LGBT Groups Who Opposed the Federal Case Against Prop 8 Now Want to Join In - Too Little Too Late?

Something to Think About

---

by: StayWoke @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 15:51:30 PM CDT

They want to be part of the glory

because donations will suffer going to AFER.    
Although the head of ACLU California is great and her husband is a Federal judge that wants gay marriage.
Good for Chad Griffin who got the ball rolling and did all the ground work.  Glad he won't let the others in wanting to ride on the D.C. insiders Olson/Boies (AFER) apron strings.  


Same-Sex Marriage is good for the economy.

---

by: CharlesMerrill @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 16:07:19 PM CDT

I agree completely.

I am not interested in picking up crumbs of compassion thrown from the table of someone who considers himself my master. I want the full menu of rights.  -Archbishop Desmond Tutu

---

by: QScribe @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 16:59:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'll third.

I was a little peeved when all those groups came joined in arm and arm and said "Queer rights should wait." I mean really, I had my doubts about Olson (serious doubts including the old conspiracy theory), but I think if they didn't like the lawsuit they should have at least kept quiet.

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 @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 19:19:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Couldn't agree more

This suit is pretty much a slam dunk because it only deals with the two systems of gay couple recognition in CA.  Because of this unique situation and its limited effect, SCOTUS will not hear the appeal after the 9th circuit strikes 8 down.

---

by: suigenerousla @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 09:47:49 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Most likely yes-check the Pledge of Allegiance case

if you're wondering about process.

Now, there is a political element to the cert grant as well, but I'm optimistic.

But wait, there's more!

---

by: PhoenixRising @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 10:01:38 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'd imagine their primary goal is to slow down the Republicans' progress in racing this to an unfriendly Court.

And, if that is what they're doing, then, as always, the people who won us every single right that we enjoy today, are continuing to do their job.

I am extremely grateful that these groups exist, I am extremely thankful for their forty years of advocacy that have made all of our lives infinitely better, and I am extremely relieved that they are still doing their job by doing all they can to presumably derail the Republican plan to destroy all of our progress.

I will not cheer on Chad Griffin -- whoever that is -- and I will certainly not cheer on Ted Olson, whose entire career history has been working to the detriment of everyone in the United States of America up to and including overthrowing democracy itself in 2000.  I'm sticking with the plan that continues to work, not the one that's designed to fail.  I'm sticking with my friends, not strangers and enemies.

---

by: diablorobotico @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 10:15:16 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

What?

They advised Robin Tyler/Dianne Olsen not to bring the original case to the CA Supreme Court. And Robin ignored them getting Gloria Allred's law firm to win it. I have been to the symposiums sponsored by the Williams Institute and have heard the arguments from LGBT legal groups, Marriage Equality groups, say "it will be 30 years" to get a ruling from the Supreme Court on DOMA.  This translated into, "we can milk the community for funds for the next 30 years on this issue alone".  Minter made a poor inexperienced and weak showing against Ken Starr.  Olson could defeat the court saavy Starr.  

Same-Sex Marriage is good for the economy.

---

by: CharlesMerrill @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 10:49:29 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

You think David Boies is a Republican?

And Dustin Lance Black?  And Rob Reiner?  And all the other board members of AFER?  You think of these people as enemies?  Really?  Come, now.

I am not interested in picking up crumbs of compassion thrown from the table of someone who considers himself my master. I want the full menu of rights.  -Archbishop Desmond Tutu

---

by: QScribe @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 13:41:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I totally agree

look, the lawyers that work at these organizations will obviously "zealously" do everything they can to win the case.  It's not only an imperative of their organizational missions, it's an ethical duty of any lawyer.  So, an argument to the contrary by Chad Griffin is puzzling, to say the least.

