The court agreed Monday to consider whether the protesters’ message, no matter how provocative and upsetting, is protected by the First Amendment. Members of a Kansas-based church have picketed military funerals to spread their belief that U.S. deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq are punishment for the nation’s tolerance of homosexuality.

The justices will hear an appeal from the father of a Marine killed in Iraq to reinstate a $5 million verdict against the protesters, after they picketed outside his son’s funeral in Maryland.

A jury in Baltimore awarded Albert Snyder damages for emotional distress and invasion of privacy, but a federal appeals court threw out the verdict. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the signs contained “imaginative and hyperbolic rhetoric” protected by the First Amendment.

The funeral for Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder in Westminster, Md., was among many that have been picketed by members of the fundamentalist Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas. Westboro pastor Fred Phelps and other members have used the funeral protests to spread their belief that U.S. deaths in the Iraq war are punishment for the nation’s tolerance of homosexuality. One of the signs at Snyder’s funeral combined the U.S. Marine Corps motto with a slur against gay men.

Other signs carred by members of the Topeka, Kan.-based church said, “America is Doomed,” “God Hates the USA/Thank God for 9/11,” “Priests Rape Boys” and “Thank God for IEDs,” a reference to the roadside bombs that have killed many U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The case will be argued in the fall.

The case is Snyder v. Phelps, 09-751.

The assertion by Claremont McKenna College professor Kenneth Miller came as he was being cross-examined Monday on his testimony that gays in California enjoy substantial political power as a result of nearly unanimous support from high-ranking elected officials, labor unions, newspapers, corporations and progressive religious groups.

“Is there any other minority you can identify that is discharged from the military when they are doing a perfectly good job just because somebody discovers their status?” asked David Boies, a lawyer for two same-sex couples suing to overturn the state’s gay marriage ban, known as Proposition 8.

“I’m not aware of any,” Miller answered.

But Miller resisted Boies’ persistent attempts to get him to put Proposition 8 in the same category as the federal Defense of Marriage Act and the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on gays in the military. Boies asked Miller if he agreed with another political scientist with whom he had co-authored a book chapter that Proposition 8 is inherently discriminatory.

“It’s differential treatment. Whether it’s legally discriminatory, I don’t know,” Miller said.

The question of whether the gay rights movement constitutes a potent political force is central to efforts by lawyers seeking to challenge the state’s same-sex marriage ban on grounds that it unlawfully targeted a disadvantaged group.

Miller said one indication of the gay rights movement’s clout in California was that neither Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger nor any other statewide office holders endorsed Proposition 8. But perhaps the best measure of the movement’s strength was the $43 million amassed to defeat the gay marriage ban in 2008, he said. That was $3.4 million more than initiative backers raised.

“Gay and lesbian interests are well-represented, can get anything they like passed through the Legislature, raise millions and millions of dollars,” Miller said. “You just can’t with a straight face say gays and lesbians are a politically weak minority in California.”

Earlier Monday, a team of lawyers led by Boies and former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson rested the plaintiffs’ case after spending more than nine days presenting evidence on the meaning of marriage, the nature of sexual orientation, and the role of religion in shaping attitudes about both.

The last volley in their attempt to prove that Proposition 8 was a product of anti-gay bias and served no legitimate public interest was videotape of a simulcast produced for California churches in which supporters of the ban said gay marriage would lead to polygamy and bestiality.

Lawyers for the coalition of religious and conservative groups that sponsored Proposition 8 are expected to call their second expert witness on Tuesday. He is David Blankenhorn, founder and president of the Institute for American Values, a private group that advocates on behalf of responsible fatherhood and traditional marriage.

The footage was shown as an example of the work of San Diego pastor Jim Garlow, who helped organize evangelical Christian support for the Proposition 8 ballot measure in 2008.

In one video rally led by Garlow, an unidentified pastor warned “the polygamists are waiting in the wings, because if a man can marry a man and a woman can marry a woman, the polygamists are going to use that exact same argument and they probably are going to win.”

An unidentified woman later said “a man wanting to marry a horse, brothers and sisters, any combination would have to be allowed.”

It appeared the lawyers were introducing the material to demonstrate the campaign for the ban appealed to religious-based, anti-gay bias to scare voters into supporting the measure.

The trial is the first in a federal court to examine if states violate the U.S. Constitution by preventing same-sex couples from marrying.

Proposition 8 sponsors objected to the video, saying the content of the simulcast was not controlled by campaign managers or leaders.

