EQCA Executive Director Geoff Kors: “Prop. 8 destroys the fundamental principle of equal protection”
“By taking away a fundamental right from one group, Prop. 8 destroys the fundamental principle of equal protection – a principle codified in our Constitution and intended to protect minority groups from the oppression of the majority. Without the right to equal protection, every Californian risks discrimination at the ballot box.
“Equality California has sued on behalf of our members to invalidate Prop. 8. Today, our team of attorneys, led by the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal, and the ACLU, argued that Prop. 8 usurps the guarantee of equal protection and bypasses our legal safeguards. More than 300 leading civil rights organizations, legal scholars, and faith leaders submitted amicus briefs to the court, indicating their support of our argument. And this week, the state Assembly and state Senate passed resolutions stating their belief that Prop. 8 is an invalid revision to the Constitution.
“But victory in the courts is far from certain and no matter the outcome, the work to achieve acceptance and understanding must continue. Prop. 8 showed how much work there is left to be done and invalidating that discriminatory, unconstitutional amendment is just the beginning.
-30-
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/2009/03/eqca-executiv…
Attorneys Urge California Supreme Court To Invalidate Prop 8
(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…
Exclusive Daily Beast Valentines Poll: The Sex Freeze and the Baby Bust
In a time where consumer confidence, consumer spending and the GDP are all on the decline, a new poll on sex and romance from The Daily Beast, an operating unit of IAC (NASDAQ:IACI), found that interest in sex in these difficult times is also on the decline. Furthermore, Americans are less likely to have children and are postponing other major life events such as getting married, moving in with a partner and getting divorced. The complete survey, including all data, is available at thedailybeast.com.
– More than one in three are less likely to get divorced
– In both sex and dating, Americans are being more careful. 41% are more
cautious about who they date and one in five are using more birth
control to avoid having children
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/02/exclusive-dai…
Exclusive Daily Beast Valentines Poll: The Sex Freeze and the Baby Bust
In a time where consumer confidence, consumer spending and the GDP are all on the decline, a new poll on sex and romance from The Daily Beast, an operating unit of IAC (NASDAQ:IACI), found that interest in sex in these difficult times is also on the decline. Furthermore, Americans are less likely to have children and are postponing other major life events such as getting married, moving in with a partner and getting divorced. The complete survey, including all data, is available at thedailybeast.com.
– More than one in three are less likely to get divorced
– In both sex and dating, Americans are being more careful. 41% are more
cautious about who they date and one in five are using more birth
control to avoid having children
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/02/exclusive-dai…
Can lesbian-only communities thrive in current era?
Alapine, a private residential community for lesbians in a rural section of northeastern Alabama, and dozens of other similar “womyn’s lands” dating from the 1970s face new challenges for survival as older members pass away or return to the mainstream world. Younger gay women today are less likely to want to live a separatist existence, and the siting of many of these communities in rural areas makes it difficult to attract people who need to work in a conventional office job, according to this article. The New York Times
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/02/can-lesbian-o…
Psychoanalysts Approve Position Statement on Homosexuals and Bisexuals Serving in the Military
NEW YORK, NY — Though it’s not widely known, psychoanalysts as a professional group are proactive on a number of social issues including homosexuality. During the organization’s Winter 2009 Meeting held January 14 – 18 in New York, the American Psychoanalytic Association (APsaA) approved a position statement regarding homosexuals and bisexuals serving in the military.
“President Obama has said that he will repeal the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy. For the mental health and safety of those in the military and for those who are contemplating joining the military, this repeal needs to happen now. Evidence shows the presence of gays does not undermine unit cohesion. Tens of thousands of gays, lesbians and bisexuals already do serve openly. Discharging gays, lesbians and bisexuals wastes thousands of highly trained, badly needed troops,” commented Ethan Grumbach, Ph.D., chair of APsaA’s Committee on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Issues.
The position statement begins as follows:
“The American Psychoanalytic Association (APsaA) opposes the military policy mandated by Title 10 of the United States Code (Section 654) which prohibits an individual’s service in the military on the basis of sexual orientation. Section 654 bans openly gay, lesbian and bisexual individuals from serving in the military. APsaA strongly advocates that the United States Government overturn the current policy.
