Where? Adair County supervisors demand Iowa gay marriage ban! Where?
The Adair County Board of Supervisors has passed a resolution demanding that the Iowa Legislature take action to either end same-sex marriage in Iowa, or let the public vote on the matter.
Chairman Clifford Sheriff read the resolution before the board’s vote this morning.
“Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Adair County Board of Supervisors demand that the Iowa (Legislature) resolve this issue by either passing legislation that will lead to a public vote to amend the Iowa Constitution or by passing legislation to confirm Iowa Code Section 595.2 to the Iowa Supreme Court (decision) in Varnum and Brien,” Chairman Sheriff read aloud.
The section of law Sheriff referenced is the 1998 “Defense of Marriage Act” which most legal scholars argue has been voided by the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision. The five-member Adair County Board of Supervisors passed their resolution, without debate.
“I’ll move we approve the resolution for review of the Defense of Marriage Act,” one of the supervisors said.
Another quickly added his “second” to move the process forward.
“We have a first and a second to approve the resolution,” Chairman Sheriff announced. “All in favor signify by saying, ‘Aye,’” Sheriff advised and all five replied in the affirmative.
The supervisors then continued with their board meeting.
A few Iowa city councils and county boards of supervisors have pondered similar resolutions against gay marriage. In February — two months before the Iowa Supreme Court ruling legalized gay marriage — the Sioux City City Council passed a resolution urging state legislators to set the date for a statewide vote on a constitutional amendment which would ban gay marriage.
See
Adair County supervisors demand statewide vote on gay marriage
Radio Iowa* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
 |
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/05/where-adair-c…
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…
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-…
More than 50 other California labor organizations Oppose Prop 8
The California Federation of Labor and more than 50 other California labor organizations filed friend–of–the–court briefs in support of Lambda Legal’s position that Prop 8 is invalid. Joining them through other briefs were civil rights and community groups, California municipalities, leading legal scholars and nearly a thousand religious organizations and faith leaders. National Marriage Project Director Jenny Pizer says the labor brief is “putting a special emphasis on how high the stakes are here for everybody in California.” Read the Contra Costa Times article and more in Lambda Legal’s “In the News.”
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/03/more-than-50-…
Equality California Launches Statewide TV Ad Campaign on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Movement
Ad to inspire Californians as EQCA continues efforts to achieve full equality
SAN FRANCISCO – Equality California (EQCA) today launched a television ad campaign that will air statewide on the history of the Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual and Transgender (LGBT) movement. The ad educates Californians about the discrimination faced by LGBT people throughout history to provide hope for the future.
“This ad shines a light on some of the many ugly chapters in history that LGBT people have endured, to inspire people to remain committed and unified as we change hearts and minds to achieve full equality,” said Geoff Kors, Executive Director of Equality California.
“This ad not only serves as an educational tool but also helps generate and advance conversations so that ultimately we foster an environment where everyone is treated with dignity and respect.”
This week the California Supreme Court will hear the legal challenge against Proposition 8, the ballot initiative which stripped same-sex couples of the right to marry. The National Center for Lesbian Rights lead counsel, with co-counsel Lambda Legal and the ACLU, filed this challenge on November 5, representing Equality California, whose members include many same-sex couples who married after the Court ruled that the state can no longer exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on May 15, 2008.
Hundreds of religious organizations, civil rights groups, and labor unions, along with numerous California municipal governments, bar associations, and leading legal scholars collectively urged the California Supreme Court to strike down Proposition 8.
To view the ad, please visit: www.eqca.org/hope.
Equality California (EQCA) is the largest statewide lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights-organization. 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. http://www.eqca.org/ * Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/03/equality-cali…
Groundswell of Support in California
On January 21, Lambda Legal and our sister legal organizations filed our answer to roughly 20 friend–of–the–court briefs submitted to the California Supreme Court by far-right legal and religious groups supporting Prop 8. Filed on behalf of petitioners, our brief debunks the arguments supporting Prop 8 and highlights the new consensus that Prop 8 was not valid and, if upheld, would threaten legal protections for all minorities. More than 40 amicus briefs support our position and speak for nearly a thousand religious organizations and faith leaders, scores of civil rights and community groups, many California municipalities and leading legal scholars. Also included were more than 50 California labor organizations — representing nearly 6 million working men and women, two current and former California legislators, 66 bar associations and many others. California businesses — including Google, Levi Strauss & Co. and the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce — representing thousands of businesses employing millions of workers, also submitted a brief. They argue that allowing minority groups to be targeted using a simple majority vote is bad for business.
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/02/groundswell-o…
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…
