Ruby-Sachs: Supreme Court case pits gay activists v. free speech
[1]
There is a very important case arriving in the Supreme Court tomorrow. Referendum 71 was a ballot initiative in Washington attempting to undo domestic partnership privileges for same-sex couples. Many signed the petition for the law, but ultimately their regressive bid failed. Still, gay rights groups want to release the names from the petition on a searchable website. Under Washington law, that kind of disclosure is mandatory.
But the lawyer for the other side argues that the release of names on the web will lead to the intimidation and harassment of those individuals who signed the petition.
That argument holds little water. Although courts have, in the past, found that harassment did occur against homophobic individuals in the wake of Prop 8, the objective evidence illustrates that there is not one case of harassment or intimidation resulting from the political participation of homophobic individuals. The worst we saw was a highly organized and very legal boycott of certain businesses in California – a political initiative that is the very expression of democracy in the U.S.
However, that doesn’t mean that releasing the names won’t affect free speech in Washington. Individuals who already signed the petition obviously feel that the release of their names will harm their reputation or livliehood (frankly, it should). And that feeling, that fear, results in a chill on free speech. Public petitions might discourage some from signing certain petitions calling for certain laws.
The Supreme Court has to decide if the chill on free speech outweighs the public’s right to access its political process. Is it unconstitutional free speech? If you listen to the presentation tomorrow, you will likely get a feel for how the court is going to decide. The result of this case could seriously affect the political process, certainly around gay marriage, for many years to come.
Transcripts of the oral arguments are available here [2] and the transcripts from this case will be up some time before the end of the day tomorrow.
[1] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/news-supreme-court-top.jpg
[2] http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts.aspx
DC court rejects anti-gay marriage initiative. Again.
The DC Superior Court upheld the decision of the DC Board of Elections and Ethics to reject a proposed ballot initiative that would have prohibited gay marriage in the District.
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 …
WA judge rejects challenge to vote on gay benefits
(Olympia, Wash) A judge on Tuesday refused to block a proposed ballot initiative on expanded domestic partnership benefits for gay couples in Washington state.
An appeal was considered likely, however, with just a few days remaining before officials need to begin printing materials for the Nov. 3 general election.
The case involves …
Projection: R-71 likely to qualify
WA’s proposed anti-gay ballot initiative will likely qualify for according to mathematical models.
Wash. donors to remain public
The state of Washington rejected a request to keep donors to the anti-gay ballot initiative secret.
Sigs collected for Maine ballot initiative
The FRC says enough signatures were collected to put ME’s marriage amendment on the ballot.
Gay groups disagree: 2010 or 2012?
Several LGBT organizations have written a letter to dissuade a ballot initiative to repeal Prop 8 in 2010.
Voter ‘animus’ to be issue in Calif marriage case
When the U.S. Supreme Court overturned an amendment to the Colorado Constitution that outlawed discrimination protections for gay people, same-sex couples could not enter into civil unions or domestic partnerships anywhere in the nation, much less get married. But as they seek to persuade a federal judge to strike down California’s ban on gay marriages, lawyers for two unmarried gay couples are using that 13-year-old decision as their road map — one they expect will eventually lead the high court to take up the marriage issue. In the Colorado case, Romer v. Evans, the Supreme Court majority held that voters’ dislike of gays and the laws that several cities had approved to shield them from bias motivated the state amendment. Such “animus,” it said, was incompatible with the section of the U.S. Constitution that requires the government to treat its citizens equally absent a compelling reason to do otherwise. The attorneys behind the challenge to California’s Proposition 8 plan to argue during a pretrial hearing Thursday that by stripping gays of the right to wed, the voter-approved ban runs afoul of America’s founding framework in the same way — and for the same reason. “Romer is a strikingly similar situation to what we have here. You had a ballot initiative, a majority vote of the people, taking away a right,” said Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., a member of the legal team led by former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson and veteran trial lawyer David Boies. “And there was no justification or rationale other than disapproval by that majority of that group.” U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker on Tuesday issued a tentative order to fast-track the case in his San Francisco court. Among the questions he said he wants covered at trial are whether sexual orientation is unchangeable, if permitting same-sex marriage “destabilizes” traditional unions and whether Proposition 8′s ballot history demonstrates the measure had “discriminatory intent.” California Attorney General Jerry Brown, a defendant in the case, has sided with gay rights advocates and declined to defend the ban, which overturned a California Supreme Court ruling that had legalized same-sex marriages. The state Supreme Court five weeks ago upheld the measure, saying it represented a valid exercise of voters’ authority to amend the California Constitution. Proposition 8′s sponsors, a coalition of religious conservative groups called Protect Marriage, has been given permission to intervene in the federal case. In court papers, the group’s lawyers rejected the assertions that anti-gay attitudes fueled the November measure and that the 1996 Colorado case was applicable. “Nothing in California law, either Proposition 8 or otherwise, indicates that Californians harbor animus towards gay and lesbian individuals,” they wrote. Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision, attorneys for gay rights and Christian conservative groups have debated whether the Romer decision could be used to expand gay rights. The ruling marked the first time the Supreme Court determined that the Constitution’s equal rights guarantees extended to gays and lesbians. “The basic point of Romer is that government cannot ever act out of hostility toward a group of people, and whether that is in the context of marriage or anti-discrimination law, the point carries over,” said Suzanne Goldberg, who worked on the case and now directs Columbia Law School’s Sexuality and Gender Law Program. The ruling has been cited, though so far unsuccessfully, in past challenges to gay marriage bans in Nebraska and Florida. At the same time, gay rights groups mostly have shied away from pursuing federal marriage cases in favor of pursuing marriage rights in state courts. Legal observers on both sides of the debate agree, however, that California’s Proposition 8 presents novel questions that could make the issue ripe for federal action.
