The Christian Civic League of Maine's Mike Hein calls Pam's House Blend: "a leading source of radical homosexual propaganda, anti-Christian bigotry, and radical transgender advocacy."
He is "praying that Pam Spaulding will "turn away from her wicked and sinful promotion of homosexual behavior."
(CCLM's web site, 10/15/07)
Ex-gay "Christian" activist James Hartline on Pam:
"I have been mocked over and over again by ungodly and unprincipled anti-christian lesbians."
(from "Six Years In Sodom: From The Journal Of James Hartline," 9/4/2006, written from the "homosexual stronghold" of Hillcrest in San Diego).
"Pam is a 'twisted lesbian sister' and an 'embittered lesbian' of the 'self-imposed gutteral experiences of the gay ghetto.'" -- 9/5/2008
Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth Against Homosexuality heartily endorses the Blend, calling Pam:
A "vicious anti-Christian lesbian activist." (Concerned Women for America's radio show [9:15], 1/25/07)
"A nutty lesbian blogger." (MassResistance radio show [16:25], 2/3/07)
Pam's House Blend always seems to find these sick f*cks. The area of the country she is in? The home state of her wife? I know, they are everywhere. Pam just does such a great job of bringing them out into the light.
--Impeach Bush
who monitors yours Bevis ?? Just thought I would drop you a line,so the rest of your life is not wasted.
A huge WIN on marriage equality and it shows that fighting back on Prop 8 requires on-the-ground engagement and media visibility of not just lesbian and gay families, but ones of color. This ad features a gay black couple, Xavier and Michael Boykin-Haggood, along with three of their five children, Dante, Emmanuel and Fatima. The family lives in LA's Leimert Park neighborhood.
Michael (to the children): Has everyone said grace? Alright.
Xavier and Michael (nodding): We have five -- five children.
Xavier: You know Michael and I have been planning what our day was going to be like for eleven, twelve years. And now you tell me I can't get married? I'm free to love who I love.
Michael: At its core level it's just totally unfair to actually take away anyone's right[s]. And so I have no doubt that this will inevitably be turned back the right way.
As same-sex couples who were able to legally marry last year celebrate their one-year-anniversaries, Equality California (EQCA) and Jordan/Rustin Coalition (JRC) are together launching an education and mobilization campaign on the freedom to marry in LA's African-American communities. The effort includes a TV commercial, on-the-ground organizers as well as an office dedicated to the campaign, which will be based in South Los Angeles, a predominantly African-American community.
"Jordan/Rustin Coalition is happy to partner with Equality California as we do the work to open the hearts and minds of all Californians, including those in the Black community, on the question of marriage for same-sex couples," said Ron Buckmire, JRC board president. "Our partnership includes a multi-media campaign, outreach and public education and even the nuts and bolts of staffing and supplies. I am confident that together we will see the day when full LGBT equality is restored to our state."
"As we celebrate this one-year-anniversary of marriages in California, we are proud to be working with the Jordan/Rustin Coalition to have conversations with African-Americans about marriage for same-sex couples," said EQCA Marriage Director Marc Solomon. "As people really get to know our families, they will see they have the same hopes, dreams and concerns as any other family and simply want the protections and dignity that marriage affords."
The office is slated to open later this summer. JRC, EQCA, and a coalition of grassroots and community leaders rooted in South Los Angeles will work collaboratively to organize outreach events and lead door-to-door efforts to talk with African-American Californians.
As Chris @ LawDork says, "unlike the Obama DOJ Motion to Dismiss filed today in Smelt, the Brown Answer filed in Perry cites approvingly to Loving v. Virginia, on the 42nd anniversary of the ruling." (LAT):
California Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown asked a federal court Thursday not to block Proposition 8, arguing that a resumption of same-sex marriages in the state before the federal challenge was resolved would put those unions in "legal limbo."
In written arguments filed late Thursday, Brown said permitting gays to marry before appeals in the case are completed "would not serve the public interest because it would create significant uncertainty for many persons [involved in] a relationship in which certainty is of the utmost importance."
California Attorney General Jerry Brown responded today to the federal challenge to Proposition 8 filed last month by Ted Olson and David Boies by agreeing that the initiative violates the U.S. Constitution.
"Taking from same-sex couples the right to civil marriage that they had previously possessed under California's Constitution cannot be squared with guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment," the Attorney General's filing states.
"Today's filing by Attorney General Jerry Brown underscores that Proposition 8 is a clear violation of the United States Constitution because it denies all people equal rights," said Chad Griffin, Board President of the American Foundation for Equal Rights. "We are confident that our state's chief legal officer's strong opinion will help this case move quickly through the courts so that every Californian will soon be treated equally under the law."
