Report from California: Rallying Against H8
I knew this rally would be different when I heard the disco music from a couple of blocks away. It wasn’t that people weren’t angry or saddened or generally disillusioned about the State Supreme Court’s decision – we were – but it felt like the whole crowd knew that even …
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-…
Verdicts upheld in murder of transgender teen
NEWARK — A state appeals court upheld the murder convictions of two East Bay men today for their roles in battering and strangling a transgender teenager after learning she was biologically male.
The killing of 17-year-old Gwen Araujo of Newark in 2002 drew national attention to incidents of violence against transgender people, which often include defense claims that the victim provoked the attack by having sex under false pretenses.
In this case, lawyers for both defendants argued that the slaying was manslaughter at most, because their clients had acted in the heat of passion when they learned the person with whom they had had oral and anal sex was born male. But the First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco ruled 3-0 that the Alameda County trial judge had defined the crimes properly to the jury, and that the panel had substantial evidence for second-degree murder convictions.
Mark Greenberg, a lawyer for defendant Michael Magidson, said he would appeal to the state Supreme Court.
See Verdicts upheld in murder of transgender teen
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/05/verdicts-uphe…
California Gay Marriage Backers to Try Again
Same-sex marriage backers in California, anticipating a loss in court, are preparing to make their case at the ballot box in 2010 rather than waiting until 2012.
“The right time is now,” San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom told ABC News. “And if that means going back in 2010, I couldn’t be more supportive.”
“Wait almost always means never,” he added, invoking Martin Luther King Jr.
California voters approved Proposition 8 in November, a change to the state constitution banning same-sex marriage. Although a decision has not yet been rendered in the legal challenge to Proposition 8, many gay marriage proponents in California expect the state Supreme Court to uphold the voter-approved ban on new gay marriages while leaving intact the gay marriages performed in 2008 when a decision of the state’s High Court had temporarily legalized the practice.
See California Gay Marriage Backers to Try Again
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/05/california-ga…
Same-sex marriage advocates brace for ‘Day of Decision’
The California state Supreme Court has one month left before it issues its decision on attempts to over turn a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriages in California.
Organizers for same sex marriage are preparing for Court’s decision by organizing “Day of Decision” rallies in communities throughout the state.
The Web site, www.dayofdecision.com, informs supporters that decisions are announced Mondays and Thursdays.
“Whatever the decision, we must act,” the Web site states.
If the Supreme Court rules as expected to allow the ban on same-sex marriage enacted by voters in November to stand, the group will gather to ensure, “our angry voices are heard around the nation.”
If the Supreme Court rules the ban is illegal, the group will gather to “celebrate a positive decision and attempt to spread its impact,” the Web site states.
“Your civil rights matter and the world needs to hear what you have to say,” the promo states.
See Same-sex marriage advocates brace for ‘Day of Decision’
Examiner.com – USA
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/05/same-sex-marr…
Minnesota Poll: A subtle shift on gay unions
With the state Supreme Court in neighboring Iowa rewriting that state’s definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, Minnesotans are divided on the subject in this state, a Star Tribune Minnesota Poll finds:
• One-third say the state needs a constitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex marriage;
• Just over one-third say that there should be no change in current state law, which bans such unions, and that it should be left to the Minnesota Supreme Court to rule on the law’s constitutionality;
• One-fourth believe same-sex marriage should be legalized.
The survey of 1,042 adults was conducted April 20-23, and has a margin of sampling error of 4 percentage points, plus or minus.
See Minnesota Poll: A subtle shift on gay unions
Minneapolis Star Tribune – * Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/05/minnesota-pol…
Court lets private schools expel lesbians
The state Supreme Court left intact Wednesday a lower-court ruling that said a private religious high school wasn’t covered by California civil rights law and could expel students it believed were lesbians.
Over Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar’s dissent, the court denied review of an appeal by parents of two girls who were expelled from a high school in Riverside County. A lawyer for the parents said the ruling, which is binding on trial courts statewide, would allow private schools to discriminate against students on any basis they chose, including sex and religion.
The girls were juniors at California Lutheran High School in the town of Wildomar when the principal, Gregory Bork, called them to his office in September 2005 and questioned them separately about their sexual orientation, after another student reported postings on their MySpace pages.
