Case Against Prop 8 — Oral Argument and Telephone Briefing Today!
Today another historic argument will be made before the state Supreme Court in California to protect the constitutional guarantee of equal protection for all and to fight to restore marriage equality. Lambda Legal, NCLR, the ACLU and others have been working for months to prepare for today’s oral argument in our historic case against Prop 8. And now you can be among the first to know what happened in the courtroom. By making a gift to Lambda Legal, you can join our members–only telephone briefing immediately following the argument.
At 3 pm PST (6 pm EST), Lambda Legal’s National Marriage Project Director Jenny Pizer and our Legal Director Jon Davidson will discuss the latest developments in the Strauss v. Horton case. If you’re interested in watching the argument, we have learned that it will be aired on California’s Public Access TV and streamed online. (High traffic at the site may impair viewing.)
Upholding the California Constitution’s promise to protect the rights of minorities is important for all Americans. In January, hundreds of religious organizations, civil rights groups and labor unions, and dozens of California municipal governments, bar associations and leading legal scholars agreed that the rights of all vulnerable minorities are at stake as they collectively urged the California Supreme Court to strike down Prop 8. The California Attorney General has also argued that Prop 8 is invalid.
Be in the know, every step of the way. With your support, we are making history. Take this final opportunity to join Lambda Legal and receive instructions on how to sign up for today’s conference call. Join us as we discuss the justices’ questions and what may come next in this fight to uphold the constitution and our equal freedom to marry in California!
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
 |
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/03/case-against-…
Ken Starr vs. transsexual in Prop 8 case
Kenneth Starr and Shannon Minter, lead attorneys in the California Supreme Court case that will decide the fate of same-sex marriage in the state, are as different as the competing sides they represent.
Starr, dean of Pepperdine University School of Law, is best known for leading the inquiry into President Bill Clinton’s affair with a White House intern.
Since then, the former federal judge and U.S. solicitor general has dedicated himself to conservative causes, including writing briefs for the Mormon church in a previous gay marriage case in California.
Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights in San Francisco, is a transsexual who spent his first 35 years as a female. He was a lead counsel in the state Supreme Court case decided last May that allowed same-sex couples to marry, a ruling that was reversed in November when voters approved Proposition 8.
Starr and Minter will square off Thursday in the most closely watched California Supreme Court hearing in a generation. They’re set to deliver oral arguments in three suits in which supporters of gay marriage contend that Proposition 8, which limits marriage to a man and a woman, is unconstitutional.
Minter, 48, representing gay rights groups, will be the first attorney to address the court in San Francisco. Starr, 62, will deliver the final arguments on behalf of the Yes on 8 campaign.
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/03/ken-starr-vs-…
ACLU Sues Nassau County Schools to Enforce Right of Gay Straight Alliance to Meet at Yulee High School and Yulee Middle School
The SBNC superintendent said in a letter denying access to the GSA that groups with names referencing a specific sexual orientation would not be recognized and that even if the group changed its name to one not communicating a gay-specific mission, approval was uncertain.
“We just want the club so that straight and gay kids can get together to talk about harassment and discrimination against gay kids in an open environment. The school is discriminating against us and that’s exactly the kind of thing we want to talk about and prevent,” said Hannah Page, ACLU plaintiff and student at Yulee High School. “Other clubs and groups are allowed to meet on campus and we have that right too.”Bullying of LGBT students in Nassau County Schools is a serious problem. Plaintiffs Hannah Page and Jacob Brock, who are gay, report that students have threatened to beat them up based on their sexual orientation, and both are routinely called derogatory names at school.
GSAs are student organizations made up of straight and gay students who wish to advocate for an end to bullying, harassment, and discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (“LGBT”) students. There are over 4,000 GSAs in the U.S., according to the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN).
The federal Equal Access Act requires schools to grant access and official recognition to a GSA (and most other student groups) if the school allows any extracurricular groups to meet on campus. SBNC denied the Yulee GSA access and official recognition even though other student organizations, such as the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, meet regularly at YHS and YMS.
“We are taking a stand today because gay students are entitled to a safe and secure education. Gay and lesbian students deserve schools that heed the rule of law,” said Robert Rosenwald, Director of the ACLU of Florida’s LGBT Advocacy Project. “These students are trying to bring a message of equality and openness, and the lesson they are being taught is that
Yulee High School administrators believe discrimination against LGBT students is an acceptable policy. Discrimination and harassment by students will never end as long as schools discriminate themselves.”
The ACLU filed the suit alleging violations of the First Amendment and the Federal Equal Access Act, and seeks a preliminary injunction to force school officials to allow the GSA to meet at Yulee High School while the litigation makes its way to trial.
The ACLU of Florida recently won a similar federal case when school officials in Okeechobee, Florida refused to allow a GSA to meet at Okeechobee High School. The judge ruled that schools must provide for the well-being of gay students and cannot discriminate against the GSA. The Okeechobee County School Board paid $326,000.00 in attorneys’ fees for refusing to follow the law in that case. You can read more about the Okeechobee case at: http://www.aclufl.org/news_events/?action=viewRelease&emailAlertID=3654
The lawsuit was filed today in the Jacksonville Division of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Robert Rosenwald, director of the ACLU of Florida’s LGBT Advocacy Project, is lead counsel for the ACLU’s case, Gay-Straight Alliance of Yulee High School v. School Board of Nassau County. LGBT Advocacy Project staff attorney Shelbi Day, ACLU of Florida legal director Randall Marshall, and associate legal director Maria Kayanan will also represent the plaintiffs.
A copy of the Complaint can be viewed at: http://www.aclufl.org/pdfs/YuleeComplaint.pdf
A copy of the motion for preliminary injunction can be viewed at: http://www.aclufl.org/pdfs/YuleePI.pdf
Students can learn more about their rights by downloading a free copy of the ACLU of Florida’s Student Rights Handbook at: www.aclufl.org.
