LGBT Orgs: don't file lawsuits leading to SCOTUS now

Prop 8 Lawsuit Press Conference on Now

FYI:

http://www.equalrightsfoundati...

---

by: StayWoke @ Wed May 27, 2009 at 11:57:37 AM CDT

posted the livestream

Thanks.  

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Wed May 27, 2009 at 12:01:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Judge

Judge is Vaughn Walker - this from the Stinque comments:

He's the judge on the wireless wiretapping case and ordered DOJ to produce info.

I've never been in front of him, but his reputation is that he's moderate and fair, and listens to both sides, which is high praise, actually.

ADD: Judge Walker has ordered DOJ to appear next Wednesday and explain why he shouldn't sanction them.

_________________

This could work out, b/c it's likely to come out of the 9th Cir. w/ the right result.  If the Supremes take the case, it'll be very difficult for them to get around the fact that: 1) other CA couples similarly situated were permitted to marry; and 2) similarly situated couples in other states can marry.

---

by: blogenfreude @ Wed May 27, 2009 at 12:03:32 PM CDT

A Few More States

I think we need to win a few more states and get the Hate Crimes expansion bill passed. Once we have "sexual orientation" in a US law it would be hard to deny us equal protection.

Something does seem odd about this. It's extremely likely that we'll win at the ballot box in 2010. We're changing public opinion. There's no reason to do this yet.

---

by: GrrrlRomeo @ Wed May 27, 2009 at 12:04:36 PM CDT

No federal lawsuit has been the unoffical policy

for national GLBT groups for a while now.  Back in 2006, an Orange County couple here in California filed a federal suit which was not taken up by the 9th Circuit Court.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0...

A federal appeals court on Friday sidestepped whether it was unconstitutional under federal and state law to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry, leaving the issue to state courts to decide.

At that time, the marriage suits were still working their way through the California court system.  That part has changed now but not the part about denial of marriage rights on the federal level.

There is the GLAD case from Massechuttes specifically addressing the denial of federal rights part of DOMA which is filed but no actions have been taken yet.
http://www.glad.org/doma/lawsuit/

---

by: Karen in Kalifornia @ Wed May 27, 2009 at 12:07:44 PM CDT

I don't think...

I don't think it is a matter of how many justices away we are, but how much we have accomplished as far as other laws that could be passed or overturned first.  Hate Crimes, ENDA, maybe a repeal of DOMA, a few more states passing marriage or civil unions.

Yea they don't have to be done before a SCOTUS decision, but they sure help the argument--not to mention helping public perception with regards to moving on to the next incremental step.

I said in another thread that I didn't like the idea of ole Ted representing us (others disagreed) because...

If he loses the case there will be a book deal entitled How I F*d over the Gays (and got paid for it!) with an introduction by Scalia.

If he wins, in 50 years the saying will be "The Republican party...the party of Lincoln and the party that got Gays the right to marry".

Either way he seems to be an opportunist for what may be one of the most groundbreaking rulings this century.

---

by: Will St. James @ Wed May 27, 2009 at 12:10:40 PM CDT

as I mentioned above

I happen to think it's too soon to move cases to SCOTUS, and the orgs have been against this kind of thing for some time. But how, pray tell, will anyone stop a lawsuit if the plaintiffs (and their counsel) are determined? (Outside of taking a bat to the knees, mafia style).

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Wed May 27, 2009 at 12:15:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I have no clue...

It is a free country after all and they have their right to bring a lawsuit if they want.  Maybe we hope that the courts find some grounds for not hearing the lawsuit.  Maybe our organizations fight against the lawsuit (how ironic is that!).  Or maybe there is some procedural move along the way to get Olson replaced as council.  I just don't know.  

I think the only thing we can do is step up our efforts to get the Senate to pass Hate Crimes and then move quickly on to ENDA--while at the same time supporting any state efforts.  If the lawsuit is going to be forced (and we have no other option), maybe we can a least try to shore up the defense as much as possible.

---

by: Will St. James @ Wed May 27, 2009 at 12:53:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Does any one know

anything about the plaintiffs?  

---

by: Charles @ Wed May 27, 2009 at 20:17:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I want to be optimistic about this

and I also want to know who is paying for this?  Are Olson and Boies doing this pro bono?  How is the "American Foundation for Equal Rights" funded?

Marriage equality as a social/legal/political issue is a cat that is not about to go back into its bag.  All this judicial and legislative activity around the country indicates to me that momentum is still cresting, and it is on our side.

---

by: Jake @ Wed May 27, 2009 at 12:14:08 PM CDT

Lawyers behind closed doors

If they are cronies with the Supreme Court Justices, who knows ?  Amazing things have happened, like Ken Star winning over the California Supreme Court Justices.

