Maine voters to pass judgment on gay marriage
(Portland, Maine) Gay marriage has lost in every single state in which it has been put to a popular vote. Come Election Day, gay-rights supporters are hoping to make Maine the exception.
In a referendum that is being closely watched around the country and has drawn millions in out-of-state dollars, Maine …
Tags: Election Day, Gay Maine, gay marriage, Gay Portland, gay rights, Judgment, Lost, Maine Marriage, Maine Voters, marriage, Popular Vote, Portland Maine, Referendum, Rights Supporters, State Dollars, State MaineStonewall Democrats Executive Director stepping down
(Washington, D.C.) Jon Hoadley announced on Monday that he will be stepping down from his position as Executive Director of the Stonewall Democrats the Advocate reports.
Hoadley will be stepping down in order to help the Kalamazoo, Mich.-based group One Kalamazoo protect the city’s nondiscrimination ordinance. A popular vote determining the …
Tags: Advocate, Executive Director, Hoadley, Kalamazoo, Nondiscrimination, Popular Vote, Stonewall Democrats, Washington D CDC Panel Hears Arguments On Gay Marriage Referendum Washington Post -
The battle over same-sex marriage in the District moved to the city election board yesterday as supporters and opponents packed into a hearing room to debate whether the city should put the issue on the ballot.
The D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics, which currently has two members and one vacancy, will determine whether voters should have a chance in a referendum to block a bill legalizing same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.
The board heard four hours of testimony yesterday and is expected to make a decision Friday or early next week.
Both sides presented legal and political arguments about whether the same-sex marriage issue should be in the hands of voters or the politicians who represent them.
“All we are asking for is a public debate,” said the Rev. Dale Wafer, a supporter of the referendum and a minister with the Harvest, a religious community in Northeast Washington. “We are not afraid of a debate. All we want is a public debate.”
Philip E. Pannell, a longtime gay rights advocate and Democratic Party activist, accused referendum supporters of “advocating for a popular vote that will give vent to public homophobia.”
See DC Panel Hears Arguments On Gay Marriage Referendum Washington Post -
* Tags = gay religion gay Christian gay jew gay mengay men
| Published by |
 |
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/06/dc-panel-hear…
Artist Known for Gay Subjects ‘Outed’ As Prop. 8 Supporter
An artist known for her gay-themed work has inspired controversy for having made a $1,000 contribution to proponents of California’s Proposition 8, the ballot initiative that put the rights of gay and lesbian families up to popular vote and saw those rights taken away last November by a slim majority at the ballot box.
LoHud.com reported in a Feb. 5 article that Chappaqua, NY artist Maureen Mullarkey, whose paintings have drawn on Pride events and cross-dressing performers as subject material, had made the contribution to the anti-gay side of the ballot initiative, shocking and angering many in the GLBT community.
Said David Juhren of GLBT group LOFT, “There’s something very duplicitous in making money through depiction of the LGBT community through her art [which then is donated to an anti-gay cause],” the article reported.
Added Juhren, who serves as LOFT’s director of communications, “She’s relatively well-known, and that’s why it’s kind of a slap in the face.” See Artist Known for Gay Subjects ’Outed’ As Prop. 8 Supporter
EDGE Boston, MA Illustration: Porp. 8 supporter Maureen Mullarkey’s art draws on gay Pride and drag artists
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/02/artist-known-…
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…
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…
SURPRISE: Calif. AG: Overturn Proposition 8
SAN FRANCISCO — State Attorney General Jerry Brown, in a surprise turnabout, asked the California Supreme Court on Friday to overturn Proposition 8, saying the voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage violates basic rights guaranteed in the state Constitution.
Brown, who is required to defend state laws unless he cannot find reasonable legal grounds to do so, said after Prop. 8 passed Nov. 4 that he would support the initiative before the state’s high court.
But in a lengthy filing late Friday, he argued that the constitutional amendment was “inconsistent with the guarantees of individual liberty” in California’s governing charter.
“Proposition 8 must be invalidated because the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification,” Brown said.