However, Chief U.S. Judge Vaughn Walker allowed the material to be put into the record because the coalition of religious and conservative groups behind Proposition 8 paid for Garlow’s work.

In the six-minutes of footage shown for Walker, various people opined on the negative consequences of legalizing gay marriage. One unidentified speaker compared the potential social impact of “this social reengineering of marriage” to the way the 9/11 terrorist attacks made the world “a fundamentally different place.”

The clips also included people saying that once same-sex marriage was legalized in Massachusetts, public schools stocked picture books that included gay couples as an example of different types of families.

“If same-sex marriage is legalized, then it must be taught as normal, acceptable and moral behavior in every single public school,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council.

The plaintiffs also introduced clips from promotional videos produced by other groups for distribution to churches during the Proposition 8 campaign.

In one, produced by the American Family Council in Mississippi, the chairman of the California campaign, Ron Prentice, spoke against same-sex couples raising children.

“Children need and deserve the chance to have both mother love and father love,” Prentice said.

Men and women “don’t bring to a marriage and a family the same natural set of skills and talents.” he said.

The lawyers for the plaintiffs rested their case after spending more than nine days presenting evidence on the meaning of marriage, the nature of sexual orientation, and the role of religion in shaping attitudes about both.

Prominent litigators Theodore Olson and David Boies asserted that Proposition 8 was a product of anti-gay bias without justification.

Lawyers for Proposition 8 sponsors called their first witness, a Claremont College political scientist.

Nicole Moss, another lawyer for those sponsors, said the defendants might call campaign manager Frank Schubert to the witness stand to dispute the inflammatory messages on the videotape came from the campaign.

Hak-Shing William Tam of San Francisco spent five hours testifying Thursday as a hostile plaintiffs’ witness to prove that bias toward gays fueled the 2008 campaign to pass the voter-approved measure, known as Proposition 8.

Tam, who was one of five individuals who signed on as official proponents of the ban and whose names appeared alongside ballot arguments for Proposition 8, acknowledged that he subscribes to beliefs about an alleged link between homosexuality and pedophilia posted on the Internet by a Chinese-American Christian group for which he serves as secretary.

“Do you believe that homosexuals are 12 times more likely to molest children?” attorney David Boies asked.

“Yeah, based on the different literature that I have read,” Tam replied.

Earlier in the trial, a Cambridge University professor testified that there is no evidence to suggest that gays are more likely to molest children than heterosexuals. Boies pressed Tam to cite books, articles or authors he had read to substantiate the views, but Tam said he could not remember specifics.

Others involved in promoting Proposition 8 have tried to distance themselves from Tam. During a news conference outside court, lawyer Andy Pugno, a lawyer for the coalition of religious and conservative groups that backed the measure, said Tam had “next to nothing” to do with the campaign.

Tam testified that he spent a lot of time working on the campaign and communicated with its leaders but modestly added he did not consider himself a major player. He said became an official proponent because of his concern that legalizing same-sex marriage would encourage young people to pursue gay partners.

“I think it is very important that children won’t grow up to fantasize or think about should I marry Jane or John when I grow up, because this is very important for Asian families.”

Under questioning by Boies, Tam also said he agreed with a statement on the Web site for the Chinese-American Christian group that said if same-sex marriage was treated as a civil right, “so would pedophilia, polygamy and incest.”

“And that is what you were telling people in encouraging them to vote for Proposition 8?” Boies asked.

“Yes,” Tam answered.

Tam said he drew that conclusion after reading an Internet article that claimed incest and polygamy were legal in the Netherlands, a country where same-same marriages became legal in 2001.

Boies: You are saying here that after same-sex marriage was legalized, the Netherlands legalized incest and polygamy?”

Tam: “yeah, look at the date, Polygamy happened afterward.

“Who told you that? Where did you get that idea,” Boies asked incredulously.

“It’s the Internet,” he said. “Another person in the organization found it and he showed me it…I looked at the document and I thought it was true.”

Polygamy is not legal in the Netherlands, but the idea that it is became an urban myth of sorts in 2005 after a man and two women signed a private “cohabitation contract” while wearing wedding garb. Consensual incest between adults is no longer prosecuted in the Netherlands, but close relatives are not allowed to wed.

Under cross-examination from Nicole Moss, a lawyer for Proposition 8’s sponsors, Tam said the opinions expressed on the Web site were his own and had not been approved by ProtectMarriage.com, the organization that ran the campaign, or submitted to its strategists for review.

