backers told the appellate justices they saw no reason not to believe Walker.

“A grave injury will have been done to the federal judiciary process,” said attorney David Thompson, if a judge’s word is not honored.

It was an argument that seemed to strike a chord with the federal judges.

“There is a compelling case that the word of the court is supposed to mean something,” said Reinhardt.

LAKE FOREST, Calif. — The mother of Jonah Mowry, the gay 14-year-old who garnered national attention in recent days over his YouTube video in which he expressed anguish over being bullied, said her son has been “uplifted” by support he’s received online.

Jonah Mowry

In an interview Tuesday with ABC News, Peggy Sue Mowry said “I’m thankful. There are a lot of people that are giving their warm wishes and uplifting Jonah, and I think that’s good.”

But Mowry also told ABC that the family was disheartened by other vile comments that had been posted online, mostly in response to a follow-up video Jonah made.

“He is sick over all the horrible posts and so are we … it is very overwhelming,” said his mother, a 52-year-old hairdresser from Lake Forest.

Jonah’s parents said they helped him craft a response to deal with rumors that the original video was a fake — the second video attracted thousands of negative comments accusing Jonah of being a “fraud,” and looking for publicity.

Jonah explained that he made the original video around 4:00 a.m. one morning last August. Watch:

“I was dreading going back to school and I had not come out to my family yet,” he said. “Only my closest friends knew. I didn’t know how to say what I needed to say. All I could think about were all the bad things that had been happening at school last year, every year for that matter.”

“I’m disappointed that somebody could look at the first video and then look at the second and think it’s a lie,” said his mother. “He’s a child. He’s a 14-year-old boy. He’s very young,” adding, “First and foremost, I am proud of the responses we’ve gotten from people. I’m disappointed that people would question whether it’s “true.”

The family has since pulled the second video from YouTube due to the thousands of negative comments.

Jonah’s father is Kevin Mowry, a music instructor technician at Saddleback College in Mission Viejo, Calif.

In the first proposal, opponents are trying to alter the law so that California school students don’t have to learn about LGBT Americans’ historical contributions.

Anti-gay activists are also proposing a second initiative that would allow parents to opt their children out of school instruction in social science and family life that conflicts with their moral convictions. Parents can already opt their children out of health lessons.

The proposals, received by the state attorney general’s office November 16, come at a time when Equality California, a key SB 48 sponsor, has been weakened by leadership and financial troubles, and appears unprepared to protect the legislation.

The new law is set to take effect January 1.

Among other provisions, the repeal proposal would strike LGBTs from the list of groups that students would have to receive social science instruction on.

A previous attempt to repeal SB 48 altogether through a referendum recently failed, but that move’s supporters have claimed they came close to gathering the almost 505,000 signatures they needed to get their proposal before voters in 2012. It is not known if that figure is accurate.

EQCA spokeswoman Rebekah Orr said the new campaign “is likely to be an even uglier effort than their previous one.”

“It’s very specifically targeted at LGBT people. It makes extremely clear what their motivations are,” Orr said.

Richard Rios, the chair of the Christian Coalition of California, submitted the two anti-gay proposals. In an interview, he said, “It’s not a homophobic issue. It’s an issue of the requirement of the teaching of something that’s contradictory to one’s faith.”

Asked about how teaching the historical contributions of someone like slain gay icon Harvey Milk would contradict someone’s religious beliefs, Rios invoked same-sex relationships. He said that in his upbringing, he learned that any relationship other than that between a man and a woman “is not a godly relationship.”

In San Francisco and other places, children are already taught about LGBT-headed families. Rios couldn’t name anyone who’s been harmed by such curriculum.

Signatures soon

Once the attorney general’s office issues titles and summaries for SB 48 repeal and the opt-out proposal, they will go to the secretary of state’s office for approval. After the proposals clear that agency, proponents will have 150 days to gather the 504,760 valid signatures they need for each to get on the November 2012 ballot.

Rios said the committees behind the ballot proposals, on which he sits – the Committee to Repeal SB 48 and the Committee for Parental Rights in Education – have just started raising money. He said they have about 400 distribution centers committed to their effort, for activities such as distributing petitions, but he wouldn’t share any details, such as where they are.

He also wouldn’t say much about their fundraising plans. However, he said, “We’ve got commitments in the six figures right now.” Rios estimated each campaign around the proposals he submitted would cost about $13 million to win approval from voters in November.

Openly gay Senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) authored SB 48, which Governor Jerry Brown (D) signed into law in July. Anti-gay activists then quickly launched the failed referendum campaign.

