Ruby-Sachs: Supreme Court case pits gay activists v. free speech
[1]
There is a very important case arriving in the Supreme Court tomorrow. Referendum 71 was a ballot initiative in Washington attempting to undo domestic partnership privileges for same-sex couples. Many signed the petition for the law, but ultimately their regressive bid failed. Still, gay rights groups want to release the names from the petition on a searchable website. Under Washington law, that kind of disclosure is mandatory.
But the lawyer for the other side argues that the release of names on the web will lead to the intimidation and harassment of those individuals who signed the petition.
That argument holds little water. Although courts have, in the past, found that harassment did occur against homophobic individuals in the wake of Prop 8, the objective evidence illustrates that there is not one case of harassment or intimidation resulting from the political participation of homophobic individuals. The worst we saw was a highly organized and very legal boycott of certain businesses in California – a political initiative that is the very expression of democracy in the U.S.
However, that doesn’t mean that releasing the names won’t affect free speech in Washington. Individuals who already signed the petition obviously feel that the release of their names will harm their reputation or livliehood (frankly, it should). And that feeling, that fear, results in a chill on free speech. Public petitions might discourage some from signing certain petitions calling for certain laws.
The Supreme Court has to decide if the chill on free speech outweighs the public’s right to access its political process. Is it unconstitutional free speech? If you listen to the presentation tomorrow, you will likely get a feel for how the court is going to decide. The result of this case could seriously affect the political process, certainly around gay marriage, for many years to come.
Transcripts of the oral arguments are available here [2] and the transcripts from this case will be up some time before the end of the day tomorrow.
[1] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/news-supreme-court-top.jpg
[2] http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts.aspx
Mormon leader: religious freedom at risk
The anti-Mormon backlash after California voters overturned gay marriage last fall is similar to the intimidation of Southern blacks during the civil rights movement, a high-ranking Mormon said Tuesday.
Elder Dallin H. Oaks referred to gay marriage as an “alleged civil right” in an address at Brigham Young University-Idaho that church …
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
Los Angeles Times -
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
 |
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/06/la-times-edit…
Procter & Gamble bars trans discrimination
CINCINNATI — Procter & Gamble, the world’s largest consumer products maker, has amended its anti-discrimination policy to include gender identity and expression.
The policy was recently amended to read: “We at P&G recognize the power that comes from people of diverse backgrounds and experiences coming together around a common goal. Our policy forbids any discrimination, harassment or intimidation because of race, color, religion, gender, age, national origin, citizenship, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, disability or other non-job-related personal characteristic. Employees are encouraged to bring questions or concerns in this area to their management. Strict disciplinary action for violations of this policy will be taken, including termination of employment.” See Procter & Gamble bars trans discrimination
Amends anti-discrimination policy to include gender identity and expression * Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/05/procter-gambl…
Phillipsburg resident Dale Rissmiller draws three-year sentence in for gay bashing
A Phillipsburg man convicted in a 2006 gay-bashing case drew a three-year state prison today in state Superior Court.
Dale Rissmiller, 27, apologized to the judge before sentencing.
“I’m sorry for what happened to the victim,” he said.
Rissmiller — who has a history of assault convictions — pleaded guilty in February to bias intimidation and aggravated assault. “I clotheslined him,” Rissmiller told Superior Court Judge John Pursel during the plea hearing.
The term refers to striking someone on the throat with a forearm.
Rissmiller admitted he attacked Bryan Wesselius because the victim is gay. The clotheslining incident occurred after Rissmiller launched a 1:46 a.m. barrage of anti-gay comments at Wesselius and the victim’s two gay companions in the bar, authorities said.
Drunk and angered after a bartender bounced him, Rissmiller attacked Wesselius at the door, followed him outside and punched him, authorities reported.
Phillipsburg resident Dale Rissmiller draws three-year sentence in …
The Express Times – LehighValleyLive.com* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian newstransgender bisexual
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/05/phillipsburg-…
Group discloses adoption ban petition signers online in Arkansas
LITTLE ROCK — A Massachusetts gay rights group Tuesday posted on the Internet the names and addresses of more than 83,000 Arkansans who signed petitions last year to put a gay adoption ban on the state ballot, action the leader of the ballot initiative condemned as “pure intimidation.”
KnowThyNeighbor.org said it intended to make petition signers accountable for their support of the measure that prohibits unmarried couples who live together from adopting children or serving as foster parents in the state.
Though the new law affects all unmarried cohabiting couples, the sponsoring organization made no secret the measure targeted gays. It received 57 percent of the vote in the November general election.
“(They) need to stand behind their signatures and be responsible for this dehumanizing attack on the gay community,” KnowThyNeighbor.org’s director, Tom Lang, said in a release. “It’s disgraceful that they have chosen to exercise their prejudice at the expense of children who are now being denied access to loving adoptive and foster parents. Such activity must be challenged and cannot be allowed to pass under the cover of darkness.”
The group accessed the information from the Arkansas secretary of state’s office. Petition lists are public information under state law, a spokeswoman for Secretary of State Charlie Daniels said.
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/04/group-disclos…
Vatican accuses AIDS groups of intimidation
(Vatican City) The Vatican on Friday denounced the criticisms of the pope’s comments about condoms and AIDS during his trip to Africa, saying they marked an unprecedented attempt to intimidate him into silence.
Pope Benedict XVI said last month that condoms weren’t the answer to Africa’s AIDS epidemic and could make …
New Report Reveals that Bullying of Gay Students in Oregon in a Problem
The groups are joining with lawmakers to strengthen Oregon’s anti-bullying law and create safeguards for youth in Oregon schools.
