AG Holder urges new hate crimes law

(Washington) Citing recent killings in Arkansas, Kansas and the nation’s capital, Attorney General Eric Holder on Tuesday said new hate crimes law were needed to stop what he called “violence masquerading as political activism.”

The attorney general’s call for Congress to act came as a civil rights coalition said there has …

Schwarzenegger, AG Brown oppose bid to immediately block Prop 8

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown on Thursday urged a federal judge to keep Proposition 8 in force for now, arguing that it would create too much uncertainty across the state to put the voter-approved ban on gay marriage on hold while the latest legal challenge unfolds in the federal courts.

In court papers, state lawyers argued against an injunction that would freeze the current gay marriage ban, opposing a request filed in federal court in San Francisco last month by two gay couples seeking the right to marry. Backed by former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson and renowned lawyer David Boies, the couples moved to counterract the California Supreme Court’s recent ruling upholding Proposition 8, arguing that it violates equal protection rights under the federal constitution.

Brown and Schwarzenegger argued separately that it would create too much havoc to put the law on hold until the constitutional issues are resolved, perhaps eventually by the U.S. Supreme Court. The governor and attorney general did not take a position on the federal constitutional questions, focusing only on whether Prop 8 should be blocked while the case is litigated, a move that would allow same-sex couples to resume marrying in California.

Brown had previously urged the California Supreme Court to overturn Prop 8, and Schwarzenegger has said publicly he believes the courts eventually will permit gay marriage.

See Schwarzenegger, AG Brown oppose bid to immediately block Prop 8 San Jose Mercury News

Published by

Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/06/schwarzenegge…

Will Maryland recognize gay marriages?

Maryland’s attorney general is deciding whether gay marriages performed in other states will be legally recognized by his state, the Baltimore Sun reports.

Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler is a Democrat and a strong advocate for equal marriage. Maryland defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, but …

CA Supreme Court Upholds Student Civil Rights Act

(Sacramento, June 1, 2009) –Today, a Sacramento Superior Court dismissed a lawsuit seeking to invalidate SB 777, the California Student Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination against students on the basis of race, religion, disability, gender, and sexual orientation. The lawsuit was brought by a right-wing group that specifically objected to protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students. The court held that the plaintiffs had failed to show any way in which the statute was even allegedly unlawful.

“We are pleased the court rejected this attack on the Student Civil Rights Act,” said Carolyn Laub, Gay-Straight Alliance Network Executive Director. “School should be safe place for all children, including those who are—or are perceived to be—lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender.”

The lawsuit was filed on November 5, 2008. State Superintendent Jack O’Connell, represented by California Attorney General Jerry Brown, filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on January 8, 2009. On March 19, 2009, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal, the Transgender Law Center, Equality California, and Gay-Straight Alliance Network filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the motion to dismiss.

Governor Schwarzenegger signed SB 777 into law on October 12, 2007. SB 777 reinforced existing anti-discrimination protections in publicly-funded schools and updated the Education Code so that teachers and administrators do not have to cross-reference other parts of state law to understand their obligations to protect students from harassment and discrimination in all school activities. The bill was sponsored by Equality California, the state’s LGBT legislative organization, and authored by former Senator Sheila Kuehl.

According to the 2001 California Healthy Kids Survey, nearly 30 percent of California youth in grades 7 to 11 report experiencing harassment or bullying based on their actual or perceived race, ethnicity, religion, disability, gender, or sexual orientation.

Equality California (EQCA) is the largest statewide lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender-rights advocacy organization in California. In the past decade, EQCA has strategically moved California from a state with extremely limited legal protections for LGBT individuals to a state with some of the most comprehensive civil-rights protections in the nation. EQCA has passed over 50 pieces of legislation and continues to advance equality through legislative advocacy, public education and community empowerment. www.eqca.org

Published by

Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/06/ca-supreme-co…

MD State AG studies recognizing out of state gay nuptials

Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler is exploring whether same-sex marriages performed in other states can be recognized in Maryland, a move that could open an avenue for legal recognition of gay and lesbian couples who have been rebuffed by the courts and legislature here.

The exercise puts Gansler – a Democrat and vocal proponent of same-sex marriage – in a difficult position. Maryland law clearly defines marriage as between a man and a woman, but the state also adheres to a long-standing legal principle that generally acknowledges couples married elsewhere.

Gay-rights activists say the ability to marry would not only strengthen their relationships but confer hundreds of rights, benefits and responsibilities on them, including community property protections, control over funeral arrangements of a spouse and an obligation to pay child support.

For many married same-sex couples living in Maryland, the issue isn’t just a legal conundrum but deeply personal.
See State studies gay nuptials Baltimore Sun – * Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual

Published by

Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/05/md-state-ag-s…

Utah opposition to civil unions shows proponents of Prop 8 Lied – again

You may remember how proponents of Prop 8 claimed they were not against Civil Unions for queers – they only wanted to protect marriage from being destroyed, etc.