Karen England of the Capitol Resource Institute was one of the main people behind that effort. Rios noted she and others could still launch another campaign. England didn’t respond to an interview request.

Rios said England had come close to success to qualifying the referendum, and he expressed confidence in the future of his proposals. He cited the number of signatures England and others claim to have gathered through volunteers in the short time frame with which they had to work.

Rios said those backing the new proposals would start with a “volunteer distribution chain and other channels that we have.” He said they might hire paid signature gatherers.

Leno said in an interview this week that the proposed ballot initiatives are “real threats, and we need to take them seriously.” He said the efforts “will be anything but grassroots-driven. … This will be paid for by the very deep pockets of far right extremists.”

“We need to monitor the progress of the signature gathering, and at a certain point decisions need to be made regarding investments in a decline to sign campaign,” he added.

Leno reacted to the notion that parents should be able to opt their children out of instructions due to conflicts with their religious beliefs by saying, “The very same arguments were made when black studies and women’s studies were first proposed.”

EQCA’s problems

Since Brown signed SB 48 into law in July, EQCA’s problems have mounted.

In October, Executive Director Roland Palencia resigned, just three months after he started the job. The organization hasn’t replaced him with an interim director, although consultant Joan Garry, the former executive director of the national Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, is starting to help EQCA sift through its affairs.

In recent years, the organization has bled hundreds of thousands of dollars, and it appears to have no specific plans on how to staunch the cash flow.

Asked about the impact the latest repeal effort would have on EQCA given those circumstances, Orr said, “I think it’s an opportunity, an opportunity for our movement to focus and to reengage. We’re certainly prepared to play a leadership role in that, as we always have.”

Orr said the coalition of groups that came together to work against the SB 48 referendum has continued to meet and remains “committed to protecting and defending the law,” but she couldn’t offer specific plans.

She also said that factors such as anti-gay activists hiring signature gatherers would affect their plans.

She and Palencia previously refused to say how much money had been gathered to fight SB 48 repeal.

Orr estimated last week that if the new repeal proposal makes it to the ballot, fighting it could cost a total of at least $35 million.

GSA Network was another SB 48 co-sponsor. Interim Executive Director Laura Valdez didn’t respond to interview requests for this story.

He climbed through a lower-level window to avoid metal detectors and proceeded to Mayor George Moscone’s office.

White had resigned his office and went into Moscone’s office hoping to be re-appointed to the seat he’d resigned from. When Moscone refused, White shot and killed him.

With extra ammunition, he proceeded to the office of Harvey Milk, who in 1977 was elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, becoming the only the third openly gay man in U.S. history to be elected to public office.

White shot Milk five times — the final two shots had White pressing his gun directly at Milk’s skull, according to the medical examiner.

Prior to his death, Milk had recorded a message after receiving several death threats simply because he was gay. The message said:

“If a bullet should enter my brain, let that bullet shatter every closet door.”

Milk served only 11 months on the Board of Supervisors, but his high profile election victory gave hope to millions of gays and lesbians across the country that a day would come when they could live without fear of discrimination.

As a Supervisor, Milk worked to secure passage of San Francisco’s landmark gay rights ordinance that extended employment protections to gays and lesbians in San Francisco, and became a model for anti-discrimination legislation throughout California and the nation.

On May 21, 1979, White was acquitted of the first degree murder charge, but found guilty of voluntary manslaughter of both Milk and Moscone.

While White’s confession included statements such as “I was on a mission” and “I wanted to kill four of them,” he was found innocent premeditated murder due to his “poor diet.” White’s lawyers successfully argued that White had been consuming many sugary foods, which led to his mental state. This became known as the “Twinkie Defense.”

White was sentenced to serve seven and two-thirds years, but the sentenced was reduced for time served and good behavior, meaning White would be released in only five years.

The sentence sparked outrage in San Francisco’s Castro District, and protestors marched from the Castro to City Hall, chanting “Avenge Harvey Milk” and “He got away with murder.” Eventually the crowd swelled to over 3,000 and riots broke out — angry residents lit police cars on fire, shoved a burning newspaper dispenser through the doors of City Hall, and cheered as the flames grew.

But only hours after the riots had ended, police made a retaliatory raid on a San Francisco gay bar. Two dozen arrests were made and in the following weeks, gay leaders refused to apologize for the riots. This is what gave them political power and led to the election of Mayor Dianne Feinstein.

Feinstein then appointed a pro-gay chief of police who actively recruited gays into the city’s police force.