Same-Sex Marriage is good for the economy.

---

by: CharlesMerrill @ Wed May 27, 2009 at 12:19:57 PM CDT

I am HIGHLY suspicious of this.

...as well as their motivations and funding.

It's the wrong time, and we can win at the ballot box.

NO NO NO

---

by: Ben in Oakland @ Wed May 27, 2009 at 12:21:10 PM CDT

It would look bad for the lawyers

If this is a conspiracy against LGBT civil rights. We are no longer in the Bush/Karl Rove evil empire that would do something underhanded against us. The tide is changing in our favor.

Same-Sex Marriage is good for the economy.

---

by: CharlesMerrill @ Wed May 27, 2009 at 12:33:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Oh, Marys, please, spare us the paranoid delusions!

Olsen's history does make his involvement a shock but Boies' progressive credentials are impeccable.

Doesn't make their legal strategy right but we have enough real problems to deal with without imagining more.

And the main one is that THE PRESIDENT still opposes CIVIL marriage equality and DEFENDS it by throwing "God [into] the mix."

---

by: Michael Bedwell @ Wed May 27, 2009 at 12:45:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thank you.

Lawyers don't take on high-profile cases like this in order to take a dive on them.

I have no idea if this is good strategy, but I'm also fed up with the timidity of the mainstream LGBT organizations. Their unwillingness to push back when necessary is a big reason why Prop. 8 passed in the first place.

---

by: Doug @ Wed May 27, 2009 at 14:57:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I was going to say something similar.

You beat me to it.

Yes, we must stop being so timid and always waiting for the "right time," and I highly doubt that these two big-name lawyers would have taken this case if they didn't think it had a chance. Besides, is there ever a right time? Or perhaps, when it comes to civil rights, it's always the right time. If pushing this issue onto the national stage causes the fundies to flail and convulse even more than they do now, so much more the better. The more hysterical they become, the more mainstream society sees them for what they truly are.

I have misgivings about going back to the ballot box. All through the Prop. H8 fight, we were saying (correctly) that it's wrong to put the rights of a minority to a popular vote. Putting our own rights to the voters also makes us look like we're begging for them.  

Tax the Christian Taliban!

---

by: Wolfgang @ Wed May 27, 2009 at 15:32:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Wrong.

Lawyers take cases that will make the law they are trying to achieve.  If their goal is an it-is-up-to-the-states decision, then presenting it to a federal court is exactly the right vehicle and now is the right time (though the Ninth Cirucit is not the best place).  That may no be their goal, but the days of straight forward litigation without hidden agendas in the civil rights arena are long over.

---

by: tony @ Wed May 27, 2009 at 21:31:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

We Don't Have ENDA or Hate Crimes

This would not only over turn prop 8, it would overturn all same-sex marriage bans in all states.

Problem: Some of these states do not have Hate Crimes legislation or even an ENDA. Meaning you could get fired for getting married.

Loving Vs Virginia didn't come until AFTER the Civil Rights Act of 64. We need some kind of "Gay Civil Rights Act" like ENDA before marriage at the federal level.

---

by: GrrrlRomeo @ Wed May 27, 2009 at 12:24:17 PM CDT

I'm sure ENDA will get passed at some time

long after you and I and the cowards "leading" the Democratic Party are dead and moldy in the ground.

# Duty, duty -- honor is, is --
Honor, Creideiki -- alertly
# Shared, is -- Honor #

---

by: MileHighDawg @ Thu May 28, 2009 at 15:23:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Everybody is making the same error...

..in forgetting that this case will probably not reach the Supreme court for three, maybe four years.
It is not going to go before the court as it is currently constituted.
I am wary, but sorta like the idea of this.  It forces us to really get our shit together to get as many states on board as soon as possible.  There is nothing like a deadline to light a fire under people's asses.
Plus another thought:  how many of these orgs benefit by drawing this out as long as possible?

---

by: DavidinPS @ Wed May 27, 2009 at 12:27:38 PM CDT

How much will the court change, though?

Obama and other Democrats support centrist to vaguely conservative candidates and still get screams from the Republicans -- Republicans support right-wingers and the Dems roll over and play dead.  Neither dynamic is likely to move the USSC in an ethical direction.

---

by: M @ Wed May 27, 2009 at 12:48:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I agree

Let them take on the Supremes. They are well versed and are very familiar with this court. Plus in the few years that it will take to get there how much conversation will be generated about our protections in the country? I happen to think our Gay orgs. are too comfortable and need a wake up call. No more Mr. nice gay.

