UPDATE: Lynch signs NH marriage bill
Gov. John Lynch has signed the New Hampshire equal marriage bill, making New Hampshire the sixth state to have gay marriage. The law will take effect January 1, 2010.
The Senate passed the equal marriage compromise bill this morning; this afternoon, the House passed the bill 198-176.
“With Gov. Lynch signing legislation …
California Supreme Court to Hear Oral Arguments in Prop 8 Legal Challenge on March 5
Attorney General, Governor, and nation’s top civil rights groups agree: Invalidate Prop 8
(San Francisco, CA, February 3, 2009) The California Supreme Court announced today that it will hear oral arguments on Thursday, March 5, 2009 in the Proposition 8 legal challenge. The National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal, and the ACLU—with support from civil rights groups, religious organizations, labor unions, and legal scholars—argue that Proposition 8 is invalid because the people of California have established strict safeguards that prohibit the underlying principles of the California Constitution from being changed by a simple majority vote. By taking away a right only from one group, Proposition 8 violates the most basic principle of our government: that all people are entitled to equal treatment under the law.
California Attorney General Jerry Brown is also asking the Court to invalidate Proposition 8 on the ground that certain fundamental rights, including the right to marry, are inalienable and can not be put up for a popular vote.
On November 10, 2008, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger stated that he hoped the Court would overturn Proposition 8. On CNN, he said of Proposition 8′s passage, “It’s unfortunate, obviously, but it’s not the end, I think that we will again maybe undo that, if the court is willing to do that, and then move forward from there and again lead in that area.”
On November 19, 2008, the California Supreme Court agreed to hear the legal challenges to Proposition 8 and set an expedited schedule. Briefing in the case was completed on January 21, 2009.
The California Supreme Court must issue its decisions within 90 days of oral argument.
On January 15, 2009, 43 friend-of-the-court briefs urging the Court to invalidate Prop 8 were filed, arguing that Proposition 8 drastically alters the equal protection guarantee in California’s Constitution and that the rights of a minority cannot be eliminated by a simple majority vote. The supporters represent the full gamut of California’s and the nation’s civil rights organizations and legal scholars, as well as California legislators, local governments, bar associations, business interests, labor unions, and religious groups.
In May of 2008, the California Supreme Court held that laws that treat people differently based on their sexual orientation violate the equal protection clause of the California Constitution and that same-sex couples have the same fundamental right to marry as other Californians. Proposition 8 eliminated this fundamental right only for same-sex couples. No other initiative has ever successfully changed the California Constitution to take away a right only from a targeted minority group. Proposition 8 passed by a bare majority of 52 percent on November 4.
The National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal, and the ACLU filed this challenge on November 5, 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 California Supreme Court has also agreed to hear 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
EQCA works to achieve equality and secure legal protections for LGBT people. To improve the lives of LGBT Californians, EQCA sponsors legislation and coordinates efforts to ensure its passage, lobbies legislators and other policy makers, builds coalitions, develops community strength and empowers individuals and other organizations to engage in the political process. www.eqca.org
The National Center for Lesbian Rights is a national legal organization committed to advancing the civil and human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people and their families through litigation, public policy advocacy, and public education. www.nclrights.org/overturn8
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. www.lambdalegal.org
The American Civil Liberties Union is America’s foremost advocate of individual rights. It fights discrimination and moves public opinion on LGBT rights through the courts, legislatures and public education. www.aclu.org
| Published by |
 |
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/02/california-su…
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…
America’s top civil rights groups and legal scholars agree: Invalidate Prop 8
(San Francisco, CA, January 21, 2009) In the last round of an expedited briefing schedule, final briefs were filed today by both petitioners and respondents in the lawsuits challenging Proposition 8. The briefs filed today by the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal, and the ACLU responded to the more than 60 amicus curiae, or “friend of the court,” briefs filed in the case last week.
Those amicus briefs highlight the extraordinary breadth of support for Petitioners’ argument that Proposition 8 is invalid. The supporters represent the full gamut of California’s and the nation’s civil rights organizations and legal scholars, as well as California legislators, local governments, bar associations, business interests, labor unions, and religious groups.