Well, over in Utah (home of The Mormon Church) we can now see the truth: far right conservatives and the Mormon Church are against any form of equality for LGBT people. Read on:

Attorney General Mark Shurtleff said Friday that Utah’s constitutional amendment banning gay marriage also prohibits civil unions, and that Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. is wrong when he says it’s open to interpretation from the courts.

“When it comes to civil unions, it’s absolutely clear. There is no doubt,” Shurtleff said in an interview. “That’s in the Constitution.”

Utah voters approved Amendment 3 to Utah’s Constitution in 2004, stating that marriage can only consist of a union between a man and a woman and that “No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.”

On Thursday, Huntsman said that it is not clear that the Constitution bans civil unions.

“I think that ultimately could be a court case and that might be adjudicated in court if it comes to that level,” Huntsman said during his monthly KUED news conference. “But [the amendment] wasn’t clear. That spoke to marriage and anything subordinate to marriage, I think, would probably be adjudicated in a court of law.”

Shurtleff said that, based on the language of the amendment and the legislative intent and history, “they clearly were prohibiting civil unions.”

On Friday, Shurtleff sent a Twitter message to 380 correspondents: “It is NOT a matter for the courts, the PEOPLE have spoken!”

Shurtleff says guv is wrong on civil unions
Salt Lake Tribune – United States

Published by

Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/04/utah-oppositi…

Anti-gay group allowed to enter Arkansas adoption case

(Little Rock, Arkansas) A judge has ruled that that a lawsuit challenging an Arkansas law banning unmarried couples from becoming foster or adoptive parents can proceed - and that the conservative group behind the measure can present arguments in the case.

County Circuit Judge Chris Piazza dismissed a motion by Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel to dismiss the suit. Piazza then accepted an application by the Arkansas Family Council to enter the case.

The council was behind the successful ballot measure past last November that bans unmarried couples from adopting or fostering. The American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas filed suit, challenging the constitutionality of the law on behalf of a dozen families, some straight, some gay.

See Anti-gay group allowed to enter Arkansas adoption case

365Gay.com

Published by

Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/03/anti-gay-grou…

Attorneys Urge California Supreme Court To Invalidate Prop 8

Case Raises Important Legal Issues Affecting All Minority Groups

(San Francisco, CA, March 5, 2009) Attorneys for same-sex couples, civil rights organizations and the state Attorney General’s office appeared before the California Supreme Court today to urge the court to strike down Proposition 8, which took away the right of same-sex couples the right to marry. At issue in the case is whether the ballot initiative process can be used to take away a fundamental right only for one group of Californians based on a trait – in this case sexual orientation – that has no relevance to the group’s ability to participate in or contribute to society. Because the case has serious implications for the constitutional rights of all Californians, it has generated unprecedented support from many national and state civil rights groups as well as California legislators, local governments, bar associations, business interests, labor unions, and religious groups. The California Supreme Court, which has struck down several other initiatives in the past, is expected to issue a decision within 90 days.

“Proposition 8 jeopardizes not just the right of same-sex couples to marry, but the rights of all Californians to be treated as free and equal citizens of this state,” said Shannon P. Minter, Legal Director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), who argued the case before the Court. “Our Constitution is based on the principle that majorities must respect minority rights. But if a majority can change the Constitution to take away a fundamental right from one group, then it can take away fundamental rights from any group. Our government will have changed from one that respects minority rights to one in which the power of the majority is unlimited.”

NCLR, Lambda Legal, and the ACLU filed the legal challenge on November 5, after Proposition 8 was approved by just 52 percent of the voters on Election Day. In court today, the groups argued that it was improper for the proponents of Proposition 8 to use the ballot initiative process to strip same-sex couples of the fundamental right to marry. The groups contend that changes to the Constitution that alter its core requirement of equal protection by selectively depriving minorities of fundamental constitutional rights cannot be accomplished through a simple majority vote. Such major changes of core structural principles are revisions to the Constitution that can only be put on the ballot by a two-thirds vote of both houses of the legislature.

“It is simply wrong—legally and socially—to short-circuit the California Constitution and its equal protection guarantees,” said Jennifer C. Pizer, Marriage Project Director for Lambda Legal and co-counsel in the legal challenge to Proposition 8. “Proposition 8 is no ‘garden variety’ amendment that changes a tax or zoning or safety rule in a way that affects everyone equally. This is a radical attempt to strip a cherished constitutional right from just one targeted minority group and then to stop the courts from doing their most basic job of upholding the constitutional promise of ‘liberty and justice for all’.”

