The justices said Monday they will not revive a lawsuit filed by Brittany McComb of Henderson, Nev. challenging the actions of Clark County school officials. A federal appeals court ruled previously ruled against her.

During McComb’s speech at the Foothill High School graduation in 2006, officials turned off McComb’s microphone when the school valedictorian strayed from an approved text to provide a graphic account of Jesus’ crucifixion and credit God for her success in school.

The case is McComb v. Crehan, 08-1566.

Attorneys for Robert Van Hook had argued that the lawyers who represented him during the sentencing phase of his trial failed to do an effective job.

In its ruling Monday, the high court reversed a ruling by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati.

Van Hook killed David Self in Self’s apartment in Cincinnati before robbing him and fleeing to Florida, where he was arrested and later confessed.

Van Hook’s lawyer, Keith Yeazel, says another appeal issue is pending before the 6th Circuit.

Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray says the death sentence is appropriate due to the “horrific nature” of the crime.

Kennedy’s ruling Monday temporarily blocks a federal appeals court ruling last week that ordered the release of the names. Kennedy said his order would remain in effect while he considers a request by a group, Protect Marriage Washington, to reverse the appeals court ruling.

The case involves Referendum 71, a ballot initiative that asks Washington voters to approve or reject the state’s “everything but marriage” law, which grants registered domestic partners the same legal rights as married heterosexuals.

Protect Marriage Washington circulated a petition to put the domestic partnership law before the voters. Under the Washington state constitution, voters have the power to reject any law through the referendum process.

In September, U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle temporarily barred state officials from releasing the identities of those who signed the referendum petitions. Settle held that releasing the names could chill the First Amendment rights of petition signers.

Gay rights supporters and open-government groups sought to disclose the names, saying that signers should be identified so the public knows who is behind Referendum 71.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Settle’s decision last week. The appeals court said Thursday that Washington’s secretary of state can release the names and addresses of people who signed petitions calling for a public vote.

Despite the appeals court ruling, the names weren’t immediately released because a state court order remained in effect. A Superior Court judge in Olympia, Wash., is set to hear arguments Tuesday on how to respond to the appeals court decision.

In appealing to Kennedy to intervene, Protect Marriage Washington argued that state officials had suddenly changed a long-standing practice of keeping confidential the identities of those who signed referendum petitions. The group said signers of the petition fear hostile confrontations from gay rights supporters and noted that their campaign manager had received death threats.

James Bopp Jr., a lawyer who represents the group, said releasing the names of those who signed the petition would make the group’s appeal of the 9th Circuit ruling moot.

Janelle Guthrie, a spokeswoman for Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna, said state officials were merely defending the state’s public records law.

The attorney general’s office argued in court that there’s little evidence of threats or harassment amounting to more than a few rude phone calls.

State officials filed a 39-page response with the Supreme Court on Monday, arguing there is no basis to overturn the appeals court decision.

Most notably, in a special concurrence, Justice James Nelson argued against discrimination:

“Naming it for the evil it is, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is an expression of bigotry.

“Lesbian and gay Montanans must not be forced to fight to marry, to raise their children and to live with the same dignity that is accorded heterosexuals…

“I remain absolutely convinced that homosexuals are entitled to enjoy precisely the same civil and natural rights as heterosexuals, as a matter of constitutional law.”

Montana state law, however, still does not allow both members of a same-sex partnership to adopt.

Barbara Maniaci, Kulstad’s partner of 10 years, adopted the children while the two were in a relationship. After they broke up in 2006, Kulstad filed for parenting rights.

In April, Kulstad received joint custody of the kids but Maniaci, now married to a man, appealed the judge’s decision to the higher court.

Justice Brian Morris said:

“Maniaci cannot rewrite the history of the fact that she and Kulstad lived together for more than 10 years and jointly raised the minor children in the same household.”

The Supreme Court decision, 6-1, affirms Kulstad’s rights as a parent.

Kulstad spoke at a News conference outside of the Supreme Court last week stating:

“I want what every parent wants. I want to love my children and care for them. I am looking forward to being in their lives for the rest of my life, to see them graduate from high school, get married and have children of their own.”

According the Billing Gazette, the boy, 9, and the girl, 6, live with Maniaci and her husband.

Thousands of gay civil rights supporters stood together at the bottom of the court’s entrance and systematically defied police orders to stay off the court’s open gathering plaza. In protest of the high court’s 1986 decision, Bowers v. Hardwick, upholding state laws prohibiting consenting same-sex sexual relations, hundreds of the demonstrators stepped onto the plaza, sat down, and were arrested.

