Gay activists and union leaders commit to year two of Hyatt Boycott
See Gay activists and union leaders commit to year two of Hyatt Boycott
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
 |
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/07/gay-activists…
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-…
Equality California, Jordan / Rustin Coalition Launch Mobilization Effort on Marriage for Same-Sex Couples in African-American Communities, Outreach Includes TV ad, on-the-ground organizing
Los Angeles – As same-sex couples who were able to legally marry last year celebrate their one-year-anniversaries, Equality California (EQCA) and Jordan / Rustin Coalition (JRC) are together launching an education and mobilization effort on the freedom to marry in LA’s African-American communities. The effort includes a TV commercial, on-the-ground organizers and a dedicated field office, which will be based in South Los Angeles, a predominantly African-American community.
“Jordan / Rustin Coalition is happy to partner with Equality California as we do the work to open the hearts and minds of all Californians, including those in the Black community, on the question of marriage for same-sex couples,” said Ron Buckmire, JRC board president. “Our partnership includes a multi-media campaign, outreach and public education and even the nuts and bolts of staffing and supplies. I am confident that together we will see the day when full LGBT equality is restored to our state.”
As part of today’s launch, the organizations released a television ad that features a gay African-American couple, Xavier and Michael Boykin-Haggood, along with three of their five children, Dante, Emmanuel and Fatima. The family lives in LA’s Leimert Park neighborhood. Their ad is scheduled to air starting the week of June 22nd.
The office is slated to open later this summer. JRC, EQCA, and a coalition of grassroots and community leaders rooted in South Los Angeles will work collaboratively to organize outreach events and lead door-to-door efforts to talk with African-American Californians.
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
The mission of the Barbara Jordan / Bayard Rustin Coalition (or Jordan / Rustin Coalition) is to empower Black same-gender loving, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals and families in Greater Los Angeles, to promote equal marriage rights and to advocate for fair treatment of everyone without regard to race, sexual orientation and gender identity or expression. www.jordanrustin.org
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/06/equality-cali…
The cost of gay marriage – in dollars and cents
Provincetown, Mass. - Maghi Geary might have some peculiar advice for Californians: Gay marriage is good for business. The co-owner of Provincetown Florist has 20 to 30 weddings booked this summer, and the reason for that decent return is evident in the next customer who walks through the door – a lesbian couple from Kansas desperately in need of some carnations for their wedding.
Tuesday, the California Supreme Court made the most recent in a series of legislative and judicial decisions on gay marriage nationwide: It upheld Proposition 8, a measure that bans gay marriage in the state. But here in Massachusetts, gay marriage has been legal since 2003, and in Provincetown, more than 2,000 same-sex couples have tied the knot since then.
In some ways, this farthest fingernail of Cape Cod is emblematic of the economics of gay marriage: a big impact, but only at the margins.
Massachusetts estimates that gay marriage has added money to its coffers – but only about $37 million a year, or less than 1 percent of the annual state budget.
In the private sector, the wedding industry could grow by more than $16 billion if gay marriage were expanded to all 50 states, according to a 2004 study by Forbes magazine.
But Massachusetts’ experience suggests that money would be concentrated in cities with a significant gay population, like Provincetown. See The cost of gay marriage – in dollars and cents Christian Science Monitor
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/06/cost-of-gay-m…
LA Times Editorial: A court battle California doesn’t need
The Supreme Court’s ruling last week in the case of a grandiosely unethical West Virginia justice opened a new field of constitutional review — the high court may now consider when an elected state court jurist has been so tainted by politics that due process requires him to recuse himself from a case.
In West Virginia, a coal executive spent more than $3 million to unseat a sitting state Supreme Court justice; it was money well spent, as the justice was defeated by voters and replaced by Brent Benjamin. Benjamin then did what was expected of him and cast a deciding vote in overturning a $50-million jury award against the executive’s coal company.
Indeed, California has wrestled with this problem before — and quite possibly could again.
California’s system for selecting Supreme Court justices is much better than West Virginia’s. Candidates for the court here are nominated by the governor, confirmed by a state commission and then placed on the bench. They must periodically stand for retention, but they are not, as they are in West Virginia, subject to direct challenge by rival candidates. A retention election can cost a justice his or her seat, but it does not let voters kick out one justice and install their own replacement.
California’s rules have helped balance the judiciary’s independence with the public’s fair insistence on accountability, but even this state’s reasonable retention process has been subject to tilt. Most notable was the 1986 retention election that removed Chief Justice Rose Bird and two associate justices, Cruz Reynoso and Joseph Grodin. Much reflection has gone into that race in the decades since, and opinions differ on its merits. Two truths, however, stand the test of deep inquiry: The forces arrayed against Bird were not motivated solely by her opposition to the death penalty — that was cover for a second complaint, which was her defense of consumer rights against corporate power — and Reynoso and Grodin were victims of a special-interest crusade against a vulnerable chief.