Come, come, my conservative friend, wipe the dew off your spectacles, and see that the world is moving."
-Elizabeth Cady Stanton

---

by: T2inDC @ Wed May 27, 2009 at 17:59:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not necessarily

It could be there in a matter of weeks.  The grant or denial of a preliminary injunction (which could easily occur in a week or less) is an order that can be immediately appealed.  Either side can ask for a stay and the grant or reject of that stay can be taken up to the court of appeals and the loser can take it to the Supreme Court.  That would result in Justice Kennedy have sole authority to make a decision on whether there should be a preliminary injunction or not while the merits of the case is decided.  He could also refer the matter to the whole court.  The "merits" of the preliminary injunction decision could also be appealed.  That could be done within nine months, with an appeal by either party to the Supreme Court in the three months thereafter.  All of that happens before the merits of the case itself are decided, which could take years to make it to the Supreme Court.

The issue is not the number of Justices favorably to our side on the court.  It really comes down to one Justice: Kennedy.  His vote would almost certainly make for five in a five to four decision... and for him it matters what the trend has been in the states.  The long term strategy on states is bearing fruit.  If there are 10 to 15 states with marriage equality, then THIS supreme court is in a good position to give us success.

What no one mentions is Bowers v. Hardwick.  In 1986 our side jumped the gun, got to the supreme court too early, and lost 5-4.  It took nearly 20 years to get that undone.

---

by: tony @ Wed May 27, 2009 at 21:40:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Aren't these all questions for Chad Griffin?

twitter.com/ChinoBlanco | youtube.com/ChinoBlanco

---

by: Chino Blanco @ Wed May 27, 2009 at 12:30:32 PM CDT

And another predictable lawsuit

The H8ers will appeal to try and invalidate the 18,000 marriages:

Rev. Lou Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition, gave a bit of a cheer when he heard the court ruling.

"This is a victory for the people. The sovereignty of the people is so important in our system of government," he said.

However, Sheldon said the issue is not settled, realizing those in favor of same-sex marriage will appeal. He said his group plans to appeal on the issue of 18,000 marriages that the court ruled will stand as is.

---

by: Kokas @ Wed May 27, 2009 at 12:44:19 PM CDT

Sorry, forgot the link

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/st...

---

by: Kokas @ Wed May 27, 2009 at 12:45:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What are they afraid of?

What is HRC, GLAAD, et.al afraid of? Are they afraid Olson and Bois could WIN at SCOTUS? There goes all those cocktail parties and spa weekends...

---

by: Mindyinlongbeach @ Wed May 27, 2009 at 12:47:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No the glbt LEGAL organizations

are afraid equality cases brought to SCOTUS would LOSE and therefore set precedence for a long long time....

Legislative advocacy groups you mention are not the main groups involved in lawsuits.

---

by: Karen in Kalifornia @ Wed May 27, 2009 at 14:54:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Please...

If HRC, GLAAD and the rest of the gay rights industry REALLY want to win, they'll welcome this. Let's remember it's going to be 3 to 5 years before this gets to SCOTUS. Before that happens, Prop 8 will probably get overturned at the ballot box, if Equality California doesn't fuck up again. This is a 'just in case' case-if Equality CA fucks up again-and frankly, I don't have much faith in them-the plaintiffs will have the case going through the Federal courts. These people don't seem to trust HRC or EQ CA, and I really don't either.  

---

by: Mindyinlongbeach @ Wed May 27, 2009 at 20:51:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Where's he going to appeal to? CA's highest court has ruled on CA law.

---

by: chiefscribe @ Wed May 27, 2009 at 13:02:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Here is why Olson is participating ...

You know how sometimes the most expert debate participants don't care what side they are on? It's the same with legal geniuses. Olson knows that this is one of the most profound legal issues of this century. As our culture evolves, gay marriage is becoming inevitable (as Bill Bennett said on the Daily Show last year).

But there is one and only one way for the Republican Right to stop that progress dead in its tracks. Yep - get the Bush Supreme Court to make a solid ruling against 'teh gay lifestyle'. That is exactly what Ted Olson is doing. Remember his whole reason for living now is to enshrine the memory of his extremely homophobic wife. He knows that if he can get the Bush Supreme Court to permanently ban gay marriage (before cultural progress intervenes), he will be hailed as one of the biggest Republican heroes in history.

---

by: Ralph4159 @ Wed May 27, 2009 at 13:13:39 PM CDT

There's no such thing

He knows that if he can get the Bush Supreme Court to permanently ban gay marriage

Sodomy laws were "permanently" ruled as permissible - until they weren't. There's no such thing as a permanent ruling, because it's always subject to being overturned by a later ruling. Sometimes even by the same people, as with Lawrence v Texas.

I started reading your post, and I was with you up until it got a little... far-fetched.

