Lambda Legal Marks First Anniversary of Historic California Marriage Victory

‘…denying marriage to loving and committed same-sex couples is morally wrong…’
(Los Angeles, May 15, 2009) — On the first anniversary of the California Supreme Court’s historic ruling in In re Marriages, Lambda Legal Marriage Project Director Jennifer C. Pizer issued the following statement:
“One year ago today many thousands of lesbian and gay Californians became full citizens for the first time when the state supreme court ruled that we all are equal under law and everyone – gay and straight alike – must have the same right to marry the person they love. For some of us who’d worked on the case for years, the court’s clarion clear decision gave real meaning to the California Constitution’s promise of equality. And then, as more than 18,000 same-sex couples jubilantly exercised that right all over the state, family and friends shared their joy, cried during their vows, and were changed for the better.

The court’s historic decision also paved the way for the high courts of Connecticut and Iowa, which in turn gave great boosts to the legislatures in Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire and the District of Columbia. Awareness now is dawning for great numbers of Americans that denying marriage to loving and committed same-sex couples is morally wrong and inflicts real harms—government should not be in the business of discrimination. Public opinion is shifting fast toward fairness. But no minority should have to depend on the generosity of the majority to enjoy basic rights. Proposition 8′s theft of our right to marry has advanced a broadly pernicious recasting of “equal protection” that, if upheld, puts every California minority at risk. It was a sad, knee-jerk response to the sight of couples in love celebrating their happiness.

Paper is the traditional first anniversary gift and there are two obvious examples — our constitution, torn asunder by Prop 8′s antigay exception, and the high court’s imminent decision that we hope will mend that tear. Today’s anniversary reminds us that we win in court and in life when we publicly celebrate our truth, love and joy in equal measures.”

Jennifer C. Pizer is Director of Lambda Legal’s Marriage Project and co-counsel in the cases that established same-sex couples’ right to marry in California and the pending challenge to Proposition 8.

Published by

Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/05/lambda-legal-…

How Hospitals Treat Same-Sex Couples

For same-sex couples, a ring and legal papers may not be enough to navigate the health system.
During a medical emergency, a patient’s husband, wife, parents or other family members often are close by, overseeing treatment, making medical decisions and keeping vigil at the bedside.

But what happens if the hospital won’t allow you to stay with your partner or child?

That’s the challenge many same-sex couples face during health care emergencies when hospital security personnel, administrators and even doctors and nurses exclude them from a patient’s room because they aren’t “real” family members. The issue is addressed in a new report from The Human Rights Campaign Foundation, a gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender civil rights group, and the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association. The groups have created a Healthcare Equality Index for hospitals that focuses on five key areas: patient rights, visitation, decision-making, cultural competency training and employment policies and benefits.

This year, 166 facilities across the country agreed to participate in the report, about twice as many as last year. The group says nearly 75 percent of the hospitals have policies to protect their patients from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. However, sometimes the policies aren’t correctly implemented by hospital workers. Some examples of unfair treatment of gay couples cited by the group include:

A Bakersfield, Calif., couple rushed their child to the emergency room with a 104 degree fever. The women were registered domestic partners, but the hospital only allowed the biological mother to stay with the child. Although hospitals typically allow both parents to stay with a child during treatment, in this case, the second parent was forced to stay in the waiting room.

An Oregon man whose registered domestic partner was unconscious was told to leave the hospital room because it was time for family members to make decisions about his care. He was forced to plead his case before hospital administrators before being allowed to stay with his partner, who was dying.

A woman from Washington collapsed while on vacation in Miami. Although her partner had an advanced health care directive, hospital officials told her she wasn’t a family member under Florida law. The woman spent hours talking with hospital administrators to prove that the document from her home state was, in fact, still valid in Florida. Although she eventually prevailed, her partner’s condition deteriorated and the woman died. Because of the problem, the children the patient had been raising with her partner weren’t able to see her before she died.

While heterosexual couples typically don’t have to provide marriage licenses to hospitals in order to prove they are husband and wife, same sex couples often must document their relationship to hospital officials before being allowed to take part in a partner’s care.

“There is a real disconnect between what might be a good written policy or state law and actual implementation of that policy or law,” said Ellen Kahn, family project director for the HRC. “If you’re presenting as two men in a couple and you say, ‘This is my partner. I’ll make medical decisions,’ you’re asked a lot of questions. Who is this person to you? Do you have legal documentation that verifies that? A parent, sister or nephew could have more rights under the law than a same-sex partner who has been together 20 years.”

Although many hospitals have improved their treatment of same-sex couples, partners are advised to keep legal documents close by in the event of a medical emergency. Friends should also have ready access to documents so they can fax or e-mail them if necessary.

For couples who don’t have documentation or are worried that their relationship might not be recognized during a medical emergency, the solution often is to pretend to be a sibling in order to ensure access to a partner.

“If you’re on the road and have a crisis, the word on the street is just say, ‘This is my sister,’ or ‘This is my brother,’ ” Ms. Kahn said. “Most people won’t raise an eyebrow about it unless you look very different. It’s sad that we have to think about that. Am I going to be better off saying this is my sister or this is my life partner?”

How Hospitals Treat Same-Sex Couples

May 12, 2009

Published by

Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/05/how-hospitals…

Attorneys Urge California Supreme Court To Invalidate Prop 8

Case Raises Important Legal Issues Affecting All Minority Groups

(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.”