The case before the court is unprecedented because no other initiative-amendment has successfully taken away a fundamental right only for a particular minority. Because Proposition 8 would, for the first time, change the Constitution in a way that strips a minority group of its constitutional right to equal treatment under the law, California Attorney General Jerry Brown agrees that Proposition 8 should be struck down. The Attorney General’s office argued that the right to marry is an “inalienable right” that can not be selectively eliminated from one group without compelling reasons.
“The Court has a solemn responsibility to enforce our state constitution and to protect the rights of all people, regardless of popular opinion,” said Elizabeth Gill, a staff attorney with the ACLU of Northern California. “This case isn’t just about marriage, and it’s certainly not just about gay and lesbian couples. If the Court strikes down Proposition 8, it will be protecting the civil rights of all Californians.”

An unprecedented 43 friend-of-the-court briefs, representing hundreds of religious organizations, civil rights groups, and labor unions, and numerous California municipal governments, bar associations, and leading legal scholars, were filed in the case, urging the court to strike down the initiative. Because the issues at stake have such important implications for other minority groups, Raymond Marshall of Bingham McCutchen, who represents the Asian Pacific American Legal Center, the California State Conference of the NAACP, the Equal Justice Society, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, asked and was given permission to appear in court today. He argued that allowing Proposition 8 to stand could be detrimental to other minority groups who could easily become the targets of initiative campaigns seeking to take away their rights.

“Our state Constitution was created to ensure equal treatment under the law for every Californian,” said Geoff Kors, Executive Director of Equality California. “Prop 8 changes that fact by taking away a fundamental freedom from one particular group and mandating government discrimination against a minority. We hope the court upholds the Constitution’s promise of equality.”

The National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal, and the ACLU are representing Equality California, whose members include many same-sex couples who married between June 16 and November 4, 2008, and six same-sex couples who want to marry in California. The arguments today also included two other challenges filed on the same day: one filed by the City and County of San Francisco (joined by Santa Clara County and the City of Los Angeles, and subsequently by Los Angeles County and other local governments); and another filed by a private attorney.

Serving as co-counsel on the case with NCLR, Lambda Legal, and the ACLU are the Law Office of David C. Codell, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, and Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP.

The case is Strauss et al. v. Horton et al. (#S168047). For more information, go to: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/prop8.htm
The California Supreme Court must issue its decisions within 90 days of oral argument.
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual

Published by

Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/03/attorneys-urg…

Case Against Prop 8 — Oral Argument and Telephone Briefing Today!

Today another historic argument will be made before the state Supreme Court in California to protect the constitutional guarantee of equal protection for all and to fight to restore marriage equality. Lambda Legal, NCLR, the ACLU and others have been working for months to prepare for today’s oral argument in our historic case against Prop 8. And now you can be among the first to know what happened in the courtroom. By making a gift to Lambda Legal, you can join our members–only telephone briefing immediately following the argument.
At 3 pm PST (6 pm EST), Lambda Legal’s National Marriage Project Director Jenny Pizer and our Legal Director Jon Davidson will discuss the latest developments in the Strauss v. Horton case. If you’re interested in watching the argument, we have learned that it will be aired on California’s Public Access TV and streamed online. (High traffic at the site may impair viewing.)
Upholding the California Constitution’s promise to protect the rights of minorities is important for all Americans. In January, hundreds of religious organizations, civil rights groups and labor unions, and dozens of California municipal governments, bar associations and leading legal scholars agreed that the rights of all vulnerable minorities are at stake as they collectively urged the California Supreme Court to strike down Prop 8. The California Attorney General has also argued that Prop 8 is invalid.
Be in the know, every step of the way. With your support, we are making history. Take this final opportunity to join Lambda Legal and receive instructions on how to sign up for today’s conference call. Join us as we discuss the justices’ questions and what may come next in this fight to uphold the constitution and our equal freedom to marry in California!

* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual

Published by

Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/03/case-against-…

California legal chief calls for end to gay marriage ban

California’s top lawyer has called for the result of a referendum effectively banning same-sex marriage to be quashed, two days ahead of the latest court-room showdown over the issue.

Attorney General Jerry Brown said the ballot measure known as Proposition 8, which redefined marriage in California as a union between a man and a woman, should be invalidated because it “discriminates against same-sex couples.”

On Thursday, supporters of same-sex marriage are to go before California’s Supreme Court in San Francisco to argue for the ballot measure to be invalidated in the latest twist to the long-running legal battle.

Brown said Tuesday the Supreme Court should strike down the measure on the grounds that same-sex couples had an “inalienable” right to marry that should not be allowed to be taken away by a simple majority vote.

He compared the current dispute to a case in 1964, where the California and US Supreme Courts quashed a voter measure that would have allowed racial discrimination in renting or selling of property.

See California legal chief calls for end to gay marriage ban