The American Foundation for Equal Rights is the organization that hired Olson and Boies to lead a federal challenge to Proposition 8 on behalf of two same sex couples who were denied marriage licenses because of the initiative.
..."This unequal treatment of gays and lesbians denies them the basic liberties and equal protection under the law that are guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution," the suit states.
The American Foundation for Equal Rights, the organization that hired Ted Olson and David Boies to lead a federal challenge to Proposition 8, recently announced its founding Board of Directors, which includes Rob Reiner and Dustin Lance Black.
Boies went on the Charlie Rose show to discuss the case.
Here's more information on the case -- and the board of The American Foundation for Equal Rights, from the web site:
Relegating gays and lesbians to "separate but unequal" domestic partnerships violates the U.S. Constitution, the suit states.
"More than 30 years ago, the United States Supreme Court recognized that marriage is one of the basic rights of man," the suit states, referring to the Court's decision in Loving v. Virginia, which struck down bans on interracial marriage.
According to the suit, Proposition 8:
โข Violates the Due Process Clause by impinging on fundamental liberties.
โข Violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
โข Singles out gays and lesbians for a disfavored legal status, thereby creating a category of "second-class citizens."
โข Discriminates on the basis of gender.
โข Discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation.
Kris Perry and Sandy Stier have been together for 9 years and are the parents of four boys. Perry is Executive Director of First 5 California, a state agency that promotes education and health for children under five. She holds a BA from UC Santa Cruz and an MSW from San Francisco State University. Stier is Information Technology Director for the Alameda County Behavioral Health Care Services Agency. She is originally from Iowa and is a graduate of the University of Iowa. Perry and Stier first tried to marry in 2004, after the City of San Francisco began issuing licenses. They live in Berkeley, CA.
Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo have been together for 8 years. Katami is a fitness expert and business owner who graduated from Santa Clara University before receiving his graduate degree from UCLA. Zarrillo is the General Manager of a theater exhibition company. A native of New Jersey, Zarillo graduated from Montclair State University. Having wanted to marry each other for more than two years, they considered options including traveling to other states for a "civil union," but felt any alternative fell short of marriage. They live in Burbank, CA.
"Our government should treat every American equally," Board President Chad Griffin said. "The American Foundation for Equal Rights will support legal, political and policy advocacy to ensure every American's Constitutional rights are protected."
The Board members are:
โข Chad Griffin
โข Rob Reiner
โข Michelle Reiner
โข Bruce Cohen
โข Kristina Schake
โข Dustin Lance Black
Bush v. Gore adversaries Ted Olson and David Boies appeared on Larry King last night to make their case why it's the right time to pursue a federal decision on marriage equality arguing that Prop 8 violates the U.S. constitutional guarantee of equal protection and due process.
They present a logical argument on why the Prop 8 ban on marriage equality is wrong, citing that marriage is a basic human right and states should not be allowed to discriminate. For instance, when they appeared later on CNN with John King (transcript isn't up yet), Olson asked whether Dr. Martin Luther King would have stated the country should pursue equality on a state-by-state basis, or that desegregating the schools was a state's rights issue and we'll wait until the people catch up to change matters. BTW, Olsen said that they did consult with LGBT orgs, which all urged them not to pursue this case at this time, but are moving forward using the reasoning that the four couples they represent should not have to wait for fundamental rights based on the U.S. Constitution.
You can't disagree with the merit of these arguments, really. What is causing a great deal of consternation in LGBT organizations is the approach and timing -- the orgs strongly disagree with this case because they feel it is too soon to bring the matter up on a track to be heard by the current U.S. Supreme Court at this time, which is why you see the speedy press release from the coalition of orgs restating its strategy (see my earlier post).
The groups released a new publication, "Why the ballot box and not the courts should be the next step on marriage in California." This publication discourages people from bringing premature lawsuits based on the federal Constitution because, without more groundwork, the U.S. Supreme Court likely is not yet ready to rule that same-sex couples cannot be barred from marriage. The groups also revised "Make Change, Not Lawsuits," which was released after the California Supreme Court decision ending the ban on marriage for same-sex couples in California. This publication encourages couples who have legally married to ask friends, neighbors and institutions to honor their marriages, but discourages people from bringing lawsuits.
This approach has merit as well -- on the basis that incremental change allows people to learn, on a personal basis, that there is no threat to our country or any one else's marriage because gay and lesbian couples simply want the same rights as they do.