In amicus briefs filed last Thursday, the nation’s leading legal scholars argued that Proposition 8 is invalid because it seeks to eliminate a fundamental right only for a targeted minority, which cannot be done through the initiative process. Professors from the most prominent universities and law schools in California and the country authored briefs urging the Court to invalidate Proposition 8, including scholars from Harvard University, Stanford University, Yale University, University of California (Berkeley, Los Angeles, Hastings, Davis, Irvine), University of Southern California, University of Pennsylvania, Rutgers University, University of San Francisco, Loyola Law School, Santa Clara Law School, Chapman University, and Pepperdine University.
A brief authored by Hastings Law Professor Donna Ryu and joined by 20 constitutional law experts, argued: “Proposition 8 represents the first time that the California initiative process has been wielded to abolish a fundamental freedom for an unpopular minority group and to alter the Constitution so as to mandate governmental discrimination against that group. In this way, Proposition 8 attempts to breach some of the most elemental textual and structural promises of our state Constitution. It revokes a fundamental right that, in the words of the Constitution, is “inalienable.” It dismantles constitutional equality for a single group of Californians – a group that, because of its history of oppression and stigma, is entitled to the highest level of constitutional protection against discrimination.”
Another brief authored by Professor Karl Manheim, one of the foremost authorities on California’s initiative process, stated: “Proposition 8 . . . improperly attempts to revise the Constitution by taking the unprecedented step of singling out a suspect class and depriving that class – and only that class – of a fundamental right.”
On January 15, 2009, 43 friend-of-the-court briefs urging the Court to invalidate Prop 8 were filed, arguing that Proposition 8 drastically alters the equal protection guarantee in California’s Constitution, and that the rights of a minority cannot be eliminated by a simple majority vote.
Other briefs supporting the legal challenge to Prop 8 were filed on behalf of 652 current and former California legislators; dozens of bar associations, legal aid organizations; and numerous California municipal governments.
In May of 2008, the California Supreme Court held that laws that treat people differently based on their sexual orientation violate the equal protection clause of the California Constitution and that same-sex couples have the same fundamental right to marry as other Californians. Proposition 8 eliminated this fundamental right only for same-sex couples. No other initiative has ever successfully changed the California Constitution to take away a right only from a targeted minority group. Proposition 8 passed by a bare 52 percent on November 4.
The National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal, and the ACLU filed this challenge on November 5, 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 California Supreme Court has also agreed to hear 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. These three cases are jointly under review by the California Supreme Court.
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.
On November 19, 2008, the California Supreme Court granted review in the legal challenges to Proposition 8, and established an expedited briefing schedule, under which briefing was completed on January 21, 2009. The California Supreme Court has stated that it may schedule oral argument as early as March 2009.
The case is Strauss et al. v. Horton et al. (
S168047).
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/01/americas-top-…
Lambda Legal Urges Unbiased Nominees to Fill 54 Federal Bench Vacancies
‘The foremost consideration in nominating federal judges should be their commitment to rendering decisions impartially.’
(New York, January 15, 2009) — As inauguration day draws near, Lambda Legal sent a letter to President-Elect Obama and the leadership of the Senate Judiciary Committee, explaining the monumental need for fair and impartial nominees to the federal bench who will address issues facing the gay community without bias.
“In the coming years, a number of key issues that significantly impact the gay community are likely to arise in the federal courts,” said Lambda Legal Executive Director Kevin Cathcart, “The foremost consideration in nominating federal judges should be their commitment to rendering decisions impartially.”
During his two terms, President Bush appointed 326 judges to the federal bench.
“It is no secret that the Bush Administration’s goal was to pack the federal courts at all levels with arch-conservative judges who would be unfriendly to the vigorous protection of civil rights — not only for gay people, but for everyone,” said Cathcart.
“To start, President-Elect Obama will have 54 vacancies to fill and we hope that those nominees can provide balance to what has become a federal system that is often hostile the gay community,” added Cathcart.
Today’s letter is a follow-up to a memo Lambda Legal provided to the Obama Transition Team. It urges President-Elect Obama to nominate federal justices who adhere to precedents established in cases of importance to the gay community- including the right to privacy, protection against laws based on antigay bias, the right to sue in state courts under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and protections against HIV discrimination, among others.
