San Francisco mayor ends run for Calif. governor
(Sacramento, Calif.) Unable to move beyond his ultra-liberal image and far behind his rival in fundraising, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom dropped his bid to become governor, leaving former governor Jerry Brown as the only Democrat in the race to succeed Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger next year.
Citing “a young family and …
Tags: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bid, Democrat, Fundraising, Gavin Newsom, Jerry Brown, Mayor Gavin Newsom, Rival, San Francisco Mayor, San Francisco Mayor Gavin NewsomField Poll: Brown has big lead in Calif gov’s race
(Sacramento) A new Field Poll shows California Attorney General Jerry Brown with a strong lead in next year’s race for governor, even before he’s declared himself a candidate and despite months of campaigning by his Democratic rival and three Republicans vying for their party’s nomination.
The poll released Thursday found that …
Tags: Calif Gov, California Attorney General, Campaigning, Democratic Rival, Field Poll, Jerry Brown, Lead, Nomination, Republicans, Sacramento CaliforniaVoter ‘animus’ to be issue in Calif marriage case
When the U.S. Supreme Court overturned an amendment to the Colorado Constitution that outlawed discrimination protections for gay people, same-sex couples could not enter into civil unions or domestic partnerships anywhere in the nation, much less get married. But as they seek to persuade a federal judge to strike down California’s ban on gay marriages, lawyers for two unmarried gay couples are using that 13-year-old decision as their road map — one they expect will eventually lead the high court to take up the marriage issue. In the Colorado case, Romer v. Evans, the Supreme Court majority held that voters’ dislike of gays and the laws that several cities had approved to shield them from bias motivated the state amendment. Such “animus,” it said, was incompatible with the section of the U.S. Constitution that requires the government to treat its citizens equally absent a compelling reason to do otherwise. The attorneys behind the challenge to California’s Proposition 8 plan to argue during a pretrial hearing Thursday that by stripping gays of the right to wed, the voter-approved ban runs afoul of America’s founding framework in the same way — and for the same reason. “Romer is a strikingly similar situation to what we have here. You had a ballot initiative, a majority vote of the people, taking away a right,” said Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., a member of the legal team led by former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson and veteran trial lawyer David Boies. “And there was no justification or rationale other than disapproval by that majority of that group.” U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker on Tuesday issued a tentative order to fast-track the case in his San Francisco court. Among the questions he said he wants covered at trial are whether sexual orientation is unchangeable, if permitting same-sex marriage “destabilizes” traditional unions and whether Proposition 8’s ballot history demonstrates the measure had “discriminatory intent.” California Attorney General Jerry Brown, a defendant in the case, has sided with gay rights advocates and declined to defend the ban, which overturned a California Supreme Court ruling that had legalized same-sex marriages. The state Supreme Court five weeks ago upheld the measure, saying it represented a valid exercise of voters’ authority to amend the California Constitution. Proposition 8’s sponsors, a coalition of religious conservative groups called Protect Marriage, has been given permission to intervene in the federal case. In court papers, the group’s lawyers rejected the assertions that anti-gay attitudes fueled the November measure and that the 1996 Colorado case was applicable. “Nothing in California law, either Proposition 8 or otherwise, indicates that Californians harbor animus towards gay and lesbian individuals,” they wrote. Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision, attorneys for gay rights and Christian conservative groups have debated whether the Romer decision could be used to expand gay rights. The ruling marked the first time the Supreme Court determined that the Constitution’s equal rights guarantees extended to gays and lesbians. “The basic point of Romer is that government cannot ever act out of hostility toward a group of people, and whether that is in the context of marriage or anti-discrimination law, the point carries over,” said Suzanne Goldberg, who worked on the case and now directs Columbia Law School’s Sexuality and Gender Law Program. The ruling has been cited, though so far unsuccessfully, in past challenges to gay marriage bans in Nebraska and Florida. At the same time, gay rights groups mostly have shied away from pursuing federal marriage cases in favor of pursuing marriage rights in state courts. Legal observers on both sides of the debate agree, however, that California’s Proposition 8 presents novel questions that could make the issue ripe for federal action.
San Francisco Chronicle
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
 |
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/07/voter-animus-…
CA AG Brown again says Prop. 8 should be struck down
California Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown once again refused to defend Proposition 8’s ban on same-sex marriage Friday, telling a federal judge that it violated the U.S. Constitution and should be struck down.