I believe in new ideas and welcome Bois and Olson to the fight.  And, I could go either way with regard to the wisdom of filing a DOMA challenge, so I'm not immediately biased against them.  But it strikes me as pure arrogance on their part not to let these groups intervene.  As I stated below, it is theses groups that have actually WON LGBT rights in court, not Olson and Bois.

---

by: Repeal8 @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 17:14:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

any explanatory statements

from any of the joining groups?  there could easily be a lot more going on than meets the eye.  i'd like to hear their side of the story.  i prefere not to assume the worst of organizations who have served us very, very well for a very long time.

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 22:38:47 PM CDT

Read the letter--linked above.

I spent most of yesterday waiting on a response but then I figured it out:

They're on the fainting couches in their offices.

Chad Griffin had the bad taste and lack of home training required to call them out.

Having worked with all three orgs in my state, and had face to face dialogues with two of the three addressed in the letter, I'm guessing that they fell over in surprise at his publication of the letter and had to be revived.

I feel extremely confident that his descriptions and timeline are accurate, because they are reflective of my own experiences and would destroy him and AFER if they could be demonstrated false.

As to the conclusion he drew, I'd be grateful for a response from anyone who has been involved who wants to openly state that their goal is simply to continue sharing technical expertise and add more diverse plaintiffs.

I would then get behind that org financially, because I would be confident that they have my interests at heart and have given up on controlling or destroying anything that they did not pre-approve...which again, reflects my own observations.

Mama always told us, Don't do anything you'd be ashamed to read about in the newspaper--but perhaps our longtime advocates were raised in cities and never heard that one.

But wait, there's more!

---

by: PhoenixRising @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 07:35:22 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I like Lambda Legal

and agree with their concern about the timing of this suit.

Their basic concern is not that the suit is not justified, but that Bush has packed the Scalia Court with bigots who will rule against us regardless of the law - and they probably are right.

However if the suit is going to proceed anyway, it makes sense that they would want to sign on to defend the  brief.

Bois et al are just being prissy

---

by: tiponeill @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 09:25:40 AM CDT

I'm inclined to agree with our orgs.

Boies and Olsen haven't given us much reason to trust them. ACLU and Lamda have proven themselves to us time and again. The claim that they're going to try to sabotage the case seems like a bit of an asspull.

Fetch my pearls, I need to clutch them!

---

by: RainbowPhoenix @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 09:36:17 AM CDT

I don't know if I care

who joins this lawsuit and when--all that matters is that we win.  If we start fighting with those groups who 'see the light' a bit later, where is that going to get us?

---

by: kkaatz @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 09:42:35 AM CDT

Exactly

ACLU, Lambda Legal and NCLR are the groups I support.  They get things done...the groups are involved in so many civil rights cases and working together to supplement efforts a new group AFER was not on their radar.

Let them do a brief at least.  They have track records the other is the new group in town...hope it works out for everyone.

---

by: Karen in Kalifornia @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 10:02:52 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

They've already done briefs

This is about whether they should be able to join the suit.

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 @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 10:53:29 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The nature of the message

AFER is not the "hero" in this situation. They opened their battle by attacking the other groups. It did not begin with the other groups issuing letters of caution. AFER started out with an attack and than turned around saying, "now that we bashed you, help us out."

I'm sorry, but from the original news sources I read when this first started, AFER is like a new employee walking into a meeting and telling everyone there that they are idiots and doing everything wrong. But don't worry, the new employee is now there to correct their mistakes.

Help defend equality, visit One Kalamazoo http://www.onekalamazoo.com/

---

by: Mattkazoo @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 09:44:26 AM CDT

You've got that backwards

Lambda, the ACLU, NCLR and 5 other national groups attacked this suit both before it was filed in secret and then in public.

Maybe they're right, but they're in no position to play the victim here. They weren't expecting to be hit back, because that has never happened before.

But wait, there's more!

---

by: PhoenixRising @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 10:03:57 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yep

The situation in Cali with Prop 8 is a new and unique situation which these orgs could have taken advantage of under federal constitutional arguments. They missed the opportunity and then publicly denounced AFER when they didn't. All groups should be pushing in the same direction, not attacking each other.