“At any time during the campaign phrase or any phase for Proposition 8 did you have a role in drafting the official message for ProtectMarriasge.com?” Moss asked.

“No,” Tam answered, adding that his contact with the campaign’s staff was minimal. “I was acting independently.”

Shortly before Tam left the witness stand, Boies asked him if he had spoken to his lawyer during a 5-minute break in his testimony. Tam said he had.

“I said I felt like naughty boy being put in front of a classroom and being mocked at,” he said.

Plaintiffs lawyers expect to rest their case on Friday with testimony from a University of California, Davis psychologist who is scheduled to testify about prejudice against lesbians and gay men.

But if that’s too dry for you, check out MarriageTrial.com, which is producing re-enactments of the most exciting – and important – days of the trial. So far, there’s just a teaser – but if you’re a trial junkie, it may sustain you for now.

The U.S. Office of Personnel Management told Karen Golinski that it was refusing to extend benefits to her wife because federal law prohibits the government from recognizing gay marriage.

The office made its decision over the objections of 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, who called the move illegal discrimination.

Golinski is a lawyer for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco.

The Office of Personnel Management says the Justice Department told it to ignore the judge’s ruling because it went against the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.

The lawsuit filed Wednesday in San Francisco federal court asks for an order to provide Golinski’s spouse with health benefits afforded to spouses of federal employees.

Lawyers for the couples said they planned to call San Francisco resident Hak-Shing William Tam to testify even though he has asked to be dismissed as a defendant in the case, the first in a federal court to examine if state bans on same-sex marriage illegally discriminate against gay Americans.

Last week, the lawyers used footage from Tam’s taped deposition to buttress their contention that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional because it was fueled by deep-seated animosity against gays. They questioned him about a letter he wrote during the ballot measure’s 2008 campaign saying that “other states would fall into Satan’s hands” if gays weren’t stopped from marrying in California.

Before Tam’s testimony, lawyers for Proposition 8’s sponsors plan to wrap up their cross-examination of Stanford University political scientist Gary M. Segura.

On Wednesday, Segura testified that gays deserve the same legal protections as other disadvantaged groups because their causes do not enjoy meaningful political clout. Proposition 8, he said, was part of a chain of ballot box defeats for the gay rights movement dating back to the 1970s, including 33 of the 34 measures dealing with marriage.

“By any measure, gays and lesbians would have to be understood as a minority faction,” Segura said.

Attorney David Thompson spent hours trying to neutralize Segura’s statements. He said that multiple legislative victories in California, the steady increase in states legalizing same-sex marriage listed and to show that gays enjoy substantial political support at the highest levels of .

Thompson listed the gay rights movement’s progress in getting same-sex marriage legalized in a handful of states and its multiple legislative victories in California, including the recent selection of John Perez, a gay man, as speaker of the California Assembly, shows that gays have substantial political support.

Segura replied that Perez’ ascension to the speakership was based on factors other than his sexual orientation.

Thompson also played a recording of President Barack Obama telling a national gay rights group in October, “I’m here with ya” in fighting “for progress in our capital and across America.

“Does President Obama count as an ally to the gay and lesbian community?” he asked.

“I think President Obama is perhaps the best illustration of an ally who cannot be counted upon, an ally whose rhetoric far exceeds his actions,” Segura said.

The plaintiffs are preparing to wrap up their case on Friday. Besides Tam, they said they have one more witness, University of California, Davis social psychologist Gregory Herek. Herek is scheduled to testify about prejudice against lesbians and gay men.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker said Thursday he’s withdrawing his application to have the landmark case video-recorded under a pilot program approved last month by the governing body for federal courts in the West.

Walker says he doesn’t want the issue to distract from the trial itself.

He made the announcement a day after the U.S. Supreme Court indefinitely blocked his plan to record the trial so it could be transmitted to other federal courthouses.

Walker rejected a defense lawyer’s request to destroy any videotapes produced during the first days of the trials He says he wants the option to review them first.

 The ruling can be viewed at 　http://www.dccourts.gov/dccourts/docs/2009CA008613B.pdf

In June, a D.C. Superior Court judge rejected a similar lawsuit to force a public vote on legislation that, at the time, allowed D.C. to recognize marriages by same-sex couples performed in other jurisdictions.

From HRC:

The lawsuit was brought by several national anti-gay activists and backed by 39 Republican members of Congress.  The legislation extending marriage rights to same-sex couples in the District is set to become effective at the conclusion of the Congressional review period, likely in early March.
 