Finally, the letter seeks to promote judicial integrity through nomination of jurists who represent the nation’s diversity including people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, people of color, women, and those with public defender and public interest legal backgrounds.
To read the full text of the letter submitted, please visit Lambda Legal’s website www.lambdalegal.org or the email version of this press release includes an attached PDF of the letter.
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/01/lambda-legal-…
Rep. Barney Frank Bullish on Gay Rights
In the January 12 edition of The New Yorker, Massachusetts representative Barney Frank tells reporter Jeffrey Toobin that he is bullish about the future of gay rights under Barack Obama‘s administration.
We’re going to do three things in Congress…First, a hate-crimes bill–that shouldn’t be too hard. Next, employment discrimination. We almost got that through before, but now we can win even if we add transgender protections, which we are going to do. And, finally, after the troops get home from Iraq, gays in the military. The time has come.”
Frank was the first congressman to come out of the closet willingly and, for a long time, was the only openly gay national representative–Sen. Larry Craig (R-Id.) doesn’t count. Frank has since been joined by Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) and Jared Polis (D-Colo.).
See Rep. Barney Frank Bullish on Gay Rights
Just Out, OR -
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/01/rep-barney-fr…
Hannity criticized gay Episcopal bishop for “partisan hatred,” but called partisan Rev. Falwell a “very dear friend”
On the January 13 edition of Fox News’ Hannity, Sean Hannity claimed that Rev. Gene Robinson — the openly gay Episcopal bishop from New Hampshire whom President-elect Barack Obama has selected to deliver the invocation at his inauguration kickoff — “bashed President Bush” in a prayer published in GQ magazine. Hannity then stated: “You know, all along, I actually thought pastors were supposed to spread the love of God, not fan the flames of partisan hatred.” However, Hannity did not criticize his frequent guest, the late Rev. Jerry Falwell — whom Hannity called a “very dear friend”– despite Falwell’s history of inflammatory, partisan rhetoric directed at Democrats.
According to the Episcopal Church website, Robinson said he would use some of the prayers that he wrote for GQ — which do not mention Bush by name — in drafting his prayer for the inaugural event. In one prayer, titled “A Prayer for Barack Obama,” reproduced on Boston Globe religion reporter Michael Paulson’s Articles of Faith blog, Robinson wrote in part:
O God, we give you thanks for your child Barack, as he assumes the office of President of the United States.
Give him wisdom beyond his years, and inspire him with Lincoln’s reconciling leadership, FDR’s courageous boldness and vision, and JFK’s ability to enlist the best efforts of our people.
Give him a quiet heart, for our Ship of State needs a steady, calm captain for these times, not a fierce warrior who knee-jerk reacts to every real or perceived threat.
Give him stirring words, for we will need to be inspired and motivated to make the personal and common sacrifices necessary to facing the challenges ahead.
But while Hannity criticized Robinson for “partisan” remarks, he frequently hosted Falwell, founder of the conservative Moral Majority and frequent critic of Democrats and progressive positions. Falwell had a history of inflammatory statements about former President Bill and Secretary of State-designate Hillary Clinton. For example, Falwell publicized, co-financed, and distributed The Clinton Chronicles, a video that contained anti-Clinton allegations of drug trafficking and murder. On the October 22, 2003, episode of CNN’s Crossfire, Falwell said, “I think that we needed Bill Clinton, because we turned our backs on the lord and we needed a bad president to get our attention again.” Falwell also called Hillary Clinton “a bad person with a criminal mind,” and said during the lead-up to the Democratic presidential primary, “I think Hillary would be the worst thing that would ever happen to America.” Falwell also told the Associated Press, “I don’t think anybody doubts that the Republicans have a better record and a better commitment to national security than the Democrats do.”