Would that we could relegate that episode to California’s history. In fact, the state rumbles with discontent over its high court and chief, and those stirrings contain alarming echoes of the battle of 1986.
At issue are the court’s rulings on same-sex marriage and Proposition 8, and its chief justice, Ronald M. George. In May 2008, the court overturned the state’s ban on gay marriage, striking a victory for civil rights in the grandest tradition of constitutional protection of minorities. A few months later, after voters approved Proposition 8 and amended the state Constitution to ban the same institution that the court had upheld, George and his colleagues upheld the amendment. Both times, George wrote for the majority. He thus angered opponents of gay marriage in 2008 and supporters of it in 2009.
By California’s rules, George faces a retention election in 2010, and some predict that he could face challenges from either side — or even both — in this polarizing debate.
That would be a shame for the state’s judiciary, an unfortunate attack on judicial independence and an unfair castigation of one of this state’s most principled and admirable public officials. In the gay-marriage cases, George’s votes demonstrated conscience, professionalismand restraint. He voted to uphold same-sex unions out of the strong conviction — which this page shares — that the Constitution does not allow society to deny the protection of marriage to gay couples any more than it once denied it to those united across race. The ruling was right on the law, and will certainly be validated over the long march of history.
Months later, voters tacked in the other direction, narrowly rejecting gay marriage and amending the Constitution to allow California to recognize only the unions of heterosexual couples. That was challenged, naturally, and the lawsuit offered the court the opportunity to extend its earlier ruling, though on shaky constitutional grounds — advocates for same-sex marriage argued that Proposition 8 was such an affront to the rights of Californians that it revised the Constitution rather than merely amending it. Scholars split on the merits of that argument, and although the strong consensus of legal opinion rejectedit, an opportunistic justice might have seized the chance to solidify his legacy.
Instead, George subordinated his politics — as evidenced by his writing — to the weight of constitutional opinion. He voted to uphold the proposition, even though it undid his own work. Permitted latitude within the strictures of the Constitution in the first case, George was able to vote his conscience; bound by the Constitution in the second case, he yielded.
Such is the lot of a principled judicial officer, but those concerned only with results already have signaled their unhappiness with George. The moneyed interests that supported Proposition 8 last fall are considering whether to finance a campaign against George next year. Supporters of gay marriage, who championed his heroism in 2008, were bitterly disappointed when the court upheld the hateful initiative.
This is not West Virginia. Corporate interests are not knocking off justices who disagree with them and seating more accommodating replacements. But intimidation has no place in our judicial life any more than it does in Appalachia. The 1986 campaign against Bird and her colleagues now stands for many as a reminder that well-intentioned systems of accountability may be hijacked by special interests, a lesson learned too often and at great cost in California. It was misguided in its first iteration; it would be regrettable in its second.
See A court battle California doesn’t need
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/06/la-times-edit…
California School Apologizes For Illegally Banning Sixth Grader’s Presentation On Harvey Milk
RAMONA, CA – A California school has apologized to a sixth grader for illegally censoring her classroom presentation about Harvey Milk last month, and school officials promise they won’t engage in unconstitutional restriction of similar free speech in the future. The apology comes after the American Civil Liberties Union sent a letter on May 30 to the Ramona Unified School District about its violation of the student’s free speech rights when it refused to allow her to give the presentation in class. Wrongly citing a school policy on sex education, the school had improperly required classmates to get parental permission to see the presentation during a lunch recess. The student was allowed to give her presentation in class this morning.
“Harvey Milk always stood up for his beliefs and what was right, so I felt like I should do the same thing when my school told me they wouldn’t let me do my presentation,” said Natalie Jones, a sixth grader at Mt. Woodson Elementary School. “I worked really hard on my presentation and I’m glad I’m finally going to get to share it with all of my classmates like everyone else got to.”
The assignment, part of an independent research project class, was to prepare a written report on any topic. Natalie, who was inspired to write about Harvey Milk after watching Sean Penn win an Academy Award for portraying him, got a score of 49 out of a possible 50 points on the written report. Students were then told to make PowerPoint presentations about their reports, which they would show to other students in the class. The day before Natalie was to give her 12-page presentation she was called into the principal’s office and told she couldn’t do so. When her mother spoke with the superintendent about the presentation, she was told Natalie couldn’t give her presentation because of a district board policy on “Family Life/Sex Education.” A few days later, the school sent letters to parents of students in the class, explaining that her presentation would be held during a lunch recess on May 8, and that students could only attend if they had parental permission due to the allegedly “sensitive” nature of the topic.