You know how sometimes the most expert debate participants don't care what side they are on? It's the same with legal geniuses. Olson knows that this is one of the most profound legal issues of this century. As our culture evolves, gay marriage is becoming inevitable (as Bill Bennett said on the Daily Show last year).

Think Denny Crayne. As long as he wins, as long as his name goes down as the breakthrough attorney for "one of the most profound legal issues of this century", I'd be willing to bet he's happy. What better way to secure his name in the history books than by bringing the winning case? And what better way to secure his legacy as an over-eager, unrealistic, and ultimately unsuccessful attorney than to lose "one of the most profound legal issues of this century"?

Sorry, your conspiracy theory just doesn't hold water for me. There's just no upside to holding a treasured place in the hearts of a scattered few. Much better to have that same place in the hearts of millions.

Cause any fool knows, a dog needs a home; a shelter from pigs on the wing

---

by: QueerInSoCal @ Wed May 27, 2009 at 13:26:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Exactly why

I was much more an Alan Shore fan...  

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners

Click here for DADT photobook

---

by: Louise @ Wed May 27, 2009 at 15:45:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The SCOTUS...

cannot "ban" marriage between same-sex couples, they can merely hold that the states and federal government are entitled to pass laws that do so.  These laws already exist and I don't believe the SCOTUS can overturn states that do not have these laws.  So I'm not sure what the big brouhaha is.

---

by: Bruno @ Wed May 27, 2009 at 13:34:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

If somebody does some digging,

and it turns out that Olson is playing to lose, as it were (with us as the losers, getting played by him), is there some legal means to stop a case being argued on bad-faith grounds?  I mean, I'd toyed in the past with the idea of pushing for ultimately pro-progressive rulings by looking for test cases where the courts would be ruling in favor of a conservative individual, but even for those I never had the gall to seriously consider bringing cases so that they could lose, which just seems horrendously unethical.

(Of course, that's not necessarily what's happening here -- Olson could have had a change of heart, or he could just be utterly convinced of his own skill and have chosen this issue as an opportunity to show how brilliant he thinks he is by winning this case.)

---

by: M @ Wed May 27, 2009 at 13:37:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

NO, no, no

Olson has already played the gambit. Most people don't understand (as Olson does) that it doesn't matter how superb his legal arguments are. That is the point. The current Bush Supreme Court won't endorse the so-called 'gay lifestyle' as a protected class. Olson knows this as he is the single attorney in the country to file briefs before the USSC dozens of times. He knows the Court intimately. Just by getting the case heard, he knows he has won for his friends like Ken Starr. I can't believe how ignorant some people are. All you have to do is dig a little and you will see who Olson's long time associates have been.

---

by: Ralph4159 @ Wed May 27, 2009 at 16:38:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

OK

so there's some far-reaching plot among the right-wing to have a tailored ruling. Please explain how Boies plays into this? Is he stupid, or is he in league, against all evidence to the contrary on both points?

If it was just Olson, I could maybe see it. But both of them? You're ascribing a deeply principled stance to a Republican lawyer. You get how contradictory that is, right? And you're ignoring that a successful liberal attorney, who has also argued in front of the SCOTUS, must be either a dupe or some kind of double agent to go along with it.

Cause any fool knows, a dog needs a home; a shelter from pigs on the wing

---

by: QueerInSoCal @ Wed May 27, 2009 at 18:02:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Too bad Aristophanes is still dead

A Greek playwright would have a field day with this.

Our community orgs, run by people who have encouraged a 'watchful waiting' approach to getting equality for our families, have apparently been blindsided by a handful of couples and their lawyers.

Since all we've heard over the last 5 years is, Wait, the timing isn't right because ________________, it's likely that these couples just made a choice to stop taking advice from our experts.

Ironically, the tide has finally shifted so that the advice might possibly result in the best-case scenario...if everyone could be made to follow it.

But since the recommendation 'Don't make waves' has not varied since early in 2004, the fact that a stopped clock is right twice a day is all we have to go on in evaluating the recommendation itself

Hubris, irony and suffering...it was more fun in the original Greek.

But wait, there's more!

---

by: PhoenixRising @ Wed May 27, 2009 at 13:13:40 PM CDT

LOL

Well, maybe this could be like Lysistrata in reverse. Let the straights control it, maybe they know how to achieve the desired ends.

---

by: kevinchi @ Wed May 27, 2009 at 13:29:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Why GLAD's logo on press release?

They have a lawsuit challenging the 2nd part of DOMA that may end up in the U.S. Supreme Court.  It's OK if they do it but no one else ?

Same-Sex Marriage is good for the economy.

