Gay advocacy groups press Obama
Gay advocacy groups, disenchanted by President Obama’s inaction so far on campaign promises on their issues, are launching a campaign to get his administration to take a stand on the federal anti-gay marriage law.
The first federal lawsuit against a key section of the Defense Of Marriage Act was filed on last month by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders on behalf of eight same-sex married couples and three surviving spouses from Massachusetts. Obama’s Department of Justice until the week of June 22 to respond.
During his campaign, Obama promised to seek a repeal of the act, which allows states to not recognize gay marriages from other states. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs reiterated the president’s position last month. He opposes gay marriage, but does support civil unions and equal treatment for gays. In recent weeks, New Hampshire and Vermont have moved to join Massachusetts in legalizing gay marriage.
In the grassroots effort, organizers are asking participants to print out a “flip flop card” with the statement, “President Obama, please don’t flip flop on DOMA!” and mail it to the White House.
“President Obama, the defense of this discriminatory and archaic law will be tantamount to nothing short of a flip flop from your previously stated intentions. We’re asking you Mr. President, to take a principled stand for equality under the law and be the bold leader that we voted into office,” Paul Sousa, who leads the Boston-based Equal Rep, said in a statement.
See Gay advocacy groups press Obama Boston Globe * Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
 |
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/05/gay-advocacy-…
New Study Says Obama Can Halt Gay Discharges With Executive Order
Military Law Experts Chart Course to End 16-Year Ban
SANTA BARBARA, Calif. — A study released today by a team of military law experts shows that the president has the legal authority to end gay discharges with a single order. The idea of ending the ban by executive order has gained momentum in the wake of news that mission-critical personnel, including Arabic language speaker Dan Choi, continue to be fired under the Obama administration because they’re gay. Congressman Rush Holt endorsed an executive order to end the ban on Saturday and National Security Adviser James Jones was asked about it by George Stephanopoulos on Sunday morning. The report, “How to End Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: A Roadmap of Political, Legal, Regulatory, and Organizational Steps to Equal Treatment,” is sponsored by the Palm Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara.
Many have argued that only Congress can lift the ban on service by openly gay troops. But according to the study, Congressional approval is not needed. Dr. Aaron Belkin, Director of the Palm Center and a study co-author, said “The administration does not want to move forward on this issue because of conservative opposition from both parties in Congress, and Congress does not want to move forward without a signal from the White House. This study provides a recipe for breaking through the political deadlock, as well as a roadmap for military leaders once the civilians give the green light.”
There are three legal bases to the president’s authority, the report says. First, Congress has already granted to the Commander in Chief the statutory authority to halt military separations under 10 U.S.C. 12305, a law which Congress titled, “Authority of President to suspend certain laws relating to promotion, retirement, and separation.” Under the law, the President may suspend any provision of law relating to promotion, retirement, or separation applicable to any member of the armed forces who the President determines is essential to the national security of the United States during a “period of national emergency.” The statute specifically defines a “national emergency” as a time when “members of a reserve component are serving involuntarily on active duty.”
The second and third bases of presidential authority are contained within the “don’t ask, don’t tell” legislation itself. The law grants to the Defense Department authority to determine the process by which discharges will be carried out, saying they will proceed “under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulation.” Finally, the law calls for the discharge of service members if a finding of homosexuality is made, but it does not require that such a finding ever be made. According to the study, these provisions mean that the Pentagon, not Congress, has the “authority to devise and implement the procedures under which those findings may be made.”
Diane H. Mazur, Professor of Law at the University of Florida College of Law and another study co-author, said the presidential authority to stop firing gay troops, known as “stop-loss,” is different from the highly unpopular stop-loss policy that the Army recently announced it would phase out. “That use of stop-loss forcibly extends service by those who wish to leave the military,” she said, “whereas suspending discharges for homosexuality would do the opposite: allow ongoing service by those who wish to remain in uniform.” The study says the provisions of the stop-loss law, which are granted by Congress, are “sensible because they give the President authority to suspend laws relating to separation when a national emergency has strained personnel requirements.”
The other four authors of the study in addition to Mazur and Belkin are Dr. Nathaniel Frank, a Palm researcher and author of “Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America”; Dr. Gregory M. Herek, Professor of Psychology at the University of California, Davis; Dr. Elizabeth L. Hillman, Professor of Law at the University of California Hastings College of the Law; and Bridget J. Wilson, who practices law at Rosenstein Wilson & Dean in San Diego. The report will also be published in a forthcoming book, “Department of Defense Social Policy Perspectives 2010,” edited by James Parco, David Levy and Fred Blass.
The Palm Center is a research institute at the University of California, Santa Barbara. The Center uses rigorous social science to inform public discussions of controversial social issues, enabling policy outcomes to be informed more by evidence than by emotion. Its data-driven approach is premised on the notion that the public makes wise choices on social issues when high-quality information is available. For more information, visit www.palmcenter.ucsb.edu * Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/05/new-study-say…
Study: Obama doesn’t need Congress to halt gay discharges
(Santa Barbara, California) A new study by a team of military law experts asserts that President Obama has the legal authority to end gay discharges through an executive order.