Bork suspended the girls based on their answers, and the school’s directors expelled them a month later. The girls, who later graduated from another high school, have not been identified and have not discussed their sexual orientation, said their parents’ attorney, Kirk Hanson.
The parents sued under the Unruh Act, a 1959 state law that forbids discrimination by businesses. It was amended in 2005 to include bias based on sexual orientation and someone else’s perception of sexual orientation. State education law also prohibits anti-gay bias, but that applies only to public schools.
In January, the Fourth District Court of Appeal in San Bernardino said the school is not a business but instead a social organization entitled to follow its principles.
Although California courts have defined such organizations as a Boys Club and the Rotary Club as businesses covered by the Unruh Act, the appeals court cited a 1998 state Supreme Court ruling that allowed the Boy Scouts to exclude gays and atheists. Like the Boy Scouts, the appellate panel said, a private religious school exists mainly to instill its values in young people.
See Court lets private schools expel lesbians
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/04/court-lets-pr…
Iowa gay foes pledge to reverse gay marriage
(Des Moines, Iowa) Iowa opponents of same-sex marriage say they will fight to reverse the court ruling allowing gays to wed, no matter how long it takes.
Same-sex couples began marrying Monday following the state Supreme Court ruling this month striking down a law limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples.
Republicans and social …
Grassley: Think long-term in gay marriage fight
JOHNSTON, Iowa – U.S. Sen. Charles Grassley said conservatives opposed to the Iowa Supreme Court’s gay marriage ruling should focus on long-term planning.
Grassley acknowledged he’s taking a lower profile on the issue than some Republicans, but he said that’s because a bipartisan approach is needed.
Speaking Thursday night during a taping of the public television program “Iowa Press,” Grassley argued gay marriage opponents should look toward the next election and future legislative sessions.
“It ought to be thoroughly planned,” said Grassley. “I don’t think it should be planned for just this year or next year, because this Legislature is about over. I think you ought to plan what you are going to do for the next election, for the next Legislature.”
Democratic leaders in the Legislature have opposed beginning the process of amending the Iowa Constitution to overrule the state Supreme Court’s April 3 decision. Two consecutive General Assemblies must approve a proposed constitutional amendment before it could be put to voters.
Grassley said social conservatives should begin building the political base needed to deal with the court’s decision.
“If there’s going to be any action taken contrary to the Supreme Court’s decision, then it should be to seek as broad a consensus as possible,” he said.
The four-term Republican senator said gay marriage opponents should realize the issue doesn’t break along partisan lines.
See Grassley: Think long-term in gay marriage fight Chicago Tribune * Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/04/grassley-thin…
Supreme Court takes up dispute over endorsement of gay adoption by Florida Bar’s family-law section
State Supreme Court justices critically questioned both sides today in a dispute over whether the family-law section of the Florida Bar should be allowed to legally endorse adoption for gay couples. A circuit judge in Miami threw out the statute banning adoption by gays but the case is headed for the Supreme Court. The Bar itself has not taken a position but its family-law section sought to file a “friend of the court” brief supporting the circuit court ruling. Lawyers supporting the statute objected — saying the Bar shouldn’t be using compulsory dues paid by all lawyers to fight on one side of a controversial issue.
Tallahassee attorney Barry Richard said the family section is a voluntary association and that its lawyer members have a right to take positions. But Matt Staver, representing the conservative Liberty Counsel, said Bar rules forbid lobbying on either side of a hot topic.
The attorneys argued over the distinction between lobbying the Legislature and filing a legal brief in court. They also disagreed about whether a voluntary section of the bar is restrained by the same rules applying to the full bar.
Chief Justices Peggy Quince and Justices Barbara Pariente, Fred Lewis, Charles Canady and Ricky Polston pressed Richard and Staver on the legal distinctions.
Pariente said that if the prohibition on pursuing controversial, divisive issues had been interpreted as a ban 50 years ago, the Bar could not have taken sides on racial integration. Lewis said he doesn’t think much of “friend of the court” briefs, because they are usually partisan advocacy rather than independent guidance on the law, and that the public doesn’t make a distinction between a section of the Bar and the whole Bar itself.
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/04/supreme-court…