OK, now there is another reason why it can be argued that a federal case has merit at this time, and it needs discussion. Regardless of the timing of the case, part of what is going on here is by filing at the federal level it is a direct challenge to this White House. The Obama admin has tried mightily (and ridiculously) to keep this a states' rights issue -- to the point of believing there's no reason to even have to publicly recognize the progress and setbacks.
In my opinion, this is also a part of the motivation behind the Olsen/Boies lawsuit. After all -- how can you have a President of the United States who is a constitutional scholar out there saying "God is in the mix" and tossing off "it's an issue best left to the states"? After all, his parents' relationship was illegal in many states, and Loving v. Virginia was needed to nullify all of those state bans.
Again, this is a political problem of candidate and President Obama's own making that is now blowing up in his administration's face. I'm not surprised that this is happening; I am kind of surprised it's happening so soon -- but we, the LGBT orgs, and the big brains at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue do not have the ability to shut down the constant equality questions being bombarded at Robert Gibbs or a lawsuit like this.
I'm not arguing that Boies and Olson are pursuing the right strategic path, mind you, but I understand the sentiment and frustration behind it -- I'm just tossing this out there as a discussion point, since we are all tired of the disingenuous BS coming out of the Obama White House through the clownish, embarrassing dodges of Press Secretary Robert Gibbs nearly every day. Also, we don't see any of the LGBT orgs criticizing the non-answers and evasive maneuvers coming out in the name of our "fierce advocate" at these pressers -- do you think this silence would have occurred under Bush?
So this is where we are, and it's a complete mess. Anything remotely representing a planned strategy is obliterated; now everyone has to deal with the reality at hand, including the fact that the most recent polls show a drop in support for marriage equality from last month (see chart below), a result quickly picked up by the fundies. Of course looking at the progression over the years, the change in level of support has risen dramatically, which underscores the fact that those who oppose equality are going to lose this battle in the long run:
But, there's an obvious question lurking there that represents the underpinning of the federal lawsuit -- why do polls matter at all, other than for political cover? Everyone participating in this kabuki dance knows we're dealing with a fundamental right -- and civil rights should never be determined by polls, the ballots or politicians. This will be determined by the U.S. Supreme Court.
And about all of the questions about who's funding the Boies/Olson case. I've heard that it's prominent wealthy progressives bankrolling the American Foundation for Equal Rights, so that would deep-six the Olson right wing conspiracy stories.
But if you think about it, this issue of who is funding the fed lawsuit is kind of irrelevant on some level. The situation, regardless of political persuasion, is really about whether the goal of marriage equality is seen as an incremental process leading to a positive resolution, or, as with prior civil rights movements, seen as a fundamental constitutional issue because 1) the states will never consistently settle the matter, and 2) in the absence of a federal decision, in layman's terms, you simply cannot have a civil right in the U.S. that one loses based on driving across the wrong state line.
***
So it's a very difficult series of Qs of the day for you --
* is Boies' and Olson's rejection of the current legal strategy supported by our orgs a tactical error for the marriage equality battle? It represents a "Hail Mary" approach, polls and pols be damned, to solve the patchwork problem of uneven equality around the country all at once, taking the moral high road. But it's a chance the ball will be dropped and the setback with a loss could seriously damage the movement for marriage equality
* is pursuing equality on the path our LGBT organizations represent a sound strategy? The path of taking the state route gains rights for gay and lesbians with each success -- and it also ends at SCOTUS. However, it forces those in states with constitutional bans on marriage equality to languish without full civil rights until a favorable decision at that level at some unknown point in the future. It also relies on additional gains that can be made with the repeal of DOMA, for instance, something also promised but that we may not see any time soon.
UPDATE: I received an email from Tobias Wolff, Professor of Law at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, who had these interesting and thoughtful matters to share as we discuss this.
In 1972 -- 5 years after Loving v. Virginia, the anti-miscegenation case -- the Supreme Court actually did weigh in on the question of the federal constitutional argument for marriage equality. In a case called Baker v. Nelson, the Minnesota courts had denied a marriage equality claim by a gay couple. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, which responded by dismissing the appeal "for want of a substantial federal question." This is a type of action that the Court uses only infrequently -- even a lot of lawyers have not heard of it. What it basically means is that the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal without issuing any written opinion, expressing the view that there was no serious federal or constitutional issue to be decided -- in other words, it said that it could dismiss without even issuing a written opinion because the claim on appeal did not have enough merit to warrant a full explanation.
This kind of dismissal is binding on the lower federal courts. (It is not binding on state courts, though some choose to follow it anyway.) What that means is that, when the Supreme Court has spoken to a federal issue in this backhanded way, and the exact same issue comes before a lower federal court in a later case, the proper thing for the lower federal court to do is to dismiss the case because it is bound by the Supreme Court's earlier action.
