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-…
DOJ Will Not Appeal Veteran’s VictoryIn Transgender Discrimination Case
Signals Commitment By Obama Administration To Protect Transgender Workers From Discrimination
WASHINGTON, DC – The U.S. Department of Justice decided not to appeal a federal court ruling awarding transgender veteran Diane Schroer the maximum compensation for the discrimination she suffered after being refused a job with the Library of Congress. The deadline for seeking an appeal was June 30. The American Civil Liberties Union has represented Schroer in her case.
The Obama administration’s decision whether to appeal the final ruling in the case has been closely watched in part because the Bush administration defended the case so vigorously, arguing that transgender Americans are not protected by any existing federal laws. The decision not to appeal the verdict is consistent with the Obama administration’s campaign promises to protect transgender workers against discrimination and his administration’s recent order taking steps to bar gender identity discrimination in federal employment.
“I am grateful that the court took the time to examine the case in detail and come to a fair and unbiased decision. In that same light, I am gratified that the current administration saw this for what it was, a case of sex discrimination focused against transgender people, and recognized that it must end in this country,” said Schroer, an Army Special Forces veteran with 25 years service. “The important signal that the administration’s decision sends to all LGBT individuals gives me renewed hope and restores some of my shaken faith in what our country stands for.”
On April 29, 2009, a federal court awarded Schroer maximum damages of $491,190 for back pay, other financial losses and emotional pain and suffering after finding the Library illegally discriminated against Schroer because of her sex. At trial, Schroer testified that she had applied for a position with the Library of Congress as the senior terrorism research analyst and was offered the job. Prior to starting work, she took her future boss to lunch to explain that she was in the process of transitioning and wished to start work presenting as female. The following day, Schroer received a call from her future boss rescinding the offer, telling her that she wasn’t a “good fit” for the Library of Congress.
“We are pleased and relieved that the Obama administration has decided to bring an end not only to years of hard-fought litigation but also to a painful chapter of Ms. Schroer’s extraordinary life,” said Sharon McGowan, a staff attorney with the ACLU LGBT Project. “The administration’s decision not to challenge this important civil rights ruling is a welcome sign that it intends to live up to its commitment to help end transgender discrimination in the workplace.”
The ACLU filed the lawsuit against the Library of Congress on June 2, 2005, charging that the library unlawfully refused to hire Schroer in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sex discrimination in the workplace. In an earlier ruling in this case, the court issued a groundbreaking opinion that discriminating against someone who transitions from living as one gender to another is sex discrimination under federal law. In reaching this decision, the court compared the discrimination faced by Schroer to religious-based discrimination, saying, “Imagine that an employee is fired because she converts from Christianity to Judaism. Imagine too that her employer testified that he harbors no bias toward either Christians or Jews but only ‘converts.’ That would be a clear case of discrimination ‘because of religion.’ No court would take seriously the notion that ‘converts’ are not covered by the statute.” The court also ruled that the library was guilty of sex stereotyping against Schroer because of its view that she failed to live up to traditional notions of what is male or female.
“This case put employers on notice that discrimination against transgender individuals is like any other form of discrimination – counterproductive and against our principles as a nation,” added Schroer. “But this case alone won’t end the rampant discrimination that transgender people face throughout the country. That’s why we need Congress to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act that was introduced last week.”
In addition to McGowan, the legal team consisted of Ken Choe, Senior Staff Attorney for the ACLU LGBT Project, James Esseks, Litigation Director for the ACLU LGBT Project and Arthur Spitzer, Legal Director of the ACLU of the Nation’s Capital.
A copy of the decision, the complaint, a video, a bio and photographs of Diane Schroer are available at: http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/transgender/24969res20050602.html
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/07/doj-will-not-…
Citing law, city reluctantly argues for release of gay employees’ names
Anti-gay-rights activist wants names of city-sponsored LGBT club
As attorneys for all sides prepare to square off in court, the City of Seattle and a self-described “civil rights leader” seeking the release of the names of gay and lesbian city workers involved in a city-sponsored club have lined up on the same side of the issue.
In separate court filings, the city and the Seattle City Light employee requesting the records argue that the state public-records act requires that the city release the records. City of Seattle employees associated with the department’s Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered, Questioning and Friends Club have asked the court to order the city not to release their names.
Reiterating statements made by Seattle City Attorney Tom Carr shortly after the suit was filed, lawyers for the city now assert, reluctantly, that the records requested by City Light employee Philip Irvin.
“The city sympathizes with the concerns that plaintiffs have expressed,” Assistant City Attorney Gary T. Smith said in court documents. “Nonetheless, the city believes that the Public Records Act obligates it to disclose the records at issue.”
Irvin, who claims he’s been barred from attending LGBTQF club meetings because he is heterosexual and opposed to gay rights, has requested that the city release the names of employees belonging to or attending the Seattle Public Utilities-sponsored group.
According to the city’s filing, the department sponsors eight such “affinity” groups for employees “with similar concerns.” Included in the array are groups for employees of different ages or ancestry, including European. Each group is provided with up to $1,000 annually for events, and members are allowed to spend two work hours a month toward group activities.
In arguing that the records should be released, attorneys for the city assert that earlier appeals-court rulings have shown that employee information must be released even if it could result in harassment. The city cites a 2002 case in which King County was ordered by the state Court of Appeals to release a list of sheriff’s deputies’ names.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs assert that the employees’ identities are not releasable under the law, in part because they are of no legitimate public interest.
