Proposition 8 backers attack Brown’s efforts to keep gay marriage
Proponents of a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage filed legal briefs today urging the California Supreme Court to reject the novel legal argument put forth last month by state Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown and to preserve Proposition 8, the gay marriage ban approved by voters in November.
“The people have the final word on what the California Constitution says,” lawyers wrote. “The practical result of the Attorney General’s theory is that the people can never amend the Constitution to overrule judicial interpretations of inalienable rights.”
The legal filing comes in response to a brief two weeks ago from the attorney general in which he surprised legal experts by putting forth an unusual theory to argue that Proposition 8 should be invalidated, saying that the measure undermines fundamental liberties guaranteed by the Constitution.
His theory surprised experts because he had pledged to argue in favor of Proposition 8 — as the attorney general, it is his job to defend the state’s laws. But it also advanced an unorthodox interpretation of the Constitution.
See Proposition 8 backers attack Brown’s efforts to keep gay marriage
| Published by |
 |
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/01/proposition-8…
Ohio Supreme Court Allows Custody Decision to Stand in Lambda Legal Case Representing Lesbian Mother
‘The Court has expressly shut down arguments that Ohio’s antigay amendment impacts parenting and child custody relationships, rights, and responsibilities’
(Columbus, OH, January 5, 2009) –The Supreme Court of Ohio last week let stand an appeals court ruling affirming the enforceability of a court-approved child custody agreement in a case involving lesbian mothers.
“The Court has expressly shut down arguments that Ohio’s antigay amendment impacts parenting and child custody relationships, rights, and responsibilities,”said Camilla Taylor, Senior Staff Attorney in Lambda Legal’s Midwest Regional Office in Chicago. “The Court correctly declined an invitation to treat gay and lesbian Ohio parents differently from other families, and to deprive the children of these families of the protections and support other children receive.”
Lambda Legal represents Therese Leach in her fight to uphold a court-approved joint custody agreement signed by both her and her former partner, Denise Fairchild, in 2001. After their son was born in 1996, both women parented him. In order to ensure that Therese had a protected legal relationship with the child, the two women signed a joint custody agreement. Such agreements were approved by the Ohio Supreme Court in the 2001 In re Bonfield case in which Lambda Legal participated.
The Supreme Court decision comes after Fairchild argued, at a trial court, and the Ohio Court of Appeals for the Tenth District, that Ohio’s antigay constitutional amendment limiting marriage to a man and a woman invalidated the court approved custody agreement she originally sought with Leach. All three courts brushed aside Fairchild’s arguments, ruling that court-approved custody agreements cannot be ignored or unilaterally undone by one of the parents. In July 2008, Fairchild asked the Ohio Supreme Court to hear her case, and Lambda Legal urged the Court to refuse. Today’s order from the high court is the final word on the matter.
The case is In re J.D.F.
Camilla Taylor, Senior Attorney in Lambda Legal’s Midwest Regional office in Chicago is lead counsel on the appeal. She is joined by co-counsel LeeAnn Massucci of Massucci & Kline LLC and Thomas Schmidt of Gahanna, Ohio.
###
Erin Baer 212-809-8585 ext 267; Cell: 646-752-3251
Lambda Legal is a national organization committed to achieving full recognition of the civil rights of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, transgender people and those with HIV through impact litigation, education and public policy work.
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/01/ohio-supreme-…
The Fight Over Gay Adoption Heats Up
Gay rights supporters scored another major victory in court Tuesday, when a state judge in Miami tossed out a statute that had for more than 30 years barred gay people in Florida from adopting children. The decision came after a week packed full of dueling expert testimony over whether any evidence supports the state’s contention that children are put at risk when raised by gay parents. The answer, said Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Cindy S. Lederman, is not at all: “The Department’s position is that homosexuality is immoral. Yet, homosexuals may be lawful foster parents in Florida and care for our most fragile children who have been abused, neglected and abandoned. As such, the exclusion forbidding homosexuals to adopt children does not further the public morality interest it seeks to combat.”
Yet, despite the good news for gays contained in the ruling, the decision is hardly the last word on the issue. The state has vowed to appeal, and the issue is likely to end up before the Florida Supreme Court, which upheld the ban once before in 1995. On the federal level, the U.S. Supreme Court has already let stand lower court rulings that upheld Florida’s law, the nation’s strictest ban on gay adoption. (See a video on the backlash against gay marriage in Florida.)
Meanwhile, conservative activists across the country are working hard to make sure that no court, at any level, has the final word on gay adoption. Like gay marriage before it, conservatives are looking at the issue of who can raise children as one best decided at the ballot box, not in the courthouse. Those efforts received a boost on election day in Arkansas, where voters easily passed a law that restricts any unmarried couple living together from adopting children. Arkansas joined Florida, Nebraska, Utah and Mississippi as the only states with laws that either directly or indirectly ban adoption by gays.
See The Fight Over Gay Adoption Heats Up
TIME
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2008/12/fight-over-ga…