“It is the position of APsaA that sexual orientation is not germane to any aspect of military effectiveness, including unit cohesion, morale, recruitment or retention. Empirical evidence, as well as comparative data from foreign militaries and domestic police and fire departments shows that when lesbians, gay men and bisexuals are allowed to serve openly there is no evidence of disruption. APsaA recognizes and abhors the many detrimental effects the policy has had on individual service members, the military and the United States society since the enactment of Title 10, section 654 in 1994. Years of psychological research and experience have shown the extensive mental toll of keeping one’s sexual orientation hidden. Mandating a ban on self disclosure of sexual orientation for personnel in uniform is thus unnecessarily harmful to their mental health and well being.” (The full position statement and references continue online.)
The American Psychoanalytic Association is a professional organization of psychoanalysts throughout the United States and is comprised of approximately 3,300 members.
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/01/psychoanalyst…
Gay Chicago celebrates history as Obama becomes the 44th President
“We must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America,’ Obama told the enthusiastic crowd. ”America is ready to lead once more.”
An estimated 2 million people, the largest inauguration audience, crowded the National Mall to witness Obama’s swearing in on the steps of the U.S. Capitol, using the same Bible that Lincoln used at his own swearing in on March 4, 1861.
“The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.”
See Gay Chicago celebrates history as Obama becomes the 44th President
ChicagoPride.com, United States
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/01/gay-chicago-c…
Labor unions, churches to fight gay marriage ban in court
Labor unions and some churches announced Tuesday that they planned to file friend-of-the-court briefs in support of invalidating Proposition 8, the November ballot initiative that banned gay marriage in the state.
The California Council of Churches and other faith organizations including the Progressive Jewish Alliance representing millions of members said they will file on Thursday.
On Friday, a coalition of labor unions representing more than 2 million California workers said they planned to file their own brief. The briefs will support the lawsuits filed by gay-rights groups the day after Proposition 8 was enacted.
The California Supreme Court has agreed to take the case and could hear arguments as soon as March.
See Labor unions, churches to fight gay marriage ban in court
Los Angeles Times, CA -
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/01/labor-unions-…
SURPRISE: Calif. AG: Overturn Proposition 8
SAN FRANCISCO — State Attorney General Jerry Brown, in a surprise turnabout, asked the California Supreme Court on Friday to overturn Proposition 8, saying the voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage violates basic rights guaranteed in the state Constitution.
Brown, who is required to defend state laws unless he cannot find reasonable legal grounds to do so, said after Prop. 8 passed Nov. 4 that he would support the initiative before the state’s high court.
But in a lengthy filing late Friday, he argued that the constitutional amendment was “inconsistent with the guarantees of individual liberty” in California’s governing charter.
“Proposition 8 must be invalidated because the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification,” Brown said.
The authors of the state Constitution, he said, did not intend “to put a group’s right to enjoy liberty to a popular vote.”
Hours earlier, sponsors of Prop. 8 filed arguments asking the court to uphold the ballot measure, which passed with a 52 percent majority. Andrew Pugno, attorney for the Yes on 8 campaign, said he was disappointed by Brown’s stance.
“It’s unfortunate that the attorney general would not do his duty to defend the will of the voters,” Pugno said.
The position of the attorney general, the state’s top lawyer, ordinarily carries considerable weight with the court. Brown’s office was on the losing side, however, when the court overturned California’s previous ban on same-sex marriage in May.
Asked about his change of position, Brown said Friday evening that since his initial comments the day after the election, he and senior lawyers in his office had looked closely at the court’s precedents and at the recent marriage ruling and concluded they couldn’t defend Prop. 8.
“We have a conflict between the amendment power (through voter initiatives) and the duty of the Supreme Court to protect minorities and safeguard liberty,” Brown said.
Fundamental rights in the state Constitution, including the right to marry that the state’s high court has recognized, “become a dead letter if they can just be amended” by popular vote, Brown said.
The Yes on 8 forces’ brief was filed by Kenneth Starr, the former Whitewater special prosecutor and now dean of Pepperdine University law school. He argued that the court should preserve the people’s lawmaking powers by upholding the initiative and invalidating 18,000 same-sex weddings performed before the election.