The authors of the state Constitution, he said, did not intend “to put a group’s right to enjoy liberty to a popular vote.”
Hours earlier, sponsors of Prop. 8 filed arguments asking the court to uphold the ballot measure, which passed with a 52 percent majority. Andrew Pugno, attorney for the Yes on 8 campaign, said he was disappointed by Brown’s stance.
“It’s unfortunate that the attorney general would not do his duty to defend the will of the voters,” Pugno said.
The position of the attorney general, the state’s top lawyer, ordinarily carries considerable weight with the court. Brown’s office was on the losing side, however, when the court overturned California’s previous ban on same-sex marriage in May.
Asked about his change of position, Brown said Friday evening that since his initial comments the day after the election, he and senior lawyers in his office had looked closely at the court’s precedents and at the recent marriage ruling and concluded they couldn’t defend Prop. 8.
“We have a conflict between the amendment power (through voter initiatives) and the duty of the Supreme Court to protect minorities and safeguard liberty,” Brown said.
Fundamental rights in the state Constitution, including the right to marry that the state’s high court has recognized, “become a dead letter if they can just be amended” by popular vote, Brown said.
The Yes on 8 forces’ brief was filed by Kenneth Starr, the former Whitewater special prosecutor and now dean of Pepperdine University law school. He argued that the court should preserve the people’s lawmaking powers by upholding the initiative and invalidating 18,000 same-sex weddings performed before the election.
Prop. 8 “does not broadly seek to diminish or eliminate the constitutional or civil rights of gays and lesbians,” but is simply “about restoring and maintaining the traditional definition of marriage,” Starr said. Decades of legal precedents, he said, require “judges - as servants of the people - to bow to the will of those whom they serve.”
The court ruled 4-3 on May 15 that California’s ban on same-sex marriage violated the constitutional rights of gays and lesbians to marry the partner of their choice and discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation. Prop. 8 amended the state Constitution to overturn the ruling and declare that only marriage between a man and a woman is “valid or recognized in California.”
The court is reviewing lawsuits filed by gay and lesbian couples and by an array of local governments, led by San Francisco, that contend the ballot measure exceeded the legal limits on initiatives by destroying fundamental rights and stripping judges of their authority to protect a historically persecuted minority.
Such profound changes, the plaintiffs argue, amount to a constitutional revision - not merely an amendment - and require a two-thirds vote of the Legislature to reach the ballot.
The justices could hear the cases as early as March and would be required to rule within 90 days. Other interested parties on both sides are scheduled to submit written arguments Jan. 15.
Starr argued Friday that Prop. 8 is a relatively modest measure and not the type of far-reaching change that qualifies as a constitutional revision.
“It simply reinstates the traditional definition of marriage without any impact on the foundational powers of government,” he wrote. Judges, Starr said, retain their power to interpret the law and have never held a “mandate to protect minority rights or ensure equality apart from the law.”
He also said Prop. 8’s language, declaring that only marriages between men and women are “valid or recognized,” invalidates all same-sex marriages conducted in California and bars the state from acknowledging those performed elsewhere. That intention was underscored by Yes on 8 ballot arguments declaring that only opposite-sex marriages would be recognized in the state “regardless of when or where performed,” Starr said.
Brown disagreed on that issue as well, saying in his brief that Prop. 8 did not explicitly state it would apply retroactively. If upheld, he said, the measure should be interpreted to apply only to marriages performed since it passed.
The attorney general agreed with Starr that the ballot measure is not a constitutional revision and does not weaken judicial powers. But Brown said Prop. 8 conflicts with the Declaration of Rights, the basic guarantees of liberty declared in the first sentences of California’s Constitution.
As the “chief law officer of the state,” Brown said in his brief, he is “duty bound to uphold the whole of the Constitution” and not merely the power of the people to change the laws by initiative.
The case is Strauss vs. Horton, S168047. E-mail Bob Egelko at begelko@sfchronicle.com.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/12/20/MN6514RNVU.DTL
This article appeared on page A - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2008/12/surprise-cali…