---

by: CharlesMerrill @ Wed May 27, 2009 at 13:40:03 PM CDT

But Charles, they don't have control over this one...

...and part of the reason they likely oppose this move is that they aren't pulling the strings.

---

by: craigkg @ Wed May 27, 2009 at 14:57:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Because

The goal of the GLAD federal suit is to pressure Obama on his DOMA repeal promise.  There is no intention to move that suit toward any kind of quick resolution.

---

by: tony @ Wed May 27, 2009 at 21:48:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

we're missing one important thing.....

......the 14th ammendment violation could be very narrowly construed to resolve only the difference between the unequal treatment between different groups of gay couples in CA -- created by yesterday's ruling.

It would apply only to the special circumstance that only exists in California.

That would be very likely to get a favorable ruling from the 9th curcuit and because of the narrow nature of the case be would very unlikely to be accepted for review by SCOTUS.

---

by: suigenerousla @ Wed May 27, 2009 at 14:00:45 PM CDT

Which means, if the 9th Circuit struck Prop 8 down...

The ruling would stand. I suspect someone who despises the Talibangicals is behind this. Rove hates those people-OR it's someone close to Obama. I highly doubt this case is being launched to lose it. Olson's ego is so big he'll fight to win it.  

---

by: Mindyinlongbeach @ Wed May 27, 2009 at 14:12:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

indeed

follow the money.

http://EQFL.org

---

by: banshiii @ Wed May 27, 2009 at 14:34:31 PM CDT

Some interesting new info

The umbrella group that is funding this lawsuit was given seed money by Rob Reiner and Steve Bing.  Hardly right wingers. And everyone here is so focused on Olsen we are forgetting about his co-counsel Boies.  Why would he, a democrat who went head to head with Olsen in Gore V. Bush suddenly want to get involved in a Republican conspiracy?

---

by: DavidinPS @ Wed May 27, 2009 at 15:07:57 PM CDT

Norman Lear gave seed money too

---

by: DavidinPS @ Wed May 27, 2009 at 15:20:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Boies - Dem or GOP?

Is Boies a democrat? He was a member of the Young Repunlicams in college. Other than that, I haven't found anything on google to show which party he belongs to. Can anybody else shed some light on his party of choice?

Close the GayTM. Only give to candidates who have actually done something other than make promises - most are just pandering for our cash.

---

by: JohnVisser @ Wed May 27, 2009 at 17:00:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

After all the arguments against waiting on this site

I am surprised that the official position is now, "WAIT".

I have read so many article here complaining that this state or that state does not have any rights, and that we shouldn't have to wait, and then I hear another sad story that tells me to "wait" once again.  

I'm married, nothing can take that away now, but I think everyone has the right to marry, and yes I think this case should go forward.

From what I have read it is about the equal protections issue, and it would apply to CALIFORNIA and the recent decision to make a three tiered status of relationships.  The Cali Supremes knowingly created three classes of people in their decision and it IS a violation of the equal protections and due process clause.  It would NOT affect other states because no other state has a system where some gays can stay married and the rest can not marry at all.  This would be an issue where the State Constitution conflicts with the Federal constitution and it is a valid case.

I recall that prior to the Lawrence V Texas case there were protestations from our "leaders" to not take that case forward.  We did and an even more conservative court than now ruled that the sodomy rules were unconstitutional.  If we had listened to the WAIT crowd, it would still be illegal for me to have sex with my husband.  Are we really willing to just continue to sit on our hands because some group of "leaders" (who did not even dare to show GAY people in a GAY Marriage Campaign) tell us to sit and wait so they can sit and continue to take our money?  If we win these cases they are out of a job.  Seems like they want us to wait for the same reason the Cali Supremes took the cowards way out.  Job Security.    

The trollish sounding blogger formerly known as BURNSEY

---

by: R.K. Wright @ Wed May 27, 2009 at 15:37:29 PM CDT

It's risky but

it will take some time for these cases to get through the courts (assuming that it goes up to the Supremes). I suspect that we may have a 5th vote on SCOTUS depending on the narrowness of the ruling at the level.

Maybe we should take the risk and go for it. Though Ted Olson bears watching.

---

by: kevinchi @ Wed May 27, 2009 at 15:44:14 PM CDT

Translation: "Fighting legislated bigotry and injustice can wait."

Fuck that shit. We should be shouting down our so-called "leaders" and forcing them to either lead or get the hell out of the way.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même merde.

---

by: TechBear @ Wed May 27, 2009 at 16:33:01 PM CDT

Here Here!!