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 @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 10:56:49 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Oh I don't

think they should play victim at all. I just think that adhoc attacks on other organizations is a not fair. There are individuals who are venting frustrations over a terrible situation, against people who work hard and may have a different opinion.

I just feel that posting an angry letter exchanged from one organization to other organizations on the internet does not serve our cause in any positive way. It just makes some people forget the positive work that has been done and instead vent hostile emotions.

I will admit I forgot to include that the other organizations worked at first with AFER and there was a lot of conversation. And that hostility soon arose.

Help defend equality, visit One Kalamazoo http://www.onekalamazoo.com/

---

by: Mattkazoo @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 11:05:28 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

But

I should apparently "just shut up." as the email I just received indicates (and that was the nice part). Whoever you are, thank you for your "kind" words of compassion.

To everyone at Pam's House Blend (including the email er) I wish you all a good day and hope that in the future we can have a civil conversation.    

Help defend equality, visit One Kalamazoo http://www.onekalamazoo.com/

---

by: Mattkazoo @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 11:33:46 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

What was the emailer's address?

I'd suggest you forward it to Pam or one of the other baristas.  I've never gotten anything but friendly, supportive emails from other Blenders.  If I got something like that, I'd be seriously pissed, and I sure wouldn't keep quiet about it.

I am not interested in picking up crumbs of compassion thrown from the table of someone who considers himself my master. I want the full menu of rights.  -Archbishop Desmond Tutu

---

by: QScribe @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 16:39:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I am preparing the email to send to Pam as I type this

Although it came from a hotmail account that does not seem to exist anymore. Its still interesting that someone took the time to write me a nasty email.

I'm feeling a mixture of disgust and a little pride. BTW my mother is a fantastic woman and was very involved in the woman's movement, the black civil rights battles, and anti-war activities. She loves everyone she meets, but is not paid for sexual activities. She was a little disappointed that my sister and I were not as active when we were young, and were never arrested protesting something (at lest until later, for me ;)  

Help defend equality, visit One Kalamazoo http://www.onekalamazoo.com/

---

by: Mattkazoo @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 22:23:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I would request a link for that information.

I have been following this case since it was announced, and I would like you to provide back-up for this assertion of AFER starting this fight.  I do not remember that being the case and I do recall that they reached out PRIOR to filing the case only to be belittled and ridiculed by the gay for pay groups, so I would ask that you corroborate your claim, mine is backed up in the letter to those gay for pay organizations above.

AFER is not an employee and it represents REAL human beings who did not agree with the gay for pay organizations that they should wait for their rights.  As I stated below, this is not something that any one group "owns" or is "in charge" of.  There are millions of LGBT individuals in this country and the gay for pay groups are NOT the owners and arbiters of everything Equality, the individual people who are being represented in this case are well within their rights to address THEIR equality in whatever way they see fit.  

There are people out there that know just as much if not more than those who currently believe that they OWN LGBT Rights Issues...  

The trollish sounding blogger formerly known as BURNSEY

---

by: R.K. Wright @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 10:12:36 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

"Gay for Pay" ?

so you are equating Lambda Legal and ACLU with straight men who have sex with men for money, i.e. prostitutes?

While I disagree with your assertion, I do agree that no single organization "owns" any issue.

But I would suggest that you re-read the letter. The organizations listed in the letter worked at first with AFER, and later decided they did not agree with the direction AFER was taking.  

Help defend equality, visit One Kalamazoo http://www.onekalamazoo.com/

---

by: Mattkazoo @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 11:25:01 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

More

Just so everyone gets a more balanced picture of what is going on, I am posting some information

Views held by AFER
http://www.scribd.com/doc/1723...