Brown made his arguments in response to a federal lawsuit against the state by two gay couples who contend the initiative violates federal due process and equal protection guarantees.
Brown’s willingness to fight a state law that has been upheld by the state’s highest court contrasted sharply with President Obama’s decision this week to oppose a federal challenge to the U.S. Defense of Marriage Act brought in Orange County.
In that case, a married gay couple, Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer, has challenged the constitutionality of both Proposition 8 and the 1996 federal law that prohibits extension of federal benefits to same-sex couples.
See AG Brown again says Prop. 8 should be struck down
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/06/ca-ag-brown-a…
Schwarzenegger, AG Brown oppose bid to immediately block Prop 8
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown on Thursday urged a federal judge to keep Proposition 8 in force for now, arguing that it would create too much uncertainty across the state to put the voter-approved ban on gay marriage on hold while the latest legal challenge unfolds in the federal courts.
In court papers, state lawyers argued against an injunction that would freeze the current gay marriage ban, opposing a request filed in federal court in San Francisco last month by two gay couples seeking the right to marry. Backed by former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson and renowned lawyer David Boies, the couples moved to counterract the California Supreme Court’s recent ruling upholding Proposition 8, arguing that it violates equal protection rights under the federal constitution.
Brown and Schwarzenegger argued separately that it would create too much havoc to put the law on hold until the constitutional issues are resolved, perhaps eventually by the U.S. Supreme Court. The governor and attorney general did not take a position on the federal constitutional questions, focusing only on whether Prop 8 should be blocked while the case is litigated, a move that would allow same-sex couples to resume marrying in California.
Brown had previously urged the California Supreme Court to overturn Prop 8, and Schwarzenegger has said publicly he believes the courts eventually will permit gay marriage.
See Schwarzenegger, AG Brown oppose bid to immediately block Prop 8 San Jose Mercury News
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/06/schwarzenegge…
CA Supreme Court Upholds Student Civil Rights Act
(Sacramento, June 1, 2009) –Today, a Sacramento Superior Court dismissed a lawsuit seeking to invalidate SB 777, the California Student Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination against students on the basis of race, religion, disability, gender, and sexual orientation. The lawsuit was brought by a right-wing group that specifically objected to protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students. The court held that the plaintiffs had failed to show any way in which the statute was even allegedly unlawful.
“We are pleased the court rejected this attack on the Student Civil Rights Act,” said Carolyn Laub, Gay-Straight Alliance Network Executive Director. “School should be safe place for all children, including those who are—or are perceived to be—lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender.”
The lawsuit was filed on November 5, 2008. State Superintendent Jack O’Connell, represented by California Attorney General Jerry Brown, filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on January 8, 2009. On March 19, 2009, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal, the Transgender Law Center, Equality California, and Gay-Straight Alliance Network filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the motion to dismiss.
Governor Schwarzenegger signed SB 777 into law on October 12, 2007. SB 777 reinforced existing anti-discrimination protections in publicly-funded schools and updated the Education Code so that teachers and administrators do not have to cross-reference other parts of state law to understand their obligations to protect students from harassment and discrimination in all school activities. The bill was sponsored by Equality California, the state’s LGBT legislative organization, and authored by former Senator Sheila Kuehl.
According to the 2001 California Healthy Kids Survey, nearly 30 percent of California youth in grades 7 to 11 report experiencing harassment or bullying based on their actual or perceived race, ethnicity, religion, disability, gender, or sexual orientation.
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/2009/06/ca-supreme-co…
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…
California legal chief calls for end to gay marriage ban
California’s top lawyer has called for the result of a referendum effectively banning same-sex marriage to be quashed, two days ahead of the latest court-room showdown over the issue.
Attorney General Jerry Brown said the ballot measure known as Proposition 8, which redefined marriage in California as a union between a man and a woman, should be invalidated because it “discriminates against same-sex couples.”
On Thursday, supporters of same-sex marriage are to go before California’s Supreme Court in San Francisco to argue for the ballot measure to be invalidated in the latest twist to the long-running legal battle.
Brown said Tuesday the Supreme Court should strike down the measure on the grounds that same-sex couples had an “inalienable” right to marry that should not be allowed to be taken away by a simple majority vote.
He compared the current dispute to a case in 1964, where the California and US Supreme Courts quashed a voter measure that would have allowed racial discrimination in renting or selling of property.