The report, “How to End Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: A Roadmap of Political, Legal, Regulatory, and Organizational Steps to Equal Treatment,” was …
Tags: Congress, Discharges, Equal Treatment, Executive Order, Gay California, Law Experts, Legal Authority, Military Law, Roadmap, Santa Barbara CaliforniaLambda warns school officials : hands off South Medford High School student and Gay Straight Alliance
(Medford, Oregon, April 17, 2009) — Lambda Legal has sent a letter of support to South Medford High School Principal Kevin Campbell, Medford School District Superintendent Phil Long, and the School Board on behalf of South Medford High School student and Gay Straight Alliance member Connie McNair.
The letter objects that school officials have been imposing restrictions on the Medford High GSA to which no other on-campus group is subject and that seriously burden club members’ free speech and associational rights. These include requiring GSA members to get prior approval for their announcements and activities from an assistant principal, deeming the club’s legitimate educational activities illicit “proselytizing,” and even prohibiting the club from formally announcing today’s “Day of Silence.” The Day of Silence is a national event calling attention to anti-gay bullying and harassment in schools.
In the letter, Lambda Legal Staff Attorney Tara Borelli writes “While we hope that the school’s actions to deter the GSA’s activities are simply the result of confusion about its obligations, the law in this area is well-established and school’s unequal treatment of the GSA is difficult to understand and should be remedied swiftly.”
In addition to the freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constitution, public school students are also protected by the federal Equal Access Act. The EAA says that if a school receives federal funds and allows extracurricular student groups to meet, it cannot discriminate against any of the groups based on the content of its speech. GSA groups across the country have used the EAA in court to protect their right to free speech.
“It’s simply unlawful for South Medford High School to create unequal obstacles for Connie or the GSA, or to stifle the GSA’s announcements about the Day of Silence,” said Borelli. “We want to remind South Medford school officials that they have a responsibility to protect lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students, and we’re asking them to lift any restriction applying to the GSA but not to other groups.
“All we want is safety and equality within our school,” said McNair. “Our GSA members want
students, school officials, and the community to know that we can’t be discriminated against based on our speech or activities.” * Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/04/lambda-warns-…
Lambda slams school officals re: South Medford High School student and Gay Straight Alliance
(Medford, Oregon, April 17, 2009) — Lambda Legal has sent a letter of support to South Medford High School Principal Kevin Campbell, Medford School District Superintendent Phil Long, and the School Board on behalf of South Medford High School student and Gay Straight Alliance member Connie McNair.
The letter objects that school officials have been imposing restrictions on the Medford High GSA to which no other on-campus group is subject and that seriously burden club members’ free speech and associational rights. These include requiring GSA members to get prior approval for their announcements and activities from an assistant principal, deeming the club’s legitimate educational activities illicit “proselytizing,” and even prohibiting the club from formally announcing today’s “Day of Silence.” The Day of Silence is a national event calling attention to anti-gay bullying and harassment in schools.
In the letter, Lambda Legal Staff Attorney Tara Borelli writes “While we hope that the school’s actions to deter the GSA’s activities are simply the result of confusion about its obligations, the law in this area is well-established and school’s unequal treatment of the GSA is difficult to understand and should be remedied swiftly.”
In addition to the freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constitution, public school students are also protected by the federal Equal Access Act. The EAA says that if a school receives federal funds and allows extracurricular student groups to meet, it cannot discriminate against any of the groups based on the content of its speech. GSA groups across the country have used the EAA in court to protect their right to free speech.
“It’s simply unlawful for South Medford High School to create unequal obstacles for Connie or the GSA, or to stifle the GSA’s announcements about the Day of Silence,” said Borelli. “We want to remind South Medford school officials that they have a responsibility to protect lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students, and we’re asking them to lift any restriction applying to the GSA but not to other groups.
“All we want is safety and equality within our school,” said McNair. “Our GSA members want
students, school officials, and the community to know that we can’t be discriminated against based on our speech or activities.”
Lambda Legal has given school officials until May 1 to respond to the letter.
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/04/lambda-slams-…
California Court of Appeal Affirms Right of Transgender Individuals Living Out-of-State to Change California Birth Certificates
-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
The Transgender Law Center (TLC) is a civil rights organization advocating for transgender communities. TLC uses direct legal services, education, community organizing, and advocacy to transform California into a state that recognizes and supports the needs of transgender people and their families. www.transgenderlawcenter.org
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/04/california-co…
CALIFORNIA FAITH LEADERS PROTEST INJUSTICE FOR GAY & LESBIAN FAMILIES ON TAX DAY, APRIL 15th.
“As we rush to the post office to send in our tax dollars today, let us remember those gay and lesbian families who pay their taxes lawfully and faithfully, yet have been denied equality under the law by a majority of voters in California,” said Samuel M. Chu, Interim Executive Director of California Faith for Equality and a Presbyterian pastor. “Our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters have equal responsibility under the law, but not equal rights. I speak on behalf of a diversity of faith leaders committed to equality and our respective faiths all agree that to take away the rights of any minority group, as did Proposition 8 here in California, is wrong.”
