L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center to President Obama: ‘We Need Action and We Need It Now!’
Center CEO Welcomes Obama to L.A. With Open Letter, Urging Him to Fulfill Campaign Promises and Speak Out in Favor of LGBT Equality
LOS ANGELES, CA — The L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center’s Chief Executive Officer Lorri L. Jean released the following letter to President Barack Obama today:
Welcome to California, Mr. President. I welcome you with a heavy heart because of the California Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Prop. 8, relegating same-sex couples to second-class status and denying us that most noble promise of America, “liberty and justice for all.”
You are arriving in Los Angeles on the heels of emotional demonstrations throughout California and our nation and your silence at such a time speaks volumes. LGBT people and our allies have the “audacity to hope” for a country that treats us fairly and equally and for a President with the will to stand up for those ideals. From you we expect nothing less.
We know the country faces many serious challenges and we have strived to be patient. We’ve waited for the slightest sign you would live up to your promise to be a “fierce advocate” for our equal rights while watching gay and lesbian members of the armed forces, who have never been more needed, get discharged from the military. And so far you have done nothing. No stop loss order. No call to cease such foolish and discriminatory actions that make our nation less safe.
You pledged to repeal the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, Mr. President. You promised to support a “complete repeal” of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act and pledged to advocate for legislation that would give same-sex couples the 1,100+ federal rights and benefits we are denied, including the same rights to social security benefits. You said, “Federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples.”
What of those promises, Mr. President?
Your commitment to repeal DOMA has been removed from the White House Web site. Your promise to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was removed and then replaced with a watered-down version. And in the aftermath of yesterday’s California Supreme Court ruling, you have remained silent while your press secretary summarily dismisses questions about the issue.
We not only need to hear from our President, we need his action. And we need it now.
We need your words, Mr. President. But we also need your deeds. We expect you to fulfill the promises you made to us. As Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. taught us, “Justice too long delayed is justice denied.” Do not delay, Mr. President. The time for action is now.
Sincerely, Lorri L. Jean Chief Executive Officer L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center
| Published by |
 |
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/05/la-gay-lesbia…
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…
BAN ON CIVIL UNIONS AT THE PUBLIC BOARDWALK PAVILIO N IN OCEAN GROVE, NEW JERSEY IS DISCRIMINATORY, RULES STATE DIVISION ON CIVIL RIGHTS
The Division ruled that the couple, Harriet Bernstein and Luisa Paster, have “probable cause” to claim that the ban violates New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination. Today’s opinion was based on the boardwalk pavilion’s being public by nature of its historic use, open to everyone for decades without restrictions. In fact, the Camp Meeting Association had for years advanced that very argument, by applying for – and receiving – state tax breaks under New Jersey’s “Green Acres” program that requires facilities to be open and nondiscriminatory to all.
As the Division on Civil Rights ruled today, the Camp Meeting Association’s ban was discriminatory because it has prohibited same-sex civil unions at the public boardwalk pavilion, but not opposite-sex marriages.
The decision in the latest in a series of blows to the Camp Meeting Association’s campaign to discriminate against same-sex couples. In September 2007, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection ended the Camp Meeting Association’s tax breaks for the public boardwalk pavilion area, based on the Association’s discriminatory ban on civil unions.
Garden State Equality and Ocean Grove United have been relentless in leading grassroots opposition to the ban – Garden State Equality at the statewide level and Ocean Grove United at the local level. The couple, Harriet Bernstein and Luisa Paster, are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey.
“Though we’re not home free yet, today’s decision by the Corzine Administration is a significant victory for liberty and justice for all in Ocean Grove,” said Steven Goldstein, chair of Garden State Equality. “The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association has only itself to blame for pursuing a lawsuit that will cost it hundreds of thousands of dollars – and potentially millions of dollars in potential tourism to Ocean Grove, known across the country as a leading LGBT-friendly destination.
“The question is, how much more hell will the Camp Meeting Association, and its national right-wing extremist backers, put the good people of Ocean Grove through? We all know how this saga will wind up. The boardwalk will eventually be re-open to civil unions. Our side is winning juncture after juncture in this case because the law is overwhelmingly on our side. It’s time for the Camp Meeting Association to see the handwriting on the pavilion, and end its discriminatory ban now.”
In a second complaint against the Camp Meeting Association, the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights today ruled there was no probable cause, based solely on the timing of the complaint by the same-sex couple involved there, Jan Moore and Emily Sonnessa. They filed their complaint once the Camp Meeting Association decided to ban both opposite-sex weddings and same-sex civil unions at the boardwalk pavilion, thus preempting the question of discrimination against civil union couples.
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/01/ban-on-civil-…