 The 2009 March plans no such demonstration directed at the U.S. Supreme Court. In large part, that is because the high court has since reversed itself on Hardwick. It ruled, in 2003’s Lawrence v. Texas decision, that state “sodomy laws” were unconstitutional. It also ruled, in 1996’s Romer v. Evans, that state laws cannot be based on animus towards gay people.

But the Supreme Court has not become a reliably hospitable place for LGBT people. And while gay legal groups do not –so far– see any cases before the court that they intend to become involved in this session, there are scattered cases involving LGBT issues.

The Supreme Court refused during its official opening day orders Monday to hear the appeal of a Michigan school district which was seeking to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the parents of a student who was being repeatedly harassed as a “queer” and “faggot.” The 6th Circuit federal appeals court ruled in January that the case, Hudson Area Schools v. Patterson, should proceed to trial.

Court records indicate other students repeatedly harassed the Patterson student, calling “queer,” “gay,” and “faggot,” writing anti-gay slurs and drawings on his books and locker, and urinating on his clothes. Despite the Patterson student seeking help from school officials, the harassment escalated with a student sexually assaulting him in a locker room.

The assailant was eventually dismissed but the coach in charge of the locker room later commented to the Patterson son and others in the locker room that they should “not joke around with guys who can’t take a man joke.”

Because the Supreme Court refused to hear the school’s appeal, the parents’ lawsuit will now be heard in a federal district court in Detroit.

Religious crusades
 The Supreme Court also refused Monday to hear an appeal from an Episcopal Church in Los Angeles that sought to break away from the national denomination because the denomination allowed the consecration of a gay bishop, Gene Robinson of New Hampshire.

The St. James parish in the diocese of Los Angeles broke away from the denomination in 2003 and tried to take the church property with them. But the denomination fought the parish’s efforts to take the property, and the California Supreme Court agreed.

By refusing to hear the St. James Parish appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court has left the ruling of the California court intact. But the California decision affects no other states, and, importantly, there are similar cases percolating in other states.

For instance, the entire Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth, Texas, has a lawsuit underway attempting to acquire church property with its separation. And, the Supreme Court’s refusal of St. James v. Episcopal Diocese does not preclude it from taking up a similar case from another state.

 There are several cases reaching the high court now that test the government’s power to regulate or support the behavior of people and entities who offer religious or other First Amendment justifications for their actions.

In Choose Life v. Illinois, an anti-abortion group petitioned the state for the right to have its motto “Choose Life” stamped onto a series of automobile license plates. By state law, the group needed two things to make that happen: several thousand signatures from residents willing to buy license plates with the specialized slogan, and approval from the general assembly.

Choose Life got 25,000 signatures –a number that “far exceeded” the minimum required, according to court documents. But the plan was shot down in a legislative subcommittee. The anti-abortion group filed a lawsuit, arguing that it violated their First Amendment right to freedom of expression.

The 7th Circuit federal court of appeals ruled that the state had a “reasonable rationale that messages on specialty license plates give the appearance of having the government’s endorsement, and Illinois does not wish to be perceived as endorsing any position on the subject of abortion.” The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear the group’s appeal of that decision.

The court also refused Monday to hear an appeal, Frazier v. Smith, from the parents of a Florida public high school student who refused to stand in class during the pledge of allegiance. The school policy said that was OK, but only if the student, Cameron Frazier, brought in a written request from his parents asking that he be excused from participating.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 1940s that a state cannot force students to recite the Pledge. But Cameron refused to even stand and his parents sued, saying the requirement to stand also violated his First Amendment rights. The 11th Circuit split the baby: It said the school could not require students to stand during the pledge but that it could require parental permission for students who chose to exercise their right not to stand. 

 Cases involving the pledge are springing up all over the country, many testing whether the words “under God” violate the constitutional rights of students who don’t believe in god.

A federal judge in New Hampshire last month ruled that federal law does not require anyone to recite the pledge and that a state law requiring school children to recite it was “a civic patriotic affirmation, not a religious exercise, and inclusion of the words ‘under God’ constitutes, at most, a form of ceremonial or benign deism.”

2009 Keen News Service

I don’t mean to pile on Cleve Jones, the organizer for the National Equality March, but there are times when he talks and its easy to wonder if he likes Mary Jane a bit too much. In a recent interview he says two things that are rather naive and dismissive of local organizers who are doing important grunt work.

When asked what issues the October 11 march will address, here is Mr. Jones:

“We want decisive, unequivocal action from the president, Congress and the United States Supreme Court to ensure equal protection under the law in all matters governed by civil law in all 50 states, period.”