Posted by....someone named "Unite the Fight on the site Scribd

AP piece

Wednesday's sikrmish is the latest fallout from Proposition 8's passage, which set off disagreements within the gay rights movement over who was to blame and what strategy would be best for reversing the measure.

http://www.google.com/hostedne...

A lot of this "fight" is the result of on-line rumors and by people pushing agendas to start fights within our community. We are discussing civility lately, the attacks on groups who have for years have helped us does not seem very civil.

Different organizations attack problems in different ways. Even reading AFER's materials its clear that the organizations were not publicly attacking the suit, they just didn't want to be involved at first. They first asked in fall of 2008?? What? So they just assumed that we would lose in California? It is also clear that the other organizations were involved, talking and helping in moot court cases.

I just ask, after reading some of the posts here, that people don't take out their frustrations over prop 8, against our existing organizations. That would be unfair and the wrong direction.  

Help defend equality, visit One Kalamazoo http://www.onekalamazoo.com/

---

by: Mattkazoo @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 10:47:11 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

ok, sorry for my first post

I'm only half awake right now, after coming how from work. I left out whole sentences in my post. Let me just say before I go sleep,

The angry letter was made public by AFER or someone in that organization. AFER could have taken the high road, by saying something like "we disagree with 'blank" but we will continue with our suit because we feel it is the right direction to go."

So we are asking people to change their opinions and the way they think about the LGBT community....but bash people in our own movement if they change their mind. Interesting.

Now off to sleep

Help defend equality, visit One Kalamazoo http://www.onekalamazoo.com/

---

by: Mattkazoo @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 11:17:01 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The fight for equality is NOT owned by any one group.

Personally, I do not care if these organizations want to join now, after the fact, when it looks like the case might actually be a serious contender for us.  It is painfully obvious that these organizations have the misguided belief that they and they alone are our last best hope.  Funny, but aren't some of these groups the same ones who were afraid to mention gay people in a fight for gay marriage rights and equality?  

Why in the world do we consistently support the organizations who believe they are the only way to equality?  They are not.  After how many years of failure of achieving the end goal, and failure in the largest Court case we have had, do we realize that there are other fronts to this war, and that ALL fronts must be engaged? (and yes, I do recognize that they have achieved some success in gaining incremental rights).  HRC and various organizations continue to sell out our agenda because they believe they have a way to secure our rights.  Well, so far they are not getting the job done.

It reminds me of the Mattichine Society and their original "go along to get along" "blend" "pass" argument.  Funny, but that wasn't what got the party started, it was a group of those marginalized by their own community that stood up and fought for their rights.  I continue to grow weary of these groups that don't want to rock the boat, who are NOT willing to take a chance on anything.

I also grow tired of the argument that a loss now will set us back.  I'd like to ask, where exactly does it set us back from?  Losing to the Supreme Court does NOT mean that we have lost the battle.  We have been losing MARRIAGE EQUALITY cases for over 40 years at the Supreme Court level, but we are still fighting.  The Lawrence V Texas case was won, but not until AFTER having other similar, and as compelling, cases that lost.  If we never take the case to those who can decide it for ALL LGBT people, such as the Supreme Court of the US, then we don't deserve to get the rights we so justly desire.

I do think the LGBT Organizations should be scolded for now trying to hijack the case.  Their earlier behavior and attempts at sabotage certainly should preclude them from involvement.  I certainly wouldn't want those who opposed and belittled this case to now start being the public face for it.  They see this organization and a possible win, as a threat to their very existence.  Some of these organizations would cease to exist if not for the continuance of the battle.  In simpler terms, these organizations loose when we win.  And they know it.  

The trollish sounding blogger formerly known as BURNSEY

---

by: R.K. Wright @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 10:01:08 AM CDT

Its a Multi-front War

The LGBT legal groups, terrific organizations all, made a decision about this case and should abide by it.  If they believe the case is ill-advised, as they repeatedly told us, then they should not seek to intervene, except to file amicus briefs.  If they have changed their minds, and now beleive it to be a viable case, then they should state that as well.  There is little need for us to speculate on motive.  All we want is some transparency here.  