See California legal chief calls for end to gay marriage ban
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/03/california-le…
California gay rights timeline
As gays and lesbians have fought for rights and won elected office, public opinion has shifted. Back in 1977, singer Anita Bryant of Florida was leading a Bible-based campaign against homosexuals, claiming they were sinners and a threat to children and family life. When pollsters asked more than 1,000 Californians – face to face, in their homes – whether they agreed with her, 45 percent said yes. Emotions still run high on the issue, but more Californians now say they know gays and lesbians, and approve of same-sex marriage. The shift is particularly pronounced among residents ages 18 to 29. Following are notable twists and turns in the history of California’s gay rights movement.
1951: The Mattachine Society, one of the first gay advocacy organizations in the United States, is incorporated in Los Angeles to combat oppression of homosexuals.
1955: The Daughters of Bilitis, a national lesbian organization, is founded in San Francisco.
1961: José Sarria runs for the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, becoming what is believed to be the nation’s first openly gay candidate for public office.
1975: Assembly Bill 489, by Assemblyman Willie Brown, decriminalizes sexual acts performed in private by consenting adults in California.
1977: The state Legislature overwhelmingly votes to define civil marriage as a contract between a man and a woman. Harvey Milk later becomes the first openly gay person to be elected to public office in California, winning a seat on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.
1978: Voters defeat Proposition 6, the Briggs initiative, named for Sen. John Briggs, which would have barred gays, lesbians and their supporters from teaching in public schools.
1979: Gov. Jerry Brown issues an executive order barring discrimination against state employees based on sexual orientation.
1984: Gov. George Deukmejian vetoes Assembly Bill 1, the first bill that would have banned job discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
1989: Senate Bill 202, by Sen. Diane Watson, requires law enforcement agencies to report hate crimes, including those in which a motivating factor is the victim’s sexual orientation.
1991: Gov. Pete Wilson vetoes Assembly Bill 101, by Assemblyman Terry Friedman, prohibiting discrimination against gays in the workplace.
1992: Wilson signs Friedman’s narrower measure, Assembly Bill 2601, which adds sexual orientation protections to the Labor Code.
1994: Sheila Kuehl is elected to the Assembly, becoming the state Legislature’s first openly lesbian or gay member.
1999: Assembly Bill 26, by Assemblywoman Carole Migden, creates the first statewide domestic partnership registry, allowing the partners of gay state employees to receive health benefits.
1999: Assembly Bill 1001, by Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa, adds sexual orientation to anti-discrimination provisions of the state Fair Employment and Housing Act.
1999: Assembly Bill 537, by Assemblywoman Sheila Kuehl, makes it illegal to harass students in public schools because of sexual orientation.
2000: Voters pass Proposition 22, which banned same-sex marriage.
2001: Migden’s Assembly Bill 25 greatly expands the rights of domestic partners to include health benefits through private group insurance, death benefits, sick leave, tax deductions and adoption of stepchildren.
2002: The nation’s first legislative Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Caucus is formed in the Legislature. It comprises Assembly members Kuehl, Migden, Jackie Goldberg and Christine Kehoe.
2002: John Laird and Mark Leno are elected to the Assembly, becoming the first openly gay men in the Legislature and members of the LGBT Caucus.
2003: Assembly Bill 205 by Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg extends to registered domestic partners nearly all the same rights and responsibilities provided to opposite-sex spouses in California.
2004: San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom orders city officials to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. More than 4,000 couples receive licenses and are married before the California Supreme Court orders a halt to the process until its constitutionality can be determined.
2004: Assembly Bill 2208, by Assemblywoman Christine Kehoe, bars insurance providers from discriminating against domestic partners.
2005: Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoes Assembly Bill 849, by Assemblyman Mark Leno, which would have legalized same-sex marriage. Schwarzenegger urged gay rights advocates to wait for court rulings on Proposition 22 or ask the voters to repeal the ban.
2008: In a 4-3 decision May 16, the California Supreme Court rules that the state constitution gives gays and lesbians the right to marry. On Nov. 4, voters approve Proposition 8, the ban that’s now being challenged.
Sources: Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life; the American Civil Liberties Union; Encyclopedia Britannica; World Book Encyclopedia; Bee news archives.
Bee research/Aurelio Rojas, Pete Basofin and Micaela Massimino.
See California gay rights timeline
Sacramento Bee - CA, USA
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/03/california-ga…
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…