What the devil does that mean? Repeal of DOMA and DADT? Gay marriage in all 50 states (good luck with that!). Civil rights laws for gays and lesbians? Can the man be more vague? And last time I checked the Supreme Court’s job isn’t to ensure some political outcome. Its role is only to make meaning from the laws (and if you look at the history of the Court, minus the past 50 years, its a rather conservative institution, but that is for another time).

Jones also seems to have a disdain for the daily work done by locals. You know those folk you call when the police do some shady stuff or you get beat down for having the gall to think you can walk the streets at night.

” We who are organizing the march are tired of a state-by-state, city-by-city struggle. It certainly has produced victories, but these victories are incomplete and impermanent.”

Sure, but can we get our fair due of the freedom pie by ignoring  the local activists who will be on the ground when the rally stage is put away? Former 365 blogger Pauline Park wonders if all of the focus on a national movement will dry up much needed funds for organizations who are the lifeblood for the movement Jones wants.

“What the march will do is divert scarce resources from those state and local organizations doing the real work of the movement just at a moment when they most need resources because of the recession. In fact, a lot of state and local organizations already have events planned for Oct 11 — which is National Coming Out Day — and so the scheduling of this march on that day will force many of those organizations to choose between continuing to organize events in their home communities or send members to Washington.”

I know the complaints. “Why can’t gays and lesbians support something without being so critical?” “If this march is not a success our rights will be taken away.” “Every gay and lesbian needs to support this march. If not you are traitor.”  “Support this march or get out of the way.” Phooey to all of that.

Movements are weak if they can’t stand up to sturdy and fair critique. Sure too many comments about Jones  and the march are silly and those statements need to be taken for what they are: bitter mess by bitter people. However, freedom struggles get no where if there isn’t a hard question every now and then.

None of this means you shouldn’t go to DC this weekend, and if you read it like that get some glasses. Please. Yet ask yourself, and the folk organizing this thing, how do they plan on spreading a national movement if they don’t support the ground troops?

Ginsburg was taken to Washington Hospital Center at 7:45 p.m. EDT Thursday and would remain there for the night as a precaution, a statement from the court said.

Earlier in the day, Ginsburg had received an iron sucrose infusion to treat an iron deficiency anemia that had been discovered in July.

About an hour later, she “developed lightheadedness and fatigue,” the statement said. She was found to have a slightly low blood pressure, which the court said can occur after the type of treatment she received.

Although an examination found her to be in stable health, she was given fluids and taken to the hospital, the court said.

The July evaluation found “that she was in completely normal health with the exception of a low red blood cell count caused by deficiency of iron. Intravenous iron therapy was administered in a standard fashion,” the court statement said.

Doctors on Feb. 5 removed a small, malignant growth from Ginsburg’s pancreas. Doctors found no spread of it elsewhere, the court said at the time. Her spleen also was removed.

She returned to work quickly and hasn’t missed a day of work since. In March she said the operation had been “a complete, successful, surgical removal” of the cancer. However, she also said she was to undergo chemotherapy treatment.

A common side effect of chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer is anemia.

Two months after her surgery, Ginsburg told law students at a symposium at Ohio State University that serving on the Supreme Court was “the best and the hardest job I’ve ever had.” She said she wanted to match the tenure of Justice Louis Brandeis, who served for more than two decades and retired at age 82.

Ginsburg spent part of this past summer the way she usually does, teaching in Europe. This year’s class was in Rome.

After the retirement in January 2006 of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, Ginsburg was the only woman on the nine-member court until Sonia Sotomayor joined the court last August.

Nominated by President Bill Clinton, Ginsburg took her seat on the Supreme Court on Aug. 10, 1993. She had been a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit since 1980.

But she may have to give up the bayside sanctuary, where sunlight filters through watery blue stained-glass windows and glints off the flawless copper pipes of an organ purchased with parishioners’ tithes.

Kear is among theologically conservative breakaway Episcopalians fighting over parish property in a long-running rift over how churchgoers should interpret what the Bible says about gay relationships and many other issues.

St. James Anglican, in the Diocese of Los Angeles, is one of several dozen individual parishes and four dioceses nationwide that voted to split from the national church after the 2003 consecration of the first openly gay Episcopal bishop in New Hampshire.

“It’s not just about the building, it’s about the church,” said Kear, 70, who participates in group prayers for the property even while she says the congregation could continue without it.

The congregation may have to do just that. State courts have sided with the Los Angeles diocese throughout the five-year legal case, most recently in January. St. James has filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court in hopes that it might take up what has so far been a losing battle. St. James expects to know next month whether the nation’s highest court will take the case.