If the LGBT groups have changed their minds, then by all means they should intervene.  However, absent a public proclamation that that is the case, they might want to re-think this strategy.

---

by: salemlawyer @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 10:44:40 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I suspect

that they're joining in out of concern that if they don't, a group with little experience arguing against homophobic laws before homophobic courts will tend to assume that having law and ethics on their side matters.  It's trying to control the damage which could be done when a group of grandstanders offer the hetero-supremacist courts an excuse to establish precedents which will mostly hurt people who couldn't afford a feel-good "at least we know we're in the right" case.

---

by: M @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 13:59:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

"law and ethics"?

What on earth do you think ethics has to do with anything?  Surely you know the litigator's mantra:  If the law is against you, argue the facts; if the facts are against you, argue the law; if both are against you, just argue.  I think it's a pretty safe bet that Olsen and Boies know that.  Ethics is quite beside the point.

I am not interested in picking up crumbs of compassion thrown from the table of someone who considers himself my master. I want the full menu of rights.  -Archbishop Desmond Tutu

---

by: QScribe @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 16:44:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Fun With Civil Procedure

Trouble is, a motion to intervene means that the come-latelys are now in a direct dispute with the original attorneys, not merely joining the dispute. It questions, at least in part, the original standing of the plaintiffs and their counsel.

It might have been better if the other groups, ACLU et al, had found other plaintiffs with standing and then sought consolidation under the Fed. R. of Civ. Proc., not intervention.

What's done is done, and they'd be better off being amicae curiae.

Couple of footnotes: it's possible that the Supremes could grant cert, since the new lawsuit raises federal grounds, 14th Amendment &c., while up till this point it was on the basis of California law only. An adverse ruling could throw us for a loss: Hardwick v. Bowers wasn't overturned for 17 years.

However, the pledge of allegiance case wasn't a major case, because the Supremes decided that it was a test of Mr. Newdow's standing to sue, not a question of the Lemon Test (Lemon v. Kurtzman). Too bad, because then law students would have had the Lemon Pledge Test as case law.

---

by: coram nobis @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 10:52:47 AM CDT

Totally agree here.

It might have been better if the other groups, ACLU et al, had found other plaintiffs with standing and then sought consolidation under the Fed. R. of Civ. Proc., not intervention.

What's done is done, and they'd be better off being amicae curiae.

But these people want to keep their $$ and celeb status so they have to sound important.

Ah, well I am at the point where I think any an all noise is only good for us, especially with more 'celebs' coming out...and or making themselves.

After all LOVE IS WORTH IT... as, new Celeb  Dan Choi says so well, in this
new Courage Campaign letter.

tinyurl.com/mlnboc

It's the Hammer of JUSTICE,
It's the Bell of FREEDOM,
It's the Song about LOVE between,
my Brothers and my Sisters
...All over this Land.

---

by: Orion45 @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 11:06:50 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Other Plaintiffs

I've felt the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case used the wrong plaintiffs.  Both couples have been together seven and eight years, with one couple raising children.  They easily could have married last year, but failed to take advantage of the opportunity.  What's changed in the past eight months that they now want to commit to each other that they weren't ready to do after the previous six plus years?

I feel a couple or couples who have been together less than two years would make a stronger argument for the inequities of Proposition 8.  They would have been in the earlier stages of "dating" and not quite ready to make the lifetime commit of marriage.  Remember we really don't want same-sex marriage to be a mirror image of the 50% plus divorce rate of opposite gender marriage.

---

by: Guy in SF @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 17:02:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

NOM is certainly getting mileage out of this

this is from today's nom email

Here's another piece of news you won't find in the New York Times: A civil war has broken out between the group going to court to overturn Prop 8 and the rest of the gay-rights legal establishment.

