Activists welcome Delhi hc’s gay verdict
Gay support groups of Vadodara have welcomed the Delhi High Court’s verdict that decriminalised homosexual relations.
They said the judgment will help solve health issues
such as HIV/AIDS, adding that the abolition of
Section 377 for adults shall also solve several ailments among the weaker segments of society.
Maya Sharma, Parma’s Founder trustee, said: “This judgment is indicative of the changing values of society and will enable further change. Generally, this movement has been seen as western, but in reality, this change would not have been possible without support and participation of people cutting across the religion, caste and age lines.”
Pointing out what kind of legal challenges women have faced recently in the state, Sharma said: “While marriage is almost compulsory for all, when it comes to women, there was a complete lack of choice. Recently in Ahmedabad, a same-sex couple went to the police for help only to be turned away because there was no provision for protection of a woman having a woman partner.”
See Activists welcome Delhi hc’s gay verdict
Indian Express
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
 |
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/07/activists-wel…
California State Supreme Court meets on gay marriage
The California Supreme Court will hear arguments today on whether Proposition 8, the anti-gay-marriage initiative, should be upheld and, if so, whether the marriages of an estimated 18,000 same-sex couples should remain valid.
During a three-hour televised hearing this morning, the San Francisco-based high court will examine whether the November ballot measure was an impermissible constitutional revision or a more limited constitutional amendment.
The court will need to decide the fate of existing same-sex marriages only if it is prepared to uphold Proposition 8, which many legal analysts believe is likely.
The justices’ questions to lawyers often reveal how the court is leaning. Legal analysts will be carefully watching Chief Justice Ronald M. George, whose vote often determines whether the conservative or more liberal wing of the court prevails.
The state high court ruled 4 to 3 on May 15 that same-sex couples should be entitled to marry. George wrote the ruling, which was signed by Justices Joyce L. Kennard, Kathryn Mickle Werdegar and Carlos R. Moreno.
Justices Marvin R. Baxter, Ming W. Chin and Carol A. Corrigan voted against overturning the state’s previous ban on same-sex marriage, arguing that the matter should be left to voters.
After Proposition 8 passed, only Moreno voted to put the measure on hold pending a decision on the legal challenges. Kennard, who usually votes in favor of gay rights, voted against accepting the revision challenge to the proposition but said she would hear arguments over the validity of existing same-sex marriages.
Some legal analysts believe the vote signaled that Kennard did not believe the revision argument would prevail. Without her vote, the court would be unlikely to muster a majority for overturning the measure.
In addition to arguing that Proposition 8 was an illegal constitutional revision, gay rights lawyers contend that it usurped the authority of the courts.
The hearing, scheduled to start at 9 a.m. and end at noon, will be broadcast live on the California Channel and streamed on its website. See State Supreme Court meets on gay marriage
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/03/california-st…
Gay couples hold vigils urging justices to end Prop. 8
As rain fell and the song “Fidelity” blasted through the sound system, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa presided Wednesday night over the “recommitment ceremonies” of a half-dozen gay couples who married during the five-month period that such weddings were legal in California.It was one of dozens of vigils held across California hours before the state Supreme Court hears oral arguments in the legal challenges to Proposition 8, the November ballot measure that banned same-sex marriage.
Many of the 200 or so people who attended Los Angeles’ vigil said they did not expect their demonstration to influence the justices who will decide whether Proposition 8 is valid.But they did want to send a public message, “to put a face on the issue,” as Kate Kuykendall put it. Kuykendall, 32, of El Segundo, wore a white wedding dress. She and her wife, Tori, 32, are featured in a video set to the Regina Spektor song “Fidelity,” which has become the gay marriage anthem.Events were held Wednesday night in cities and towns across California, from San Francisco to San Diego, as well as in Florida and Arizona — a sign that the political struggle will continue if the court rules against them, activists said. See Gay couples hold vigils urging justices to end Prop. 8
Los Angeles Times * Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/03/gay-couples-h…
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…
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-…
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…
