Should Proposition 8 recall be put to voters in 2010?
Marriage-equality advocates are split about the timing of a ballot question to overturn the California’s Proposition 8 constitutional marriage ban. Some major backers, including David Bohnett, believe it’s better to postpone a possible 2010 vote rather than risk another defeat. But an informal poll of leaders affiliated with the Courage Campaign shows support for putting the repeal question on next year’s ballot. The deadline to file the question with the state attorney general is Sept. 25. The New York Times (7/26) , San Francisco Chronicle/Politics blog (7/25)
| Published by |
 |
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/07/should-propos…
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…
Legal Groups, City of West Hollywood to Host Viewing of Oral Arguments in Proposition 8 Challenge
(West Hollywood, March 2, 2008) — Lambda Legal, the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Center for Lesbian Rights and the City of West Hollywood will host a viewing of oral arguments in the Proposition 8 legal challenge on Thursday, March 5, 2009 at West Hollywood Auditorium, followed by a press conference…
Attorneys for same-sex couples, civil rights organizations and the state Attorney General’s office will appear before the California Supreme Court on March 5 to urge the court to strike down Proposition 8. At issue in the case is whether the initiative process can be used to strip lesbian and gay couples of equal treatment under the law by taking away their fundamental right to marry. Because the case has serious implications for any minority group, 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.
Community leaders and other members of the public, along with attorneys for the groups challenging Proposition 8, will be available for interview at the viewing of the oral arguments, which will be televised live. Following oral arguments, attorneys as well as representatives of friends of the court groups will hold a news conference at the auditorium to give their reaction to the day’s events and put them into perspective.
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/03/legal-groups-…
Bill would ban adoptions by unwed couples
The state had an infant, 2 weeks old, 10 weeks premature, HIV positive and abandoned at a hospital. The child wasn’t expected to live long but needed 24-hour care and parental nurturing.
Would they take the baby, asked the social worker who had evaluated and approved them for foster care.
“That was a Friday. We garage-saled all weekend and picked him up that Monday,” Morgan said. The couple later adopted the boy.
“Now we have this beautiful, healthy, happy, totally normal 18-year-old son. You tell me — what’s wrong with that?”
Morgan said he and his partner were the first openly gay couple to adopt in Tennessee.
If bills introduced in the Tennessee House and Senate this session succeed in the state’s new, Republican-dominated legislature, unmarried couples — gay and straight — could be barred from adopting.
People on both sides of the issue say their primary concern is the welfare of children. But that’s where the agreement ends about who should and should not be able to adopt in Tennessee.
The bills’ advocates say that Tennessee law was never intended to allow unmarried couples to adopt but that the state attorney general and Department of Children’s Services interpreted it incorrectly.
It’s clear children belong in “traditional” families, they say.
But those who oppose the bills say they would leave more children lingering in a state system that has made strides since a court ordered Tennessee to more swiftly connect eligible children with adoptive families.
“Remember that children in foster care don’t typically have a line of people going around the block waiting to adopt them,” said Adam Pertman, executive director of the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute.
See Bill would ban adoptions by unwed couples
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/03/bill-would-ba…
Ore. AG to investigate gay mayor’s affair with intern
(Portland, Oregon) The state’s attorney general agreed Wednesday to investigate claims made by the mayor of Portland that he lied to cover up a sexual relationship with an 18-year-old boy.
Portland Mayor Sam Adams admitted this week that he lied to cover up his relationship with a teenage legislative intern because …
Tags: Attorney General, Gay Mayor, Gay Portland, Legislative Intern, Oregon Attorney, Oregon State, Portland Mayor, Portland Oregon, Sam Adams, Sexual Relationship, State Attorney
