Opponents of DC Gay Marriage Bill Hope Congress Intervenes
And they have allies on Capitol Hill, which has thirty days to review the matter before it becomes law. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said she supports the measure and wants Congress to stay out of it. But conservatives lawmakers hope to force a vote on the bill.
“I think we should be allowed to express each of our opinions,” Utah Republican Rep. Jason Chaffetz said. “I happen to represent what I think is the majority opinion, which is marriage should be defined as between one man and one woman.”
Yet for some long-time activists, who own a gay bookstore in the District, the pastors and conservatives are wrong.
“”We are, as far as we’re concerned, married 100 percent for life,” said Deacon MacCubbin, owner of Lambda Rising Bookstore. “That’s the way it is. And yet, there are people that want to stand between him and I in those personal, private matters. See Opponents of DC Gay Marriage Bill Hope Congress Intervenes
News Channel 8 – Washington,DC,USA
| Published by |
 |
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/05/opponents-of-…
Another possible first: An OPenly LGBT Supreme Court Justice?
Among the people whose names are being floated for the Supreme Court is Stanford Law Dean Kathleen Sullivan, a top constitutional scholar who has been active in gay rights battles in the Supreme Court, and who as the blog of the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund writes, would be the first openly gay person on the court.
The group Lambda Legal wrote Obama in January pressing the appointement of “‘out’ LGBT judges.”
Human Rights Campaign emails over a statement from its legal director, Lara Schwartz, that the group “looks forward to seeing more openly-LGBT people appointed to the federal courts and other positions” but that “what’s most important is a nominee must have a track record that demonstrates her or his ability to consider and decide cases fairly.”
Politico -
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/05/another-possi…
LGBTQ Student Rights in the Wake of Tragic Suicides
Statement from Kevin Cathcart, Executive Director of Lambda Legal:
“The tragic deaths of Jaheem Herrera and Carl Joseph Walker-Hoover underscore the importance of safe schools where harassment and violence based on racist, sexist, antigay or other biased attitudes are not tolerated. Unfortunately, there is much work to be done. Harassment of LGBTQ students and those perceived to be LGBT remains a serious problem across the country. Lambda Legal pledges to continue to stand up for students and hold schools accountable for preserving their rights and integrity. We applaud schools that stand up for safety and respect for all students because any student can be the target of LGBT-related bullying and harassment.
Lambda Legal will join the Faith and Community Alliance and other community groups at a vigil for Jaheem Herrera on Tuesday, April 28, 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., First Christian Church of Decatur ,601 West Ponce de Leon Ave., Decatur, GA.
###
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/04/lgbtq-student…
Gay marriage advocate downplays opposition to issue
The Chicago based group that orchestrated the move toward gay marriage in Iowa says it will have observers in 25% of the county recorders’ offices Monday when same-sex couples can first seek licenses to marry — but the group is dismissing the idea there is any opposition to the marriages.
Camilla Taylor is the Lambda Legal attorney who led the Iowa lawsuit which resulted in the Iowa Supreme Court ruling that Iowa’s law saying marriage is between a man and a woman is unconstitutional.
Taylor was asked during a conference call with reporters Thursday if there was confusion among state officials over how they should handle gay marriage issues. Taylor says she hasn’t heard any particular difficulties in working out what the decision means. She says Iowa isn’t the first state to rule that marriage licenses must be issued to same-sex couples, so there is a lot of help available if Iowa officials have questions.
Lambda officials say Iowa has “embraced” the gay marriage ruling, and Taylor dismissed recent attempts in the legislature to bring up a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Taylor says the state legislature “has made it very clear that the state legislature is not interested in putting discrimination into the constitution and that there are a lot of other issues that Iowans care about. She says there are budget issues and the state is recovering from natural disasters, “so I don’t think there is any will to amend the state constitution.”
Democratic leaders have blocked several attempts to bring up the vote on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Taylor was asked if her confidence would change if Republicans won back control or the legislature or if Iowa voters decided to call for a constitutional convention in 2010.
See Gay marriage advocate downplays opposition to issue
Radio Iowa – Des Moines,IA,USA
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/04/gay-marriage-…
Lambda 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-…
Existing gay marriages now on a great divide
With the California Supreme Court likely to uphold Proposition 8 but still recognize those already married, the couples are feeling both elated and isolated.
Jeanne Rizzo, 62, who married her partner of 20 years in September, was “somewhat heartened” Friday that her marriage is poised to survive Proposition 8 — but she was not celebrating.
“We don’t want to be on a marriage island,” said the Marin County resident, who runs a health advocacy group.
The California Supreme Court’s signal Thursday that it would uphold Proposition 8 but still recognize 18,000 existing same-sex marriages raised questions and concerns about the prospect of being a minority within a minority — part of an exclusive club whose doors have been closed to others.
While some gay married couples fretted Friday about being isolated culturally and legally, others expressed relief and joy that their marriages would remain valid. Some said they would feel pressure to be a symbol for same-sex marriage and to always present a positive image.
“If I’m on an island, at least I’m on an island with someone I love,” said Howard Bragman, a Hollywood publicist who married his partner before the November election in which voters passed the gay-marriage ban.
Jon Davidson, legal director for the gay-rights advocacy group Lambda Legal, called the couples “pioneers” put into “an unprecedented situation.”
“It will be challenging for those 18,000 couples,” Davidson said. “They are likely to be frequently asked to prove that they are married. . . . They will be going forward where no couple has gone before.”
At the same time, the gay married couples may help educate Americans about same-sex marriage, Davidson said.
“They will be kind of living examples of the fact that no one else is harmed by the existence of married same-sex couples,” he said.
See Existing gay marriages now on a great divide
Los Angeles Times
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/03/existing-gay-…
EQCA Executive Director Geoff Kors: “Prop. 8 destroys the fundamental principle of equal protection”
“By taking away a fundamental right from one group, Prop. 8 destroys the fundamental principle of equal protection – a principle codified in our Constitution and intended to protect minority groups from the oppression of the majority. Without the right to equal protection, every Californian risks discrimination at the ballot box.
“Equality California has sued on behalf of our members to invalidate Prop. 8. Today, our team of attorneys, led by the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal, and the ACLU, argued that Prop. 8 usurps the guarantee of equal protection and bypasses our legal safeguards. More than 300 leading civil rights organizations, legal scholars, and faith leaders submitted amicus briefs to the court, indicating their support of our argument. And this week, the state Assembly and state Senate passed resolutions stating their belief that Prop. 8 is an invalid revision to the Constitution.
“But victory in the courts is far from certain and no matter the outcome, the work to achieve acceptance and understanding must continue. Prop. 8 showed how much work there is left to be done and invalidating that discriminatory, unconstitutional amendment is just the beginning.
-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
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/03/eqca-executiv…
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…
Gay life on exhibit by Rob Bondgren
Examiner.com * Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/03/gay-life-on-e…
