ad_facebook
ad_email_468

4 responses to “Gay court nominee distances himself from Lawrence brief”

  1. Brian Stroup

    As an LGBT activist, I don’t see any problem with his answers to the Lawrence questions.

  2. Bruce Frier

    This response sounds right. As a judicial nominee, Oetken needs to guard against taking positions that might make him have to recuse himself if the issue comes before him. In any case, writing an amicus brief on behalf of a client is much different from, say, giving a speech or writing a law review article.

  3. FlexSF

    I would have been more impressed with Mr. Oetken if he stood up to the Republicans asking him questions….

  4. Greg

    With extremism and authoritarian views gaining credence in the Republican party, Oetken bent over and took it, to get approved. He can tell them all to go to he’ll when he is confirmed.

Leave a Reply

Your support keeps us going. Thank you!

Your support keeps us going. Thank you!

A Closer Look

June 26: An historic date marking victories that almost didn’t happenJune 26: An historic date marking victories that almost didn’t happen

Three important U.S. Supreme Court decisions have made June 26 the most historic date on the LGBT civil rights movement’s calendar. But the powerful impact of two of those decisions has almost obscured the fact that they were narrow victories.

» more


Breaking News

Fourth Circuit panel votes 2 to 1 to strike Virginia’s same-sex marriage ban

It was clear from the oral argument that two out of three of the judges on a Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel would vote on opposite sides concerning the constitutionality of Virginia’s ban on same-sex marriage. The question was how the third judge would vote. That question was answered Monday: He voted against the ban.

» more


President signs historic executive order

President Obama this morning (July 21) signed a long-sought executive order prohibiting contractors who do business with the federal government from discriminating based on sexual orientation and gender identity, and adding to existing protection (which includes sexual orientation) for federal employees a prohibition of discrimination based on gender identity.

» more


Legal activists call Hobby Lobby decision ‘radical’ and will require vigilance to protect LGBT equality

Some LGBT legal activists say today’s decision in a U.S. Supreme Court religious exemption case amounts to a “dangerous and radical departure from existing law that creates far more questions than it answers.”

Saying it is not providing a “shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice,” a 5 to 4 majority of the U.S. Supreme Court ruled today (June 30) that a federal law may not require a closely held commercial employer to provide health insurance coverage for contraception if that employer claims that to do so violates his or her personal religious beliefs.

» more


First federal appeals court panel weighs in; finds Utah’s ban unconstitutionalFirst federal appeals court panel weighs in; finds Utah’s ban unconstitutional

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued a 2 to 1 decision Wednesday, upholding a district court decision that Utah’s ban on marriage for same-sex couples is unconstitutional.

» more


June 26: An historic date marking victories that almost didn’t happenJune 26: An historic date marking victories that almost didn’t happen

Three important U.S. Supreme Court decisions have made June 26 the most historic date on the LGBT civil rights movement’s calendar. But the powerful impact of two of those decisions has almost obscured the fact that they were narrow victories.

» more