According to the July 9 Washington Blade, Lambda Legal, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, and the American Civil Liberties Union earlier this week sought to intervene in the American Foundation for Equal Rights' suit against Prop 8. But a letter from AFER board president Chad Griffin urges the groups not to intervene in Perry v. Schwarzenegger and accuses them of trying to undermine the lawsuit.

"You have unrelentingly and unequivocally acted to undermine this case even before it was filed," Griffin writes. "In light of this, it is inconceivable that you would zealously and effectively litigate this case if you were successful in intervening. Therefore, we will vigorously oppose any motion to intervene."

Griffin cites the public statements LGBT groups have made opposing the lawsuit (which they consider premature).

On May 27, LGBT groups asked Californians not to file federal litigation against Prop 8. In one example, Griffin notes that Matt Coles, LGBT project director for the ACLU, was quoted in the Advocate as saying that AFER's lawsuit "is an attempt to short-circuit the process" of obtaining marriage rights for gay couples.

"Having gone to such great lengths to dissuade us from filing suit and to tar this case in the press, it seems likely that your misgivings about our strategy will be reflected -- either subtly or overtly -- in your actions in court," Griffin writes.

The once tightly disciplined gay marriage legal establishment may be losing control. We'll monitor the situation and keep you informed.

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 11:30:43 AM CDT

They'll use this to spin it in their favor . . .

...but disagreements on how to proceed to achieve civil rights is nothing new. Actually, continual questioning of our tactics is good because each step we take will be evaluated for best results.

Even better, we foster questioning in our community (with the exception of some circumstances, such as No on 8). This shows involvement, concern and action. If no one bothered to say anything, then we'd be nowhere.

As for NOM's statement, "The once tightly disciplined gay marriage legal establishment may be losing control." PUHLEASE. Far from. Everyone is now behind this case, they're just figuring out what the role is. Don't see that as "losing control." If anything, it's getting stronger.

---

by: UnitetheFight.org @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 11:37:38 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Where' HRC in all this?

Their website is mum, and none of the releases  even mentions them taking a stand.  Are they so embarrassed by their minimalist political influence that they have their head in the sand (or elsewhere just as dark)?  

---

by: balsero @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 11:49:51 AM CDT

They're preoccupied with the DADT tour. . .

which quite possibly be an effort to regain confidence in the LGBT community as well as change hearts and minds of the general public. That says something about HRC, at least for me.

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 @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 12:46:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Political influence

That's just it, HRC does legislating not lawsuits.

---

by: Karen in Kalifornia @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 13:57:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

AFER wasted an opportunity to be gracious and went for divisiveness.

First of all, the position paper on using the ballot box rather than the court was published BEFORE Perry v. Schwarzenegger was filed and announced.  

Secondly, how much did Boies, Olson, and AFER consult with the people who have been fighting our fight in the courtroom for DECADES before going ahead with this?

Seems to me that they are the ones chasing glory and stirring up unnecessary divisions in our community.  That's OUR community, not theirs.  This could have been an opportunity to show we are all on the same page, but no, their egos were more important.  Grow up!

---

by: chiefscribe @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 13:12:56 PM CDT

Did you click through and read the linked information?

Because if you had, you would know they did a lot of consultation prior to making any announcements.  And do you really think that two lawyers who have argued multiple cases in front of the US Supreme Court really need to consult people who have not in how to proceed to trial?  And quite a few of those involved in the group are long time allies and long time activists for Gay Rights.  I think they are already be aware of the prior fights and the tactics used in previous cases, any competent lawyer or LGBT Rights Advocate would know the history and the past tactics/strategy that is being implemented by the traditional LGBT groups.  It isn't like they have made any secrets about how they have planned to move forward in the equality fight...they talk about it in every single fund raising email I get.  