Sitting by patiently and whining gets us scraps!! We know full damn well that we are entitled to equal protection and equal rights, but we are afraid to take a serious stand on the big question - because we don't have confidence in our convictions, because we've been told all of our lives that we are not entitled, that we are different, that we are not worthy. Well, as TechBear so eloquently puts it, "FUCK THAT SHIT."

Stand up people and start screaming and yelling - they want to keep us in the closet and keep us quiet, and that's exactly what we shouldn't do. And before anybody says, "well why don't you stand up and start screaming and yelling?", let me tell you I have organized several protests, written over 200 letters, made over 1,000 phone calls and called out enough bigots on their bigotry to last me multiple lifetimes, and left everything behind to move to a marriage equality state just to be counted in the numbers of "gay" marriages. If we ALL did this the cacophony would be heard around the world!! But yet, I fear most of us just sit at home and blog about how crappy things are. Put down the f'ing laptop and call everyone of your senators, congressman, the white house, your governor, and call them everyday, stop spending money in states like Florida and Georgia (why the fuck any self-respecting homo would willingly attend and spend at a big gay party in homophobic states is beyond me), stop giving money to politicians just because they are democrats, make appointments to see you elected representatives and go see them, start up conversations with your friends and let them know you demand to be treated with respect and dignity (and trust me when I say you won't lose any friends over it because if they didn't already treat you with dignity and respect then they weren't really your friend in the first place), start asking a business if they support equality before you buy from them, better yet, if you know they are anti-gay (and anti-marriage is anti-gay) place a really big order that takes up lots of their time and then casually ask them if they support marriage equality - then when they give you that civil union bullshit, ask them for a referral to a pro-marriage competitor and promptly cancel you order. In other words, REFUSE TO SIT IN THE BACK OF THE BUS!!! Oh, Rosa would be so proud!!!

Hell, just this morning a stranger on the street asked me if I could spare a cigarette. I asked him how he felt about marriage equality. He replied with that oh so worn out stance that he believes gay people should have equal rights but not be able to gat marriaed. I replied, "well then I don't have a cigarette for you," as I put the pack back in my pocket and proceeded to lecture him on his hypocrisy. I don't know if I changed his mind, but at least I got him thinking about it. Anyway, my point is that so many of us are so comfortable in our little closets that we often can't find the courage to speak up. So speak up, stand out and make a difference!!!

Close the GayTM. Only give to candidates who have actually done something other than make promises - most are just pandering for our cash.

---

by: JohnVisser @ Wed May 27, 2009 at 18:01:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Seems the problem is...

others went right around them.  

Come, come, my conservative friend, wipe the dew off your spectacles, and see that the world is moving."
-Elizabeth Cady Stanton

---

by: T2inDC @ Wed May 27, 2009 at 18:09:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Absolutely!!!!!!!!!

It is time for a revolution in the thinking about how to achieve equality! Why would we think that society is going to give us the time of day, when our own leaders tell us to wait our turn.

I echo TechBear's sentiments exactly: FUCK THAT SHIT!!!

---

by: JimWatson @ Wed May 27, 2009 at 19:38:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Exactly, they just lost the Prop 8 case for us

and I was not impressed with their arguments/presentation.  Maybe it's time for someone else to take charge.

---

by: exfundie @ Thu May 28, 2009 at 18:21:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Considering how the right loves

to use Obama's opposition against us, if it becomes precedent that the SCOTUS is against us, it will be far worse. I think a lot of people are underestimating the ripple effect we'll get from a loss.

I am the lizard queen!

---

by: RainbowPhoenix @ Wed May 27, 2009 at 17:19:42 PM CDT

With my limited knowlegde I agree

What Rainbow points out is exactly why GLBT legal organizations are against this move.

---

by: Karen in Kalifornia @ Wed May 27, 2009 at 17:23:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

ripple effect of a loss? rage!

Amen J.V.!  I am through with fear and paralyzing "what if" scenarios and Machiavellian "strategy" by self-appointed LGBT leaders/organizations.  The marriage equality movement - our struggle for equal civil rights - is organic and wild and powerful.  

The vision of LGBT organizations was limited primarily to ENDA type laws for years.  Civil unions were tentatively, timidly on their "to do" list, but marriage certainly wasn't on the radar.  And Transgender rights?  Please, wait your turn!  Then the Clinton administration fumbled abominably, and DADT and DOMA became law.  Now the positive backlash has been coming to a head for several years, including the Lawrence vs. Texas case decision in 2003, anti-bullying laws, and marriage equality in five states.  The Matthew Shepard Act is on the horizon, and the pressure is on for DADT repeal too.  And our allies' ranks have swelled exponentially.