Prop. 8 “does not broadly seek to diminish or eliminate the constitutional or civil rights of gays and lesbians,” but is simply “about restoring and maintaining the traditional definition of marriage,” Starr said. Decades of legal precedents, he said, require “judges – as servants of the people – to bow to the will of those whom they serve.”
The court ruled 4-3 on May 15 that California’s ban on same-sex marriage violated the constitutional rights of gays and lesbians to marry the partner of their choice and discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation. Prop. 8 amended the state Constitution to overturn the ruling and declare that only marriage between a man and a woman is “valid or recognized in California.”
The court is reviewing lawsuits filed by gay and lesbian couples and by an array of local governments, led by San Francisco, that contend the ballot measure exceeded the legal limits on initiatives by destroying fundamental rights and stripping judges of their authority to protect a historically persecuted minority.
Such profound changes, the plaintiffs argue, amount to a constitutional revision – not merely an amendment – and require a two-thirds vote of the Legislature to reach the ballot.
The justices could hear the cases as early as March and would be required to rule within 90 days. Other interested parties on both sides are scheduled to submit written arguments Jan. 15.
Starr argued Friday that Prop. 8 is a relatively modest measure and not the type of far-reaching change that qualifies as a constitutional revision.
“It simply reinstates the traditional definition of marriage without any impact on the foundational powers of government,” he wrote. Judges, Starr said, retain their power to interpret the law and have never held a “mandate to protect minority rights or ensure equality apart from the law.”
He also said Prop. 8′s language, declaring that only marriages between men and women are “valid or recognized,” invalidates all same-sex marriages conducted in California and bars the state from acknowledging those performed elsewhere. That intention was underscored by Yes on 8 ballot arguments declaring that only opposite-sex marriages would be recognized in the state “regardless of when or where performed,” Starr said.
Brown disagreed on that issue as well, saying in his brief that Prop. 8 did not explicitly state it would apply retroactively. If upheld, he said, the measure should be interpreted to apply only to marriages performed since it passed.
The attorney general agreed with Starr that the ballot measure is not a constitutional revision and does not weaken judicial powers. But Brown said Prop. 8 conflicts with the Declaration of Rights, the basic guarantees of liberty declared in the first sentences of California’s Constitution.
As the “chief law officer of the state,” Brown said in his brief, he is “duty bound to uphold the whole of the Constitution” and not merely the power of the people to change the laws by initiative.
The case is Strauss vs. Horton, S168047. E-mail Bob Egelko at begelko@sfchronicle.com.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/12/20/MN6514RNVU.DTL
This article appeared on page A – 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2008/12/surprise-cali…
Europe Goes Slow on Gay Laws
European Union governments are in no hurry to widen the scope of the bloc’s anti-discrimination rules so that gays and lesbians can enjoy greater rights.
Under a law dating from 2000, discrimination in the workplace on grounds of sexual orientation is prohibited. Yet because the measure is restricted to employment and training, homosexuals are denied its protection once their working day is over. As a result, a doctor could refuse to treat a gay patient, or a landlord could refuse to let his apartment to a same-sex couple.
To plug this legislative gap, the European Commission came forward with a new proposal in July this year that would make it an offence to discriminate against gay people in access to healthcare, education, social protection, housing and the provision of goods and services. Discrimination on the grounds of age, disability, religion and belief are also covered by the proposal, which is modelled on EU-wide laws that have already been introduced against racial prejudice.
The blueprint has had a problematic birth. Senior figures from the European Commission, the executive arm of the EU, are known to have been reluctant to introduce the proposal, with some arguing that only discrimination against people with disabilities should be covered by it. Their rationale was that a more comprehensive measure would be unlikely to win approval from the EU’s governments.
This prediction appears to have at least partly materialised. Greece and Malta are seeking to have the measure watered down, according to EU officials, by seeking that the clauses on discrimination in education are removed.
An official tracking the law’s progress said that there is little chance that the Czech Republic will be able to secure a deal allowing the legislation to come into effect when it holds the EU’s rotating presidency in the first half of 2009. See Europe Goes Slow on Gay Laws
Inter Press Service, Italy
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2008/12/europe-goes-s…