San Francisco Chronicle
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
 |
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/07/voter-animus-…
The Church and Gay Marriage: Are Mormons Misunderstood?
Last November, Jay Pimentel began hearing that people in his neighborhood were receiving letters about him. Pimentel lives in Alameda, Calif., a small, liberal-leaning community hanging off Oakland into the San Francisco Bay. Pimentel, who is a Mormon, had supported Proposition 8, the ballot initiative banning same-sex marriage. And that made him a target. “Dear Neighbor,” the letter began, “Our neighbors, Colleen and Jay Pimentel” — and it gave their address — “contributed $1,500.00 to the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign. NEIGHBORS SHOULD BE AWARE OF THEIR NEIGHBORS’ CHOICES.” The note accused the Pimentels of “obsessing about same-sex marriage.” It listed a variety of local causes that recipients should support — “unlike the Pimentels.”
Pimentel, a lawyer and a lay leader in the small Mormon congregation in Alameda, is markedly even-keeled. Yet the poison-pen note still steams him, even though in May the California Supreme Court validated Prop 8 as constitutional. He is bothered less by the revelation of his monetary contribution, which he stands by, than the fact that the letter’s author didn’t bother to find out that every other Saturday for 15 years, he or someone else from Alameda’s 184-member Mormon ward has delivered a truckload of hot meals to the Midway Shelter for Abused and Homeless Women and Children — one of the organizations the Pimentels allegedly wouldn’t support. “The church does a lot of things in the community we don’t issue press releases about,” he says. “And when people criticize us, we often just take it on the chin. I guess you could say I’m not satisfied with the way we’re seen.”
Across the country, that’s the dilemma facing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. With 13 million members worldwide (by its own count), the LDS is the fourth largest church in the country, the richest per capita and one of the fastest-growing abroad. The body has become a mainstream force, counting among its flock political heavyweights like former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney and Democratic Senate majority leader Harry Reid, businesspeople like the Marriotts and entertainers like Glenn Beck and Twilight novelist Stephenie Meyer. The passage of Prop 8 was the church’s latest display of its power: individual Mormons contributed half of the proposition’s $40 million war chest despite constituting only 2% of California’s population. LDS spokesman Michael Otterson says, “This is a moment of emergence.”
See The Church and Gay Marriage: Are Mormons Misunderstood?
TIME
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/06/church-and-ga…
Gay bishop says faith groups key to NH gay marriage vote
New Hampshire became the sixth state to legalize gay marriage on Wednesday (June 3) in part because faith leaders testified that the measure would not impinge on religious rights, according to V. Gene Robinson, the state’s openly gay Episcopal bishop.
When credible Christians, Muslims and Jews advocated for same-sex marriage, it “had a lot of sway with legislators in terms of giving them cover,” said Robinson. “Our message was loud and clear: religious organizations have nothing to fear from civil marriage for same-gendered folks.”
Robinson, who was elected bishop of New Hampshire in 2003, joined his longtime partner in a civil union last year. Under the New Hampshire law, their union will automatically be considered a marriage on Jan. 1, 2010.
“I’m still about 30 feet off the ground, hovering somewhere on high,” Robinson said in a conference call with reporters on Thursday.
The legislation signed by Gov. John Lynch on Wednesday contains explicit legal protections for religious groups that object to same-gender relationships and makes Rhode Island the only state in New England that does not allow gay marriage.
Robinson said separating the civil and religious aspects of marriage and making clear that religious groups would not be required to sanction same-gender weddings was key to the effort.
“We made sure that our … bill here stated and overstated and restated the fact that no religious liberties would be abridged in the embrace of civil marriage — that no religious institutions would be required to do anything against its own beliefs,” Robinson said. “It largely undercut the argument from the other side.”
Two separate studies released on Wednesday concluded that anti-gay marriage groups relied heavily on religious language to successfully push for ballot initiatives in Michigan in 2004 and California in 2008 that outlawed gay marriage.
“A religious opposition requires a religious response,” said the Rev. Rebecca Voelkel of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and an author of one of the reports.
Robinson said, “I think it’s about emboldening legislators to see people like them who identify as Roman Catholic or American Baptist or Methodist or Lutheran (and) say `OK, this … is clearly a person of faith, so despite what the denomination says as a whole I’ve got a fairly firm piece of ground to stand on here.”
See Gay bishop says faith groups key to NH gay marriage vote
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/06/gay-bishop-sa…