Dan White served five years of his seven-year sentence. Two years later, he was found dead after committing suicide in his garage by carbon monoxide poisoning.

Feinstein, now a U.S. Senator, is leading the way for LGBT equality by sponsoring the “Respect for Marriage Act,” which would repeal the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

In a one sentence ruling, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the request from the legal team representing the anti-gay coalition of sponsors of Proposition 8, the California’s 2008 voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage.

In the first appeal, proponents of Proposition 8 seek to overturn the August 4, 2010 ruling by former Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, who struck down the ballot initiative as unconstitutional. The second appeal is of U.S. District Court Judge James Ware’s ruling denying the attempt to have Walker’s ruling vacated — proponents argued that Walker was biased because he is gay and has a partner.

By making this decision, the appellate court has set the stage for deciding all pertinent questions regarding the legal validity and merits of the constitutionality of Proposition 8, clearing the way for an unencumbered appeal to the U. S. Supreme Court — which is a likely outcome, according to legal analysts.

Last week, in a unanimous ruling, the California Supreme Court said that Proposition 8 sponsors have the legal right to defend the state’s ban on same sex marriage.

The federal court had triggered the state court’s intervention earlier this year, asking the California Supreme Court to decide whether sponsors of the state ballot measures such as Proposition 8 have legal “standing” under California law to defend those laws when top state officials abandon a case. With that issue unresolved, the 9th Circuit had put on hold its review of Walker’s ruling.

The court has yet to resolve that issue in terms of “standing” on a federal level, although it has ordered an additional briefings on the matter due by Dec. 2.

Kate Kendall, the Executive Director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, stated that the appellate court will likely to find the proponents have federal standing in light of the state court’s opinion.

In a related matter, the federal court will hear arguments on the appeal to an earlier decision that video and audio recordings from the original trial conducted by Walker can be released to the public and media organizations.

The hearing is scheduled for Dec. 8.

Monday’s ruling from U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is here (PDF).

McInerney, who was only 14 years old at the time of the killing, was charged with shooting the then 15-year-old King twice in the back of his head, execution style.

Under terms of the deal, McInerney — who has already served nearly four years in jail — would be released by the time he is 38, reported the Los Angeles Times.

McInerney’s first trial ended with jurors split between convicting him of voluntary manslaughter and first-degree murder. Several of the jurors have since spoken in favor of a plea bargain, in order to avoid a second trial.

Prosecutors, in initially deciding to try McInerney a second time, had already dropped a key allegation that the shooting was motivated by a hatred of homosexuals, an accusation that several jurors in the original trial said they did not believe.

During the first trial, prosecutors portrayed McInerney as a budding white supremacist who hated homosexuals and was enraged by King’s sexuality and aggressive flirtations.

The defense argued that McInerney was the product of a violent and dysfunctional home and had reached an emotional breaking point in response to King’s advances.

Los Angeles Times

During the trial, Ventura County prosecutor Maeve Fox told jurors that McInerney became angry after King said either “love you baby!” or “what’s up, baby!” in a school corridor, and that he told a friend that he was going to bring a gun to school to next day.

According to court records, McInerney packed a .22-caliber handgun in his backpack the next morning, took a seat behind King during a first-period class, and shot him twice in the back of the head.

McInerney, who was charged as an adult, did not testify during the trial.

Following is the text from Matt Baume’s report:

I’m Matt Baume at the American Foundation for Equal Rights, and welcome to a special episode of Marriage News Watch.

At first glance, it might look like a setback — but it’s not: the California Supreme Court ruled today that ballot proponents — like the people who advanced Proposition 8 — have a right to assume the role of the Governor and Attorney General to defend laws challenged as unconstitutional.

That means that the 9th Circuit court of appeals may potentially find that the Prop 8 proponents have standing to challenge last year’s Federal District Court ruling that Prop 8 is unconstitutional.

But that’s fine. Whether they have standing or not, what they don’t have is a case. Prop 8 was exhaustively examined in court, and the ruling against it is air-tight. The proponents have spent the last year throwing out every trick and stall tactic in the book, and for what? They know they can’t win. They’re just forcing loving, committed couples like Jeff and Paul and Sandy and Kris to wait for the day when they can wed.

Well now they’re out of tricks, and momentum’s back on our side. Today’s ruling sets the stage for a rapid series of victories.

So, what’s next? We’re going back to court. December 8th, 2:30pm, at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. We’re ready to demolish the Proponents’ groundless appeal, defend our sweeping victory, and ultimately win full federal marriage equality for every LGBT couple in the country.

We’ll see you in court on December 8th.