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/02/aclu-sues-nas…
ACLU Sues Nassau County Schools to Enforce Right of Gay Straight Alliance to Meet at Yulee High School and Yulee Middle School
The SBNC superintendent said in a letter denying access to the GSA that groups with names referencing a specific sexual orientation would not be recognized and that even if the group changed its name to one not communicating a gay-specific mission, approval was uncertain.
“We just want the club so that straight and gay kids can get together to talk about harassment and discrimination against gay kids in an open environment. The school is discriminating against us and that’s exactly the kind of thing we want to talk about and prevent,” said Hannah Page, ACLU plaintiff and student at Yulee High School. “Other clubs and groups are allowed to meet on campus and we have that right too.”Bullying of LGBT students in Nassau County Schools is a serious problem. Plaintiffs Hannah Page and Jacob Brock, who are gay, report that students have threatened to beat them up based on their sexual orientation, and both are routinely called derogatory names at school.
GSAs are student organizations made up of straight and gay students who wish to advocate for an end to bullying, harassment, and discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (“LGBT”) students. There are over 4,000 GSAs in the U.S., according to the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN).
The federal Equal Access Act requires schools to grant access and official recognition to a GSA (and most other student groups) if the school allows any extracurricular groups to meet on campus. SBNC denied the Yulee GSA access and official recognition even though other student organizations, such as the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, meet regularly at YHS and YMS.
“We are taking a stand today because gay students are entitled to a safe and secure education. Gay and lesbian students deserve schools that heed the rule of law,” said Robert Rosenwald, Director of the ACLU of Florida’s LGBT Advocacy Project. “These students are trying to bring a message of equality and openness, and the lesson they are being taught is that
Yulee High School administrators believe discrimination against LGBT students is an acceptable policy. Discrimination and harassment by students will never end as long as schools discriminate themselves.”
The ACLU filed the suit alleging violations of the First Amendment and the Federal Equal Access Act, and seeks a preliminary injunction to force school officials to allow the GSA to meet at Yulee High School while the litigation makes its way to trial.
The ACLU of Florida recently won a similar federal case when school officials in Okeechobee, Florida refused to allow a GSA to meet at Okeechobee High School. The judge ruled that schools must provide for the well-being of gay students and cannot discriminate against the GSA. The Okeechobee County School Board paid $326,000.00 in attorneys’ fees for refusing to follow the law in that case. You can read more about the Okeechobee case at: http://www.aclufl.org/news_events/?action=viewRelease&emailAlertID=3654
The lawsuit was filed today in the Jacksonville Division of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Robert Rosenwald, director of the ACLU of Florida’s LGBT Advocacy Project, is lead counsel for the ACLU’s case, Gay-Straight Alliance of Yulee High School v. School Board of Nassau County. LGBT Advocacy Project staff attorney Shelbi Day, ACLU of Florida legal director Randall Marshall, and associate legal director Maria Kayanan will also represent the plaintiffs.
A copy of the Complaint can be viewed at: http://www.aclufl.org/pdfs/YuleeComplaint.pdf
A copy of the motion for preliminary injunction can be viewed at: http://www.aclufl.org/pdfs/YuleePI.pdf
Students can learn more about their rights by downloading a free copy of the ACLU of Florida’s Student Rights Handbook at: www.aclufl.org.
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/02/aclu-sues-nas…
“Will of the Voters” must be obeyed – unless it embarrasses those thin skinned Marriage Ban Donors
SAN FRANCISCO — In many ways it is a typical map, showing states, highways, cities and streets.
But also dotting the online display are thousands of red arrows, marking spots from Bryn Mawr, Pa., to Jamacha, Calif., identifying the addresses of donors who supported Proposition 8, which outlawed same-sex marriage in California.
It is exactly those arrows that concern supporters of the measure, who say they have been regularly harassed since the election — with threatening e-mail messages and sometimes boycotts of their businesses.
“Some gay activists have organized Web sites to actively encourage people to go after supporters of Proposition 8,” said Frank Schubert, the campaign manager for Protect Marriage, the leading group behind the proposition. “And giving these people a map to your home or office leaves supporters of Proposition 8 feeling especially vulnerable. Really, it is chilling.”
So chilling, apparently, that supporters have filed suit in Federal District Court in Sacramento seeking a preliminary injunction of a state election law that requires donors of $100 or more to disclose their names, addresses, occupations and other personal information. In particular, the suit seeks to stop the final filing for the 2008 election, which is due Jan. 31. That filing includes donations made in the closing days of the campaign, when the proposition surged to victory.
James Bopp Jr., a lawyer from Indiana who filed the lawsuit on the behalf of Protect Marriage, said the harassment of Proposition 8 supporters violated their constitutional rights of free speech and assembly.
“The cost of transparency cannot be discouragement of people’s participation in the process,” said Mr. Bopp, who has argued several prominent cases challenging campaign-finance laws in California and other states. “The highest value in the First Amendment is speech, and some amorphous idea about transparency cannot be used to subvert those rights.”
The election law in question, the Political Reform Act of 1974, was approved by California voters as Proposition 9, and gay rights advocates say there is rich irony in supporters of Proposition 8 opposing the earlier ballot measure.
“They believe in the will of the people if it’s in tune with what they believe,” said Jennifer C. Pizer, marriage project director with Lambda Legal, the gay rights legal organization, in Los Angeles.
Opponents of Proposition 8 are also suspicious of the intent of trying to prevent donors from being identified. “Do they want to hide something?” said Shannon P. Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights in San Francisco. See Marriage Ban Donors Feel Exposed by List New York Times
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/01/will-of-voter…
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…