Rabbi Denise Eger, of Congregation Kol-Ami in West Hollywood and one of the founding members of California Faith for Equality said, “Gay and lesbian married couples face continued discrimination at both federal and state levels. While some couples can file in their states as ‘married,’ they are required to file on the federal level as ’single’.
Eger, President of the Pacific Association of Reform Rabbis added, “Federal law treats same-sex couples as strangers, thereby denying them the 1,138 federal rights, benefits and protections available to heterosexual married couples. This is not only an affront to the dignity of their families, but to those couples who want to pay their fair share. They continue to be penalized and discriminated by this unequal treatment”.
“California Faith for Equality will continue to be a powerful and uniting force for equality for all LGBT persons,” said Chu.
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/04/california-fa…
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…
Legal Groups, City of West Hollywood to Host Viewing of Oral Arguments in Proposition 8 Challenge
(West Hollywood, March 2, 2008) — Lambda Legal, the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Center for Lesbian Rights and the City of West Hollywood will host a viewing of oral arguments in the Proposition 8 legal challenge on Thursday, March 5, 2009 at West Hollywood Auditorium, followed by a press conference…
Attorneys for same-sex couples, civil rights organizations and the state Attorney General’s office will appear before the California Supreme Court on March 5 to urge the court to strike down Proposition 8. At issue in the case is whether the initiative process can be used to strip lesbian and gay couples of equal treatment under the law by taking away their fundamental right to marry. Because the case has serious implications for any minority group, 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.
Community leaders and other members of the public, along with attorneys for the groups challenging Proposition 8, will be available for interview at the viewing of the oral arguments, which will be televised live. Following oral arguments, attorneys as well as representatives of friends of the court groups will hold a news conference at the auditorium to give their reaction to the day’s events and put them into perspective.
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/03/legal-groups-…
On Valentine’s Day, Binational Gay and Lesbian Couples Struggle to Stay Together
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Immigration Equality, the national group aimed at ending anti-LGBT discrimination in immigration law, and the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization, lauded today’s introduction of the Uniting American Families Act. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), will provide lesbian and gay Americans the same opportunity as different-sex couples to sponsor their partner for immigration purposes. During a media conference call, Rep. Nadler joined Immigration Equality Executive Director Rachel B. Tiven, HRC President Joe Solmonese, and Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund Legislative Staff Attorney John Amaya to discuss the importance of this legislation, along with two binational couples who face the prospect of being forcibly separated under existing immigration laws.
“It should be an outrage to all Americans that our government continues to deny one set of citizens the fundamental rights enjoyed by the rest of its citizens,” said Rep. Nadler. “It is time that we as a society finally acknowledge that a committed, loving family is a committed, loving family, no matter whether a couple is gay or straight. It makes no difference. We should be encouraging and rewarding stable families rather than sweeping them into the margins. We must now pass UAFA, the Uniting American Families Act, and grant gay and lesbian binational families the same legal protections—and the same human dignity—as other Americans.”
“Like many people across the country, there are Vermonters whose partners are foreign nationals and who feel abandoned by our laws in this area. The promotion of family unity has long been part of federal immigration policy, and we should honor that principle by providing all Americans the opportunity to be with their loved ones. I hope all Senators will join me in supporting equality for all Americans and their loved ones,” said Sen. Leahy.
Under U.S. immigration law, U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents may sponsor their spouses for immigration purposes. But gay and lesbian Americans are not afforded this basic right. Consequently, many binational gay and lesbian couples are kept or torn apart. The Uniting American Families Act would allow U.S. citizens and permanent residents to sponsor their same-sex partners for family-based immigration by meeting the same standard as different-sex couples. The bill would impose harsh penalties for fraud, including up to five years in prison and as much as $250,000 in fines.
“This Valentine’s Day, thousands of gay and lesbian Americans who have fallen in love across borders must grapple with an impossible choice between being with the person they love and staying in their country,” said Immigration Equality Executive Director Rachel B. Tiven. “These couples simply want the same opportunity to prove that their families deserve to stay together.”
“For far too long, our elected officials have ignored the devastating real-life consequences that current immigration policies have had on thousands of gay and lesbian couples in loving, committed relationships,” said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. “We thank Representative Nadler and Senator Leahy for their leadership to ensure that these couples are treated equally under the law. We commend Immigration Equality for their continued leadership in fighting this unjust policy.”
This inequality affects more than 36,000 gay and lesbian Americans, according to the 2000 Census and research commissioned by Immigration Equality and conducted by Gary Gates of the Williams Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles.
Audio of the call held today can be accessed at http://www.immigrationequality.org/blog/ and http://www.hrcbackstory.org.
Immigration Equality is the only national organization devoted to fighting for equal treatment under U.S. immigration law for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and HIV-positive immigrants and their families and to winning asylum for LGBT and HIV-positive people fleeing persecution.
The Human Rights Campaign is America’s largest civil rights organization working to achieve lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equality. By inspiring and engaging all Americans, HRC strives to end discrimination against LGBT citizens and realize a nation that achieves fundamental fairness and equality for all.
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/02/on-valentines…