A new report, Too Afraid to Learn: Barriers to Post-Secondary Education for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Students, analyses a survey of 3,500 Oregon college students about the climate for gay and transgender students at high schools and universities.
“One in three gay and transgender students in Oregon indicate that the hostile climate in their high school created a significant barrier to graduation,” said Tash Shatz, of the Oregon Students Equal Rights Alliance.
“And more than half of gay and transgender college students concealed their sexual orientation or gender identity for fear of personal safety, discrimination, or rejection.”
Scott Schmitz, a junior at Oregon State University told the report’s authors: “One of the reasons I decided to come out as gay to my family, when I was nineteen rather than thirteen, was because I was afraid of becoming homeless.
“When I did come out my family pushed me away and made it explicit that if I didn’t change they wouldn’t talk to me again.
“After telling them that my sexuality was not a phase, I was cut off from them. I did not expect that they were going to stop supporting my education.
“I was not allowed home for Christmas or Thanksgiving and the communication we had was limited.”
And his problems did not end there. When he tried to apply for financial aid for his university education he came up against bureaucracy as his parents refused to supply him with their tax information which had to accompany the financial aid application.
The report makes seven key recommendations:
■ Provide inclusive and informed services for LGBT students.
■ Provide safe and inclusive housing for LGBT students.
■ Create policies and legislation that protect LGBT persons from discrimination and harassment on campus.
■ Institutionalize data collection on LGBT students.
■ Actively work to recruit and retain LGBT staff and faculty.
■ Establish gender neutral facilities such as bathrooms and locker rooms.
■ Ensure that all service providers on campus receive education on LGBT issues.
A second report demonstrates that minority youth are far more likely to be the targets of bullies than white youth.
“African American, Latino and Native American youth report up to 23% higher levels of harassment in our schools than white students,” said Ebony Smith, of the Oregon Students of Color Coalition.
“We have a responsibility to take action now, to ensure that our schools are safe for all youth.”
Advocates released these reports as the Legislature begins deliberations on House Bill 2599, legislation designed to strengthen and enhance Oregon’s existing anti-bullying statute.
HB2599 would ensure state-wide adoption of anti-bullying and anti-harassment policies, create clear notice and complaint procedures and establish a comprehensive approach to address bullying.
The proposal strengthens existing statute by clarifying the definition of bullying, adding specific guidelines for making the policy available to the school community, and encouraging training programs. The legislation is expected to have its first hearing in the House Education Committee in early March.
“House Bill 2599 will strengthen Oregon’s anti-bullying law, ensure state-wide implementation, and help keep all children safe,” said Sonya Fischer, a disability advocate and Board Member with Family and Community Together.
She added, “This will make a difference for youth with disabilities who are too often the targets of bullying.”
Matthew Rose, a University of Oregon senior said: “Four and a half years ago, when I first attended the University of Oregon, I was a closeted person of colour. Going to college was going to be an opportunity to explore my identity in a place that I thought would embrace my development and growth.
“Despite the relatively liberal nature of my surroundings, words and phrases such as “faggot” and “that’s so gay” were commonplace, and even when said in front of authority figures, there were little to no responses.
“The homophobic environment made me think twice about coming out. I fight the daily battle to challenge racism and negative stereotypes of Black Americans.
“I was not ready to be in another fight, especially, when no one else was leading the charge. Finding the support to deal with my identity in a healthy manner was difficult.
“The University of Oregon does have resources for the LGBT community; however as a person of colour these spaces do not really resonate with me. I strongly identified with my racial identity and had only newly come into my sexual identity; I felt there wasn’t a space where I could be fine with both.”
House Education Committee Chair, Rep. Sara Gelser (D-Corvallis), joined advocates today at the launch of the two reports.
“All kids should grow up free from fear of intimidation and harassment at school,” she said.
“By strengthening school anti-bullying policies, we can make Oregon schools safer, stronger and more secure.”
Rep. Gelser, a mother of four, chairs the House committee that is considering legislation to update and strengthen the bullying statute.
■ Click HERE for Too Afraid to Learn: Barriers to Post-Secondary Education for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Students.
■ Click HERE for No End In Sight: An Examination of Oregon Healthy Teens Survey reports of harassment of youth of color in Oregon Schools.
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/03/new-report-re…
AAG Coakley slaps civil rights injunction on homophobic neighbor from hell
Attorney General Martha Coakley’s office obtained a civil rights injunction Jan. 6 against a Norwood woman for repeated anti-gay harassment of a gay neighbor who lives in the same apartment complex.
“Bias-motivated conduct, such as the harassment and intimidation we allege in this case, are devastating to victims not only because of the immediate physical and emotional harm they cause, but because feelings of fear, anxiety and profound loss of personal security often last far longer than the incident,” said Coakley in a statement. “Beyond their impact on individual victims, hate crimes and other forms of bias-motivated activity are very detrimental to communities, and this type of behavior will not be tolerated.”
In a press release announcing the injunction Coakley’s office details a persistent pattern of harassment by May. In November 2007 May allegedly began spreading rumors that her gay neighbor was a pedophile and sexual predator. Six months later May complained to her landlord after the victim hung a gay pride flag outside his window, and the landlord forced him to remove the flag. May also allegedly shouted anti-gay epithets at the victim on multiple locations within the presence of fellow tenants, and she physically confronted him in the yard of his home. Last August May allegedly made a baseless complaint to Norwood police claiming that the victim had exposed himself to her.
Coakley’s office alleged that as a result of the harassment the victim has feared for his safety and has been forced to alter his routine to avoid having contact with May.
See AG Coakley slaps homophobic neighbor from hell with civil rights … Bay Windows
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/01/aag-coakley-s…