See Citing law, city reluctantly argues for release of gay employees …
Seattle Post Intelligencer
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/06/citing-law-ci…
Massachusetts: Former Lawmaker to Head Gay Group
A gay former state senator who fought to help Massachusetts become the first state to legalize same-sex marriage has been appointed to head a national gay rights group. The former senator, Jarrett Barrios, tearfully shared stories of his family during debate on a proposal that would have effectively undone a court ruling allowing same-sex couples to wed. Mr. Barrios will become president of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, which focuses on how lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people are presented in the news. He is married to Doug Hattaway, who was a spokesman for Vice President Al Gore. Since 2007, Mr. Barrios has been president of the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts Foundation, which announced his move. See
New England Massachusetts: Former Lawmaker to …
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/06/massachusetts…
Court refuses DADT challenge
The Supreme Court refused to grant cert to a DADT challenge, letting an appeals court ruling stand.
California appellate court rules La Crescenta property belongs to Los Angeles diocese
A California appellate court’s June 9 ruling was the latest in a series of recent developments that return disputed church properties to three California Episcopal dioceses.
On June 9, the San Diego-based Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled unanimously that the Diocese of Los Angeles is legal owner of property currently occupied by St. Luke’s Anglican Church. The congregation had cited theological differences when severing ties to the Episcopal Church (TEC) in 2006 and realigning with an Anglican diocese in Uganda.
In unrelated agreements, displaced Episcopalians will return July 1 to two other disputed properties, St. John’s Church in Petaluma, in the Diocese of Northern California and St. Paul’s Church in Modesto in the Diocese of San Joaquin.
“The long history of the Episcopal Church in La Crescenta will continue with new leadership and the potential for sustained growth, and as an open source of full inclusion for all humanity,” Bishop Jon Bruno of Los Angeles said June 9 after learning of the court’s decision.
“It is important that we preserve the essence of St. Luke the healer and the ongoing maintenance of the historic church building. It is a jewel in the crown of La Crescenta, and a blessing to the people of the Diocese of Los Angeles.”
Los Angeles: ‘property held in trust’ for wider church
The appellate court ruling affirmed a 2007 trial court decision that the church, located about 15 miles north of Los Angeles, was held in trust for the mission of both the local diocese and the wider church. In issuing the ruling, the ten-member panel cited a January 5, 2009 California Supreme Court decision, which returned St. James Anglican Church in Newport Beach to the diocese. Attorneys in that case, New v. Kroeger, have appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.
John Shiner, chancellor for the Diocese of Los Angeles, said a timeline for transition will advance in accordance with court procedures.
The Rev. Rob Holmann, rector of St. Luke’s Anglican Church, declined to comment June 10. “I know the general direction of the ruling, but I am withholding all comment until I see it” and until he could speak with attorneys, he told the Episcopal News Service.
A few days earlier, Holmann had told the Glendale News Press that he and the 200-member congregation “would very much like to stay” in the 83-year-old river-rock building, considered a cultural, architectural and historic local landmark.
Bruno said the future mission of St. Luke’s, now under his direct pastoral control, will be to focus on “deepening our understanding of what it means to be reconciled, welcoming and healthy people of God.”
Petaluma and Modesto: Episcopal congregations set to return July 1
After a bitter split and three years of “homelessness,” members of St. John’s Episcopal Church in Petaluma are returning July 1 to the 118-year-old church, the Rev. Norman Cram said in a telephone interview June 10.
“We are jubilant, overwhelmingly jubilant,” said Cram, priest-in-charge. “We celebrated our homelessness and we overlooked the inconveniences of living and worshipping out of a laundry basket but now that these things are almost behind us, it’s almost overwhelming.”
Citing disagreement over the ordination of a gay bishop, a majority of the 250-member congregation in December 2006 had voted to sever ties with the Episcopal Church and the Diocese of Northern California but declined to vacate church property. They formed St. John’s Anglican Church, displacing about 55 continuing Episcopalians who initially met in homes.
The Rev. David Miller, rector of the Anglican congregation, had sought a transfer of his canonical residence to the Argentina-based Anglican Province of the Southern Cone and was eventually deposed by the Rt. Rev. Jerry Lamb, then bishop of the Diocese of Northern California.
Miller did not return ENS telephone calls June 10. Mike McIntosh, parish administrator for the disaffiliated group, said a news release would be issued eventually, but declined further comment. The congregation’s last service in the church will be Sunday, June 28.
The continuing Episcopal congregation eventually began meeting on Sunday evenings at the Elim Lutheran Church in Petaluma who “magnificently sheltered us,” said Cram. He added that he hopes: “to present a healthy Christian perspective of love, compassion and kindness to our community, to be the yeast for the values of unity and inclusiveness in Petaluma.”
Meanwhile, Bishop Jerry Lamb of San Joaquin told ENS that discussions are underway with St. Paul’s Church in Modesto for return of that property by July 1, which several years ago affiliated with the Anglican Mission in America.
The Rev. Michael McClenaghan, rector, did not return ENS calls.
Lamb was already planning an organizational meeting, seeking lay leaders to begin the work of transition. “I have been making calls this week to laity who are or have been members of St. Paul’s and have signaled their desire to remain in the Episcopal Church,” he said in a statement posted on the diocesan website.
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/06/california-ap…
Court refuses DADT challenge
The Supreme Court refused to grant cert to a DADT challenge, letting an appeals court ruling stand.