What if there was a loss at SCOTUS?  Imagine the ripple effect?  Yes - imagine the rage!  The protests would make those in CA and around the country after yesterday's Prop. 8 ruling look like wine & cheese parties.  Imagine what you would do if the Supremes affirmed that we are second-class citizens.  What would happen if they allowed prejudice and religious doctrine to direct civil law?  If they provided a pretzel-twisted interpretation of the 14th amendment to fit a bogus conclusion?  Activism would go through the roof.

Let's challenge the bullshit at every city clerk's office, every state legislature, every court, and demand that our full humanity be acknowledged.  Let's stop trying to control and hedge our progress, just as we have been controlled and limited by discriminatory laws and bigoted minds.  I too like TechBear's eloquent summation.  Fuck this shit!  (And that's what I'm putting on my sign, not some polite, "please give me my rights" crap.)  


Listen to your fairy Godmother, my dear: you will go to the ball.

---

by: 555catnap @ Thu May 28, 2009 at 00:24:14 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Imagine how far we would be set back.

It would be on record that the SCOTUS thinks the fourteenth amendment doesn't apply to us. Imagine having that thrown in our face for at least twenty years. A loss here would take even more time to undo than Romers. Things will be far more difficult in state courts. Last but not least, homophobic legislators would have an very strong piece of ammo to use against us.

I am the lizard queen!

---

by: RainbowPhoenix @ Thu May 28, 2009 at 00:29:27 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't think we'd be set back much, cuz ...

With respect, RP, we clearly disagree.  For me, this is the kind of catastrophizing that I believe keeps us paralyzed.  I'm a cranky nearly 50-something who has been agitating off and on since I came out in '83.  I'm done with crumbs and waiting.  I want my Harvest Day tofurkey dinner, and I want it now.  

Agreed, a negative ruling would provide ammo for anti-LGBT discrimination, but to my mind, relatively weak ammo.  The ruling would not nullify existing LGBT protections or state-sanctioned same-sex marriage, nor prevent more states from approving same-sex marriage.  And that is the trend.  A contributor on Keith Olbermann's show last week said (paraphrasing) that when pollsters ask people under 40 what they think of gay marriage, most respond that they think we should be able to marry.  (I think the stats are not actually that good.)  And he said that when people under 30 are asked, they don't even understand why anyone is asking the question.  The latter part sounds about right to me.  We've won the culture war with youth, and as fogies my age and older die out, the future will only get brighter.  As with other crap rulings over its history, SCOTUS will only make itself ridiculous if in a few years it bends and breaks constitutional law to accommodate bigotry.  Ill-founded law is corrosive, and it doesn't stop social evolution.

Listen to your fairy Godmother, my dear: you will go to the ball.

---

by: 555catnap @ Thu May 28, 2009 at 01:22:04 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Undoing precedent takes time.

Undowing Bowers took 17 years. It came two years before I was born, and was undone just in time for me to accept my own sexuality. If we lose here, it will take even longer. How many states now have amendments against us? How many of those ban alternate recongition? How many of those prevent us from even drawing up legal papers to try to get SOME protection? A loss here will mean the people in those states will be stuck in that situation even longer. Surely you remember during the debate in the Maine when Obama's opposition was invoked to prove that this isn't a civil rights issue. People are already buying that. A ruling stating such by the body who's job is to define these things will be even more damaging. Do you think we can afford that damage in states where even one vote in the legislator could make or break us?

I am the lizard queen!

---

by: RainbowPhoenix @ Thu May 28, 2009 at 06:08:09 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Point 7 from the press release

From freedomtomarry.org: Neither court decisions nor legislatures can make effective, enduring change in a democratic republic as diverse as this one unless people either come to agree with the change or to accept that it is required by an important higher principle.  That was true with racial segregation, it was true with sex discrimination, and it will be true with discrimination against same-sex couples in marriage.

Changing the law through court decisions based on fundamental principles of fairness and equality helps persuade people that change is the right thing.  But the most powerful agent of change in America is people.  

This seems to be one of the key talking points, and I don't get it at all.  SCOTUS decided Brown v. Board in 1954, yet explicit racial segregation in public accommodations didn't end for some time, and society is still segregated.  If you were to use legislation and legal actions as a guide, we've been in a kick-ass post-racial, post-gender society for some time now.  And yet...... no.

It is absolutely true that courts and legislatures can't change society.  However, governments can (and occasionally will) do the right thing regardless of what the majority thinks.  I'm not sure that this isn't the rule, rather than the exception.  In some cases, courts can give society a nudge in the right direction.  These organizations are correct that SCOTUS can't end discrimination against same-sex couples.  However, legalized gay marriage really would help us.  If we wait for society to change in spite of the government, there's really no point in having a constitution that protects the rights of minorities.