In her decision, Judge Macaluso determined that the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics ruled properly that the proposed initiative would violate the D.C. Human Rights Act.  Under D.C. law, no ballot initiative may authorize discrimination under the Human Rights Act, which, among other things, prohibits the government from denying services or benefits based on an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity.  Petitioners had argued that D.C.’s human rights protections dating back to 1979 were invalid; however, Judge Macaluso ruled that the D.C. Council acted within its legal authority when it adopted these vital anti-discrimination provisions.
 
“This second, back-to-back ruling by the D.C. Superior Court is an overwhelming victory for fairness, the rule of law and the protection of all D.C. residents against discrimination,” said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese.  “D.C. has the right to govern itself and make its own laws without the interference of thirty-nine Republican members of Congress, more interested in scoring cheap political points than in the everyday lives of D.C. residents.  As D.C. law justifiably recognizes, no initiative should be permitted to strip away any individual’s civil rights.  It is heartening that two different judges upheld the anti-discrimination protections wisely enacted by the Council more than thirty years ago. ”

Both the defense and prosecutors said there was no intention to kill. But prosecutors said defendant Bruce Lavallee-Davidson, a farmer from Skowhegan, was responsible for ensuring his gun wasn’t loaded when it was being handled. He was convicted Wednesday and faces at least four years in prison.

The trial shed light on a dungeon in the victim’s South Portland home that was filled with sex toys that three men used as a drug-fueled escape from reality.

Assistant Attorney General Lisa Marchese said the focus should be on the handling of the gun – not the sexual acts that were going on in the victim’s basement. The victim, Fred Wilson, 50, of South Portland, died of a single gunshot wound to the head on April 18, 2009.

“You just don’t hold a gun to someone’s head and pull the trigger without making sure it’s not loaded. And at the moment he pulled the trigger, he didn’t know,” she said.

Defense lawyer Tom Hallett told jurors the men had been using guns as part of their sexual play and that the victim was a thrill seeker who may have slipped a bullet into the .44-caliber Rossi revolver unbeknownst to Lavallee-Davidson, who’d previously checked to make sure the gun was unloaded.

Jurors deliberated less than an hour before returning their guilty verdict in Cumberland County Superior Court. Manslaughter carries a maximum sentence of 30 years in state prison in Maine. Because a gun was involved, the minimum sentence is four years, Marchese said.

The bespectacled Lavallee-Davidson, with short gray hair and a goatee and dressed in a sport coat, gave the appearance of a college professor in the courtroom. He showed no visible reaction to the verdict, and left without speaking to reporters. Hallett said the outcome was “devastating” for him.

The Dartmouth College graduate was in a committed relationship when he testified in favor of keeping Maine’s now-overturned gay marriage law at a public hearing, four days after the discovery of Wilson’s body and several weeks before he was indicted by a grand jury in Cumberland County.

The fatal shooting happened after Wilson, Lavallee-Davidson and a third man had been smoking pot, consuming the party drug GBL, huffing aerosol inhalants and having sex over a 12-hour period in the basement of Wilson’s Colonial home in a middle-class neighborhood two blocks from the ocean.

The third participant, James Pombriant, 65, of Auburn, testified he first thought the others were playing a sick joke on him when he saw the flash of a handgun after hours of partying.

Pombriant, who was engaged in a sex act with the victim when the shot rang out, says there was a moment of silence before Lavallee-Davidson said, “I think I killed him.”

Lavallee-Davidson, 50, contended the killing was a tragic accident.

His lawyers said their client checked not just once – but three times – over the course of the night to make sure the revolver wasn’t loaded. They contend the victim loaded a bullet into the revolver’s chamber while Lavallee-Davidson slipped out of the room to use the bathroom.

When Lavallee-Davidson returned, Wilson asked him to put the gun to his head and pull the trigger to intensify his pleasure, the defense contended. On the first try, there was a click when Lavallee-Davidson pulled the trigger. Wilson asked him to do it again, and there was a flash, the defense said.

After the shooting, Pombriant and Lavallee-Davidson left Wilson’s body behind for hours before Pombriant called police. Police recovered the handgun used in the killing and a .12-gauge Mossberg shotgun that Lavallee-Davidson had taken to Wilson’s home for the sex games.

Hallett said he was disappointed by the jury’s fast verdict. “It was a close call. It was a tough case, and minds can disagree,” he said.