Two other seceding parishes – All Saints Church in Long Beach and St. David’s Church in North Hollywood – are parties in the lawsuit. A high court decision could also affect the Fresno-based Diocese of San Joaquin, one of the dioceses that voted to split off and is now involved in a complex property dispute with the national church.

Both sides make similar claims to the individual properties beyond their legal positions. Each has strong emotional and spiritual ties to the parishes, and views its interpretation of Scripture as the right one. Traditional Episcopalians believe that the Bible bars gay relationships; liberal Episcopalians emphasize social justice teachings of Scripture.

The Episcopal Church has argued that its rules bar anyone from walking away with denomination property, which often includes large endowments and land worth millions of dollars. Theological conservatives who want to separate say they have spent years, even decades, spending money to maintain and improve the buildings.

The 2-million-member denomination also includes many parishioners who disagree on the issues, but don’t see the rift as a reason to leave. Los Angeles Bishop Jon Bruno issued a letter to the diocese’s parishioners urging reconciliation.

“The Episcopal Church continues its long tradition of welcoming among its members a diversity of opinion, including loyal dissent. Our church remains a large tent expansive enough to include many views and voices while united in common prayer,” he wrote. “I ask each of us to keep working for reconciliation and renewal within this diocese.”

But reconciliation is a long shot.

Committing to leave the Episcopal Church five years ago and risking litigation was a somber decision for the St. James parish, especially because ties to the buildings run deep.

Kear remembers an expansion project about eight years ago when parishioners wrote prayers on scraps of paper and set them in the cement of the new sanctuary’s foundation.

There was “really a feeling (we were) building the new building,” Kear said.

Chad Sutton, a member of St. James’ lay leadership committee, said it’s particularly painful to hand the property to leaders with such different theological views.

“The prayers that have gone on at that altar – it almost gives you goosebumps,” Sutton said. “The saints that have gone before us and surrendered their lives, confessed their sins there – that has some significance.”

St. James has aligned with the Anglican Church of North America, a network of seceding Episcopal parishes and other congregations that was formed by theological conservatives as a rival to the Episcopal Church. At recent Sunday services in Newport Beach, parishioners voiced prayers for “our legal situation.”

Beyond awaiting word from the U.S. Supreme Court, there is no timeline for when the separationist parishes might hand over the grounds.

Sutton hopes, at least, it can wait a few months.

He and his wife are expecting a baby, and he said he knows exactly where they would like to have the child christened.

I’d love the next choice to be Cass Sunstein (a well-regarded Constitutional law scholar and creative thinker who can explain law to the masses – as well as being just a nice guy), who I’ve personally found to be very gay friendly; or Judge Diane Wood, who is likewise a champion of our rights.

And oh, we’re going to need champions. Obama’s next Supreme Court won’t change the balance – we’d just be exchanging a liberal for a liberal – but the next court appointment is likely to rule on DOMA and DADT.  We need them to start off on our side.

Both Sunstein and Wood are University of Chicago Law School tested, which means they’ve honed their arguments against the best conservative minds in the country – which would be good for us, I think.

But what do I really think is going to happen? I’d say look out for Eric Holder, the first African-American attorney general, or some African-American female. We really do need more diversity on the Court, and Obama is the man to find it.

I’m stealing this from Ta-Nehisi Coates, who got it from fellow Atlantic Monthly writer Andrew Sullivan, who picked it up from Think Progress’ Ian Millhiser. Not exactly six degrees of separation but close enough for this morning. Here is Oklahoma Sen. Jim  Inhofe coming to the support of former Sen. Trent Lott, when Lott said if the country had elected a segregationist for the White House we would have avoided so many headaches (like the Voting Rights Act).

“In an effort to honor the life and service of Strom Thurmond, Senator Lott made some comments that he probably wishes he had phrased differently. I do not believe Senator Lott meant to be malicious or racist with the comments he made. I believe he was merely honoring a great American on his 100th birthday [...] I do not believe he harbors racist sentiments in his heart.”

A few days ago, when talking about now Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the Oklahoma senator had this to say:

“There is no other way you can interpret [Sotomayor's "wise Latina" speech]. She thinks that a woman with her experience can make a better conclusion than a white male – and to me, I consider that racist.”

Oh and by the way, Inhofe is certain of what is in Sotomayor’s heart even though he never talked to her. This logical dissonance is no surprise because the senior Oklahoma senator has made a career of kookiness for votes (no wonder he loves him some birthers).

Inhofe also gets tongue tied when the topic comes close to LGBT stuff . Who can forget this line in  2006 during the Federal Marriage Amendment debate?

“I’m really proud to say that in the recorded history of our family, we’ve never had a divorce or any kind of homosexual relationship.”

Oklahoma brothers and sisters: what’s the deal with your elected officials?