The trollish sounding blogger formerly known as BURNSEY

---

by: R.K. Wright @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 15:16:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Oh let them have their tiff

As far as I am concerned a little venting on the part of AFER and a little pride swallowing from the rest of the gay legal establishment is all to the good. I am especially pleased that NOM is salivating at the mouth for more. Given that their biggest argument has always been "the lock step gestapo like advancement of the gay agenda" having organizations in disagreement makes them look rather foolish no matter how they spin it. Besides I consider it a very good sign that their greatest hope right now is that we might get mad take our toys and go home. NOT!

As too the rest of the gay legal establishment, well they have been so "Negative Nellie" on anything grassroots or otherwise that didn't originate from their own offices over the past couple of years it is good to finally see someone step up and shake them up a bit. Maybe next time they will be more circumspect about what movements and legal issues arise in the gay community. Personally I think the shock that this new lawsuit is being so well received by the federal courts has caught them a little flat-footed.

All in all I like the fact that all of this is telling us that we are definitely not heading down the same old roads and doing the same old things for the next 30 years. It's silly to hope that a new generation of people will be more just to our community than the present one. Besides this is all opening salvo time and if there are going to be tiffs, this is the time to have 'em. So lets everyone get it out of their system because we have work to do.

Always thinking about it...

---

by: kudo451 @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 13:59:23 PM CDT

Great Comment

I would rate it a "4" but we don't have ratings anymore. Personally, I liked the ratings. They were good feedback (when used constructively).

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 @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 16:15:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'll go with option B: they are trying to drag the case down

Organizations -- especially organizations with a long history of "not yet" and "don't rock the boat" -- do not go from vigorous opposition to honest support so quickly. Frankly, I do not believe their sincerity.

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

---

by: TechBear @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 14:21:43 PM CDT

We should be glad they want to intervene

I vehemently disagree that the groups are joining this case to "try to bring it down" or to "take credit."  

I have one simple question for all the readers out there who question the motives of the national LGBT groups (none of which I am officially affiliated with):

Despite their seemingly good intentions on this DOMA challenge, have Bois and Olsen ever won a major LGBT rights victory in court?

The answer is no.  Does that mean they can't win the DOMA suit?  No, but it does concern me.  On the other hand, I'd like to remind readers that NCLR, ACLU, and Labmda Legal are the groups that have brought you dozens of major LGBT victories, and have helped thousands of LGBT Americans with legal problems -- free of charge.

NCLR and Lambda brought you the California decision In re Marriage Cases, with the ACLU providing critical counsel.

Lambda, etc. brought you the Iowa marriage victory.

On other issues, NCLR, ACLU, and Lambda have brought scores of victories for LGBT parenting rights (with a major victory for same-sex parents at the California Supreme Court just a few years ago).  The organizations have helped protect the First Amendment rights of Gay Straight Alliances.  They have helped transgender prisoners.  They have helped employment discrimination victims.

So it is a little infuriating to see one blogger dismiss these groups as self-serving.

Why are they joining now?  Because a "motion to intervene" is something that is brought when an organization has members whose interests will be affected by the outcome of a case.  Do these organizations have such members? Yes, they are called LGBT people.  And these organizations have factual records--i.e. stories--that have been developed over decades of fighting for equality.  By allowing them to intervene in the case, our stories get told, not just the stories hand-picked by two heterosexual white male litigators.

The other reason they are joining the case is that regardless of the case's wisdom (we can argue about strategy another day), this case WILL go to the Supreme Court.

We all should want those voices who have been in court fighting for us for decades to be in the Supreme Court when this case makes it there, whatever the outcome will be.  

Ultimately, who cares that these groups want to intervene?  It certainly will not hurt the case to have more arguments shedding light on LGBT lives made in front of the court.  I suggest we move on and start fighting for a repeal of Prop 8 instead of bickering about legal strategy, the intricacies of which are usually only known to the actual litigators in the case.

---

by: Repeal8 @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 16:55:53 PM CDT