As should go without saying, the Supreme Court's summary dismissal in Baker v. Nelson was flat wrong. It was wrong when it was decided in 1972, and, more to the point, I doubt that any serious lawyer would argue that it can be defended on the merits today. Even if you disagree with the constitutional arguments in favor of marriage equality, I don't think anyone could argue today that the issue does not present a serious and substantial question, especially in light of the Court's rulings in Romer v. Evans (the Colorado / Amendment 2 case from 1996) and Lawrence v. Texas.
Two of the nation's top litigators who opposed each other in the Bush v. Gore election challenge in 2000 have joined forces to seek federal court intervention in California's gay marriage controversy.
Theodore B. Olson and David Boies have filed a U.S. District Court lawsuit on behalf of two gay men and two gay women, arguing that the California constitutional amendment eliminating the right of gay couples to marry violates the U.S. constitutional guarantee of equal protection and due process.
Their suit, to be filed in U.S. District Court in California, calls for an injunction against the proposition, allowing immediate reinstatement of marriage rights for same-sex couples.
...Legal scholars have observed that proponents of gay marriage have avoided taking the issue to federal court so far because of the dominance of conservative judges and justices on the federal bench after the eight-year tenure of President George W. Bush.
"For a long time I've personally felt that we are doing a grave injustice for people throughout this country by denying equality to gay and lesbian individuals," Olson said in an interview with The Advocate. "The individuals that we represent and will be representing in this case feel they're being denied their rights. And they're entitled to have a court vindicate those rights."
As for the timing of the suit, Olson said that recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court "make it clear that individuals are entitled to be treated equally under the Constitution. I'm reasonably confident that this is the right time for these [injustices] to be vindicated."
...Olson said his law firm and others also are contributing resources pro bono. As of press time, no website could be found for the newly formed organization. Olson and his representatives declined to specify who was funding the campaign.
The interesting thing to look for is the reaction by equality organizations; many don't want a case like this to reach the current SCOTUS, given its composition.
But how long will we have to wait for "the right time"?
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."
Romeo and Juliet by William Shakespeare
In many posts here on the Blend, I've noted how some of the homobigots are really just concerned over an eight-letter word, "marriage". Not the hardcore Phelpsians, of course, but the "you can have all the rights of marriage, just call it something else" types. I've joked that gay folks could just call it "queeriage" and that would be that (separate but equal...)
Now, courtesy of an excellent piece entitled "Read page 36. They just cut Prop 8 to the bone." by an "activist progressive blogger lawyer" named Seneca Doane out at dKos, my hope is revived. If this analysis is correct, the California Supreme Court today decided that indeed, "queeriage" (or "marrije") is still legal in California:
Prop 8, now that the Supreme Court has stripped it down to a bare bone, does not say any of the following:
(1) It does not say that any provision of California law that invokes the label marriage does not also apply to these "civil unions" or whatever we call them -- how about "marrijezz"? -- that same-sex couples will henceforth undertake.
(2) It does not even say that these legal relationship aren't marriages. It just says that the voters decided that in California, if they occurred after a certain date, we aren't going to call them that. This isn't a minor point: it means that if a couple that has had a California "marrije" leaves the state, they have the right to say that they are "married" and have a correctly spelled "marriage" and -- when the Full Faith and Credit case eventually comes down -- have the same right to full faith and credit as does anyone from another state who got officially and legally married.
(3) It doesn't say that the participants in "marrijezz" can't call each other "husband" or each other "wife" -- or that they can't legally demand to be able to call themselves husbands and wives. This was, in the eyes of the California Supreme Court, entirely about cutting a particular tag off a dress before allowing same-sex couples to buy it. Do you think that the "this is called a marriage" tag is the same as the "I can call this man my husband or this woman my wife" tag? Nope -- that's a different tag. If voters want to eliminate the words "husband" and "wife" from same-sex partners, they have to pass a new initiaitve. Does that start to convey a sense of how deeply the Court carved down Prop 8 today?
I had never thought of "Marriage is to be defined as one man and one woman" that way. Can it really be so simple as a definition? Legally, men and women have the same rights and protections, but there is still an "M" and an "F" checkbox on government forms. Could it be that the end result of the gay marriage debate will be that all couples are equal, but they just check different boxes on a form?
The White House Press Briefing was rife with questions about the SCOTUS pick and North Korea, and as expected, the wind was out of the media sails re: Prop 8. Only at the end was one question asked about the decision on Prop 8. Here's the comment from the official transcript.