Despite these and other partisan remarks by Falwell, Hannity devoted an entire broadcast of Hannity & Colmes to Falwell the day after his death, during which he referred to Falwell as “a very dear friend of mine” and said, “He may have misspoke once or twice. But he devoted his life, to his religion.” Before his death, Falwell was frequently a recipient of Hannity’s praise. On the January 24, 2007, broadcast, Hannity discussed filmmaker Alexandra Pelosi’s documentary about evangelical Christians with her and said, “I hope you also capture people like Franklin Graham and the Reverend Falwell. They spend millions of dollars a year to help people in a lot of very positive ways. Did you capture that?” Pelosi responded, “Listen to you. You’re just doing P.R. for them.” Also, during a discussion of children born into poverty on the July 2, 2006, edition of Hannity & Colmes, Hannity cited Falwell as an example of people who are “charitable” and said, “Jerry Falwell has a home for any girl who’s pregnant. He’ll send them to school. He’ll give them free health care if they have their baby.” Hannity also delivered the commencement address at Falwell’s Liberty University in May 2005.
As Media Matters for America noted, Hannity applied a double standard on the January 12 broadcast of his show when he said, “I don’t like the lyrics that refer to women as ‘B’s’ and ‘ho’s,’ and we’ve had many discussions about this,” despite the fact that he previously aired concert footage of rock musician and right-wing activist Ted Nugent calling Obama a “piece of shit” and referring to Hillary Clinton as a “worthless bitch.” After airing the clip, Hannity referred to Nugent as a “friend and frequent guest on the program.”
See Hannity criticized gay Episcopal bishop for “partisan hatred,” but …
Media Matters for America
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/01/hannity-criti…
Pasadena Pastor back on Oprah today to explain why “Gay is a gift from God”
The Reverend J. Edwin Bacon, Jr., rector of All Saints Church, Pasadena will make an encore appearance on The Oprah Winfrey Show today, Monday, January 12, to respond to the controversy around his statement in a January 8th segment on the Oprah Show that “being gay is a gift from God.”
It was no surprise at All Saints Church that the show’s producers asked for some follow-up time with Reverend Bacon. “The volume of email we’re getting here in Pasadena tells us that Ed Bacon’s message — the good news that God loves absolutely everybody — is one people are hungry to hear,” said the Reverend Susan Russell, All Saints Senior Associate for Communication. “We are deeply grateful for the national platform Ed Bacon’s appearance on Oprah has given this message of love, inclusion and tolerance that we hear preached here in Pasadena 24/7. We look forward to welcoming those coming toward us who are hearing for the first time that the abundant, inclusive love of God includes them!”
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/01/pasadena-past…
Proposition 8, Same-Sex Rights Examined at 2009 AALS Annual Meeting, Leading Legal Scholars to discuss Controversial Issues
SAN DIEGO, CA – The Association of American Law Schools (AALS) 2009 Annual Meeting will feature programs devoted to the discussion of Proposition 8, as well as Same-Sex Rights. The Annual Meeting will take place on January 6-10, 2009, in San Diego.
Democracy’s Dilemma: The Case of Proposition 8, an AALS Executive Committee Roundtable program, will examine the November, 2008 vote which overturned a state Supreme Court decision that had upheld the legality of same-sex marriage. The election and its aftermath sparked deep disagreements about the rule of law and the nature of the democratic process. Supporters of same-sex marriage questioned whether a direct initiative was the appropriate way to make policy when fundamental civil rights were at stake. Defenders of the proposition argued that marriage is a cultural institution reflecting venerable traditions, making a vote of the people entirely appropriate. The role of the courts, the meaning of marriage, the scope of civil rights protections, the complications of a federal system, and the intricacies of California politics – all of these matters and more were implicated by the controversy surrounding Proposition 8. This roundtable discussion draws on leading experts who are eminently qualified to address these concerns, which go to the heart of defining the legal system’s role in a pluralistic society. Democracy’s Dilemma: The Case of Proposition 8 will be held from 8:30 – 10:15 a.m. on Friday, January 9, in the Marriott Hotel and Marina.
Proposition 8, Legal Challenges and The Future of Marriage Between Same- Sex Couples, one of four selected “Hot Topic Programs,” will also address the immediate issues raised by the passage of Proposition 8: constitutional challenges to Proposition 8, including the question whether the voter initiative validly “amended” the state constitution or instead illegally revised it, the future of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”) and legal and constitutional trends in other states with regard to this and related issues. Proposition 8, Legal Challenges and The Future Of Marriage Between Same-Sex Couples, will be held from 3:30 – 5:15 p.m. on Friday, January 9, 2009 in the Marriott Hotel and Marina.