“Instead of quaking at the mere mention of an LGBT person’s existence, schools must understand that talking about someone who happens to be gay is no more sexual in nature than talking about a person who happens to be heterosexual,” said David Blair-Loy, Legal Director of the ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties. “Censoring Natalie’s presentation violated the First Amendment and the California Education Code, and we’re pleased she will finally get to give her presentation on a historical figure who was such a fierce advocate for the rights of not just LGBT Californians but of all people.”
* The school has apologized in writing to Natalie and sent a letter about that apology to all the parents who were sent the school’s letter about the presentation.
* The school allowed Natalie to give her presentation to all the other members of her independent research project class.
* The school has agreed to bring its “Family Life/Sex Education” policy into compliance with state law, and acknowledged that the mention or acknowledgement of a person’s sexual orientation is not sufficient to invoke the statutes and policies on sex education.
“If the school had taken a moment to consider its legal obligation to respect and uphold its students’ free speech rights instead of jumping to erroneous conclusions and trying to justify its actions by wrongly conflating Natalie’s historical presentation with sex education, this would never have happened,” said Elizabeth Gill, a staff attorney with the ACLU national LGBT Project. “There’s a tremendous difference between sex education and writing or talking about someone who happens to be gay, and we’re glad we were able to help the school finally understand that.”
“I’m always proud of my daughter, of course, but I’m even more proud of her for the way she stood up for her rights,” said Bonnie Jones, Natalie’s mother. “We’ve also heard from many people in town and other parents at Natalie’s school who have been amazingly supportive. I think if Harvey Milk were still here today, he’d be happy about how this all worked out.”
Harvey Milk, one of Time Magazine’s “Time 100 Heroes and Icons of the 20th Century” in 1999, has been the subject of several books, an opera, a documentary film that won the 1984 Academy Award for Documentary Feature, and a feature film released last year that won two Academy Awards for Best Original Screenplay and Best Actor. Milk’s birthday is the subject of a bill pending in the California legislature that would make it a state holiday.
For additional information, including a video featuring an interview with Natalie, copies of the school’s apology to Natalie and its letter to parents of students in her class, Natalie’s presentation on Harvey Milk, the school’s letter to parents, and the Ramona U.S.D. “Family Life/Sex Education” policy, can be found online at www.aclu.org/milk
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/06/california-sc…
Unanimous California Supreme Court Rejects Attempt to Limit Discrimination Claims by People with Disabilities
‘The Court’s decision furthers the Unruh Act’s purpose to eradicate arbitrary and invidious discrimination from California’s business establishments.’
(San Francisco, June 11, 2009) — Today the California Supreme Court unanimously ruled that California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act does not impose extra legal hurdles for people with disabilities, including people living with HIV who seek damages for discrimination.
Statement from Tara Borelli, Staff Attorney at Lambda Legal and a principal author of the friend-of-the court brief Lambda Legal submitted urging today’s legal result in Munson v. Del Taco:
“The Court rightly rejected efforts to misread the Unruh Civil Rights Act to impose extra legal hurdles which would have harmed all disabled Californians who face discrimination in public accommodations, including those living with HIV.
“Real, reliable change for people with disabilities has been painfully slow in coming but the high court’s decision today promises greater fairness in California. The Court’s decision furthers the Unruh Act’s purpose to eradicate arbitrary and invidious discrimination from California’s business establishments.
“Though this case does not directly involve people living with HIV, the application of this decision will be helpful to all people living with disabilities who encounter discrimination, which includes many Californians living with HIV.”
Background on Munson v. Del Taco:
Kenneth Munson, a wheelchair user, filed suit against Del Taco, Inc. alleging violations of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Act. Munson’s suit is based on claims arising from visits he made to one Del Taco restaurant, where he encountered architectural barriers to his use of the parking lot and restroom.
Background on Unruh Civil Rights Act:
California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act requires that public accommodations — businesses such as restaurants, rental housing, and doctors’ offices — are open to everyone, without arbitrary discrimination based on disability (including HIV), sex (including gender identity), sexual orientation, marital status, race or several other personal characteristics. Similarly, the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) forbids denying disabled people equal access to public places. In 1992, California revised the Unruh Act to better protect disabled Californians from discrimination by saying that a plaintiff who proves an ADA violation has also proven a state law violation.
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/06/unanimous-cal…
Poll: CA split on same sex marriage/Ballot measure for 2010
Just as another New England state greenlit same sex marriage Wednesday, a new California poll released Wednesday found that Californians are roughly split on same sex marriage. (”When asked, ‘Do you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose allowing same — sex couples to be legally married,” 47 percent say favor and 48 percent say oppose. The poll was taken before last week’s CA Supreme Court decision affirming Proposition 8.