I'm not particularly optimistic about our chances before SCOTUS, but this idea that we have to wait all or most society is behind us?  Call me a bitter transsexual lesbian woman, but I call BS.

---

by: eastsidekate @ Wed May 27, 2009 at 17:55:17 PM CDT

I expected better.....

I've just recently become a reader here, but haven't previously commented. Frankly, after reading about The Dallas Principles I expected better of the LGBT community. It is time to move our push for equality forward. Let me reiterate something from the Dallas Principles: TIME FOR FULL CIVIL RIGHTS FOR THE LGBT COMMUNITY. NO DELAY, NO EXCUSES.

I am much more suspect of the alphabet soup of rights organizations that have held off on federal suits because "the timing isn't right." Once we achieve equality, what will they do? Something useful, I hope! But at this point, many of them are huge money making machines that are perpetuated by the injustice that is MY life today. I'm TIRED of people telling me to take the proverbial seat at the back of the bus.

Some say, "if SCOTUS rules against us, it will set gay rights back for a long time." How long, I ask you? As long as it takes to achieve equality. BUT WHAT IF.....what if SCOTUS rules in favor of marriage equality? Think of the future and smile, for a brighter day is coming!

---

by: JimWatson @ Wed May 27, 2009 at 19:32:42 PM CDT

they're playing a strategy game

I did check with one of the organizations on the communiqué; their lawyers think (1) there's no more remedy in California law but (2) they don't want to risk a defeat at the U.S. Supreme Court. I would hope, at least, they'd try to quash the Olsen lawsuit before going out with a better plaintiff.

And that's the thing that this little admonition kind of ignores: most major cases aren't someone getting up and saying, "Hey! Let's have a lawsuit!" There's the whole issue of standing and ripeness, which means most Federal courts won't want to hear it or will toss it on the first motion to dismiss if there's nothing to it.

Most major cases would be someone with real standing, that is, a real grievance, a Clarence Lee Gideon, a John Geddes Lawrence, Fred Korematsu. Picture a lesbian couple from California getting in an accident in, say, Oklahoma, and being denied hospital access, and maybe having their kids taken away, because Oklahoma recognizes no same-sex partnerships nor adoptions. They would have very real grounds to sue, in a Federal court, under the Art. IV privileges-and-immunities clause -- and they wouldn't be asking anybody's permission. All they need is cause, standing and a lawyer.

---

by: coram nobis @ Wed May 27, 2009 at 22:02:13 PM CDT

issues that seem to be overlooked in the comments

1. We do not know yet how broad or narrow the challenge will be. From the comments I have seen (haven't had yet read the transcript) in the newspapers, it seems that the challenge will be narrow to just Prop 8. In that case, I would guess it would be on the basis of Romer v. Evans. And I would not worry in that case, because I would guess that the majority of the federal Supremes would be on board. If the issues raised will be the broad ones, that would be problematic. However, since we have not seen the actual filings, we need to wait.

2. The suit won't be in front of the Supremes tomorrow. It will take some time to get there. As someone above posted, it will probably make it to the Circuit Court, and then might get a rehearing en banc. And only then will cert to the Supremes be filed. And they need to decide to actually choose that case out of about 5,000 others that will also be waiting.

3. If Olson does release a book "How I screwed up the gays," he could be disbarred for unprofessional and unethical conduct.

---

by: avocado @ Wed May 27, 2009 at 23:29:38 PM CDT

The Iowa Supreme Court's Ruling.

has to be taken into consideration as well as the California Supreme Court's ruling back in May of 2008.  Both of these courts ruled that banning Same-Sex couples from civil marriage violated their constitutions.  That is why the California Constitution needed to be amended.

The calls from the religious right organization demanding that the US Constitution needs to be amended have been loud and clear.  They all know there is nothing in the US constitution that says Same-Sex Marriage is illegal.  This move by Boise and Olson will force the religious folks to provide a strong argument and pointing out just where in the US constitution denying marriage equality exists.

Look at the rulings by the court in New Jersey.  Their court order forced the legislature to address the issue of the inequality by denying same-sex couples any form of recognition.  The NJ legislature enacted state law for Civil Unions.

Granted I am not a lawyer, but I believe this is a good time for a federal court challenge.  At a minimum, this could force the entire country to recognize civil unions and must be treated equally to civil marriage.

And then the issue of marriage of same-sex couples to be up to the states.  We all know that groups like NOM will go batshit crazy because every state will have to recognize Civil Unions of Teh Gay people, which means they will have to admit that Teh Gay people exist.  Then leads to how screwed up, discriminating, and bigotted religious organizations truly are.

I see this as a win for the LGBT community.

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

---

by: HappyCat @ Thu May 28, 2009 at 05:18:14 AM CDT