The AALS Section on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Issues is also sponsoring several programs concerning same-sex rights. A day long program entitled Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Across the Curriculum: The Challenges of Keeping Law Schools Current with Recent Developments in Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Issues will feature sessions on: recent developments in sexual orientation and gender identity issues, transgender issues, employment discrimination and the Solomon Amendment. This Section’s program will be held on January 7 from 8:45 a.m. – 5:15 p.m. in the Marriott Hotel and Marina.
The entire AALS 2009 Annual Meeting program can be found on the Association’s Web site at www.aals.org/am2009/. Members of the press are invited to attend free of charge. Those interested in attending are asked to notify Deborah Quick from January 6-10, 2009 at 619-645-6955. Press also may register on-site at the AALS office located in the Manchester Room on the North Tower/Lobby Level of the San Diego Marriott Hotel & Marina beginning Tuesday after 6 p.m. January 6, 2009, and continuing through Saturday, January 10, 2009.
The Association of American Law Schools is a resource for the improvement of the quality of legal education by networking law school faculty, professional staff and deans to information and resources. AALS is the principal representative of legal education to the federal government, other national higher education organizations and learned societies.
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/01/proposition-8…
NEW FILING IN PROP 8 LEGAL CHALLENGE: Reply brief reiterates that Prop 8 should be struck down
(San Francisco, California, January 5, 2009) — Today, the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and Lambda Legal filed a reply brief in the California Supreme Court, the next step in the lawsuit seeking to overturn Proposition 8, which passed by a mere 52 percent on November 4. The brief argues that Proposition 8 is invalid because it seeks to eliminate a fundamental right only for a targeted minority, which cannot be done through the initiative process. The brief also agrees with California Attorney General Jerry Brown that certain fundamental rights, including the right to marry, are inalienable and can not be put up for a popular vote. The brief also argues —again in agreement with the Attorney General — that Proposition 8 cannot be applied to invalidate existing marriages because new laws and amendments are presumed to apply only on a prospective basis. “If Prop 8 is permitted to stand, it would be the first time an initiative has successfully been used to change the California Constitution to take away an existing right only from a historically targeted minority group,” said NCLR Legal Director Shannon Minter. “Such a change would defeat the very purpose of a constitution and fundamentally alter the role of the courts in protecting minority rights.” On November 19, 2008, the California Supreme Court granted review in the legal challenges to Proposition 8, and established an expedited briefing schedule, under which briefing will be completed in January 2009, with amicus curiae or “friend-of-the-court” briefs due on January 15. Oral argument potentially could be held as early as March 2009. Elizabeth Gill, a staff attorney with the ACLU, added “Prop 8 is a radical and unprecedented change to the California Constitution that puts all Californians at risk. It actually mandates government discrimination against a minority.” In May of 2008, the California Supreme Court held that laws that treat people differently based on their sexual orientation violate the equal protection clause of the California Constitution and that same-sex couples have the same fundamental right to marry as other Californians. Proposition 8 would completely eliminate this fundamental right only for same-sex couples. No other initiative has ever successfully changed the California Constitution to take away a right only from a targeted minority group. “Prop 8 is not valid and never has been,” said Jennifer Pizer, Lambda Legal National Marriage Project Director. “California’s Equal Protection clause was not written in sand, to be erased by shifting political tides. It’s a solid guarantee that we all have the same rights and it’s the foundation of our government. Exceptions can’t be carved by simple majority vote or the equality guarantee becomes a discrimination guarantee. No initiative can cause such a profound change in our legal system.” NCLR, Lambda Legal, and the ACLU filed this challenge on November 5, 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 California Supreme Court has also agreed to hear 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. These three cases are jointly under review by the California Supreme Court. 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. For more information on this case, go to: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/prop8.htm ### The National Center for Lesbian Rights is a national legal organization committed to advancing the civil and human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people and their families through litigation, public policy advocacy, and public education. www.nclrights.org 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. www.lambdalegal.org
The American Civil Liberties Union is America’s foremost advocate of individual rights. It fights discrimination and moves public opinion on LGBT rights through the courts, legislatures and public education. www.aclu.org
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/01/new-filing-in…