So dead even, in margin of error terms, said co-pollster David Binder.
“I’m not suprised,” said Charles Sheehan, co-director of the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club. “It’s better than we were last fall.”
The poll was comissioned by a group of same sex marriage supporter groups as a way to help them figure out their next steps — like when to ask voters to vote again on the issue. Here’s what Binder and co-pollster Amy Simon found:
The 2012 Option:
“Higher turnout because of presidential election. But the pollsters “the additional voters that will come to the polls in a Presidential election are divided in their view of marriage for same-sex couples. Voters that will only turn out in a 2012 scenario are divided between younger voters who strongly support same-sex marriage and older Anglo, Latino and African American religious voters who are opposed to marriage for sameâ€sex couples.”
“While our modeling does indicate that 2012 will provide an extra 1-2 points of support for a marriage equality ballot measure, this difference may be impacted by many other factors in the larger political landscape at that time,” say the pollsters.
The 2010 Option: “It is likely that the Democratic nominee for Governor in 2010 will be an advocate of marriage equality, which would provide a high level spokesperson for the issue. In 2012, there is more uncertainty about the stance that President Obama may have on a marriage equality ballot measure during his expected re-election campaign.”
Nonetheless, reps from some of the groups anticipated to lead the next same sex marriage ballot initiative sound like they’re leaning toward 2010. Polls conducted by both Equality California and Courage Campaign have overwhelmingly said their supporters want to go to the ballot in 2010. Over the next month — in an effort called the “Get Engaged Tour” — organizations supporting same sex marriage will ask their members their preference.
| June 03 2009 at 04:54 PM
See Poll: CA split on same sex marriage/Ballot measure for 2010 …
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/06/poll-ca-split…
Gay marriage a minefield for candidates for California governor
From the start of his run for governor, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom has tried to show there is more to his career than the gesture that won him worldwide fame: his 2004 decree legalizing same-sex marriage.
Yet there he was Tuesday on CNN’s “Larry King Live,” speaking out for gay rights after the state Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8, the same-sex marriage ban that Californians passed in November.
For Newsom and five major-party rivals, the resurgence of the same-sex marriage issue has added a new complication to the race for governor.
If gay rights groups get their way, the nominees to succeed Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will share the November 2010 ballot with a measure to repeal Proposition 8, turning an emotionally charged cultural issue into a central focus of the campaign.
Across the nation, the subject has grown more challenging for candidates of all kinds as the mere concept has given way to the reality of tens of thousands of married gay couples. Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, Maine and Iowa have legalized same-sex marriage.
Voters have also shifted their views. In April, a Washington Post-ABC News poll found that 49% of Americans said gay marriage should be legal, and 46% said it should be illegal. Three years earlier, 36% had said it should be legal, and 58% had said it should not.
“The trajectory of public opinion on this issue has been dramatic,” said Democratic pollster Mark Mellman.
In California, where Newsom’s rebel edict in 2004 touched off the court battles that spawned some 18,000 marriages that were declared valid Tuesday, candidates for governor face multiple dangers on the issue. Although support for gay marriage has risen over the last decade — the 52% yes vote on Proposition 8 was down from 61% on a similar measure in 2000 — the issue still sharply divides Californians.
“People care about this one — a lot — on both sides,” said Steve Smith, a Democratic strategist who worked on the campaign to defeat Proposition 8.
A Field Poll taken three months ago affirmed stark generational and ideological splits on same-sex marriage.
Younger voters were far more likely to approve of it than older voters. And Democrats overwhelmingly favored it, while Republicans were strongly opposed.
In that environment, candidates for governor are juggling wildly different needs for the primaries and the general election. See Gay marriage a minefield for candidates for California governor Los Angeles Times * Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/05/gay-marriage-…
As more states take up…
As more states take up the debate on same-sex marriage, some advocates of legalization are taking a very specific lesson from California, where the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints dominated both fundraising and door-knocking to pass a ballot initiative that barred such unions. With the battle moving east, some advocates are shouting that fact in the streets, calculating that on an issue that eventually comes down to comfort levels, more people harbor apprehensions about Mormons than about homosexuality. “The Mormons are coming! The Mormons are coming!” warned ads placed on newspaper Web sites in three Eastern states last month. The ad was rejected by sites in three other states, including Maine, where the Kennebec Journal informed Californians Against Hate that the copy “borders on insulting and denigrating a whole set of people based on their religion.” “I’m not intending it to harm the religion. I think they do wonderful things. Nicest people,” said Fred Karger, a former Republican campaign consultant who established Californians Against Hate. “My single goal is to get them out of the same-sex marriage business and back to helping hurricane victims.”
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/05/as-more-state…