Q Robert, do you have any reaction to the California Supreme Court decision on Prop 8?
MR. GIBBS: I have not talked to the President about it. I think the issues involved are ones that you know where the President stands.
Meanwhile, members of the crackerjack press team at the WH are on top of this heavy hitting news (just landed in my inbox):
Everybody (and-their-dog's-named-Spot), it seems, has a reaction on the Prop 8 ruling. With this in mind, we've put together a "Link Farm" post with links to different organizations' response to the ruling: from LGBT non-profits and civil rights organizations to religious right/conservative "Christian" organization responses to the ruling.
The baristas will be adding to this all day. Please add responses y'all blenders find in the comments too, and we'll move many of the up to the main body of the text as we develop time. Busy news day, for sure.
Lead LGBT And Ally Organizations Responses To The Ruling
LOS ANGELES - Following the California Supreme Court's decision today to uphold Prop. 8, which stripped same-sex couples of their right to marry, Equality California (EQCA) vowed to win marriage back at the ballot box. EQCA released the following statement as well as a memo to members and allies detailing its recommendations to return to the ballot in 2010.
Statement from Marc Solomon, EQCA's Marriage Director:
"Today's ruling is a miscarriage of justice. No minority group should have to defend its right to equality at the ballot.
"Despite today's setback, Equality California is committed to restoring the freedom to marry. We believe, as do the majority of our members, that 2010 is the best time to return to the ballot to repeal Prop. 8. We must take full advantage of the momentum and commitment people now have to do the work required on the ground. However, we will make the final decision on when to return in collaboration with our coalition partners and allies throughout the state.
"We have already launched a mobilization campaign to reach more than 300,000 Californians in the next 100 days in places where we need the most movement-Los Angeles County, San Diego, Orange County, the Inland Empire, the Central Valley and Sacramento, and over the coming weeks we will expand our efforts with our partners and tens of thousands of volunteers.
"We do not underestimate the challenge of implementing a strong ballot campaign. Introducing ballot language is simple; winning an affirmative referendum on the freedom to marry will be difficult and expensive. But we have confidence that we can and will prevail.
"We look forward to working with our coalition partners to make a final decision on when to return to the ballot and to putting together one powerful, winning campaign program to ensure that committed, same-sex couples are once again able to enjoy the dignity and protections that marriage provides."
To read the entire memo detailing arguments for 2010 versus 2012, please visit www.eqca.org/2010v2012memo
Today, the California Supreme Court diminished its legacy as a champion of equality. By upholding Prop 8, an initiative that stripped the right to marry from same-sex couples in California, the Court's decision has undermined the central principle that all people are entitled to equal rights and has jeopardized every minority group in California. No minority group should have to defend its right to equality at the ballot, and the Court should not have permitted such a travesty of justice to stand.
Today's decision is dramatically out of step with where the nation is heading. After decades of struggle and hard work, we are living through an unmistakable turning point in the history of our movement. In the past few weeks alone, there has been a tidal wave of momentum in favor of equality for same-sex couples-including a unanimous decision upholding marriage equality from the Iowa Supreme Court; legislative victories in Vermont and Maine; and additional victories on the horizon in New Jersey and New York. Across the country, public opinion is shifting decisively in our favor. Five states have now embraced full marriage equality for same-sex couples, and more are expected to join that list this year. It is devastating that California is no longer one of them. But rest assured: we will be again.
As I wade through my many emotions-heartache, disappointment, grief, anger, and disbelief-one thing is clear: we will regain the freedom to marry in California. It is now up to the people of this state to restore California's national stature and once again embrace inclusion, fairness, and equality for all.
Together, we will be the first state to repeal a marriage ban at the ballot...
Today the California Supreme Court delivered a heartbreaking blow to our fight for marriage equality by upholding Proposition 8, the discriminatory ballot measure that stripped away the right of same-sex couples to marry in California. We're disappointed, angry, frustrated - but not discouraged. We've been fighting for equality in California and across the country for a long time and we're in it to win.
Although today's decision is a painful setback, we've made enormous progress. Approximately18,000 same-sex couples got married in California between our initial court victory last May and the narrow passage of Prop 8 in November - and their marriages remain valid and equal under the law. Lambda Legal, together with our co-counsel at NCLR and the ACLU, fought hard for those marriages, and today the Court agreed with us that Prop 8 did not undo them. Those couples will be the day-to-day proof in California that marriage equality strengthens families and communities without harming anyone.
We have turned the corner toward marriage equality in this country and there's no turning back. After Lambda Legal's game-changing victory in Iowa and the resounding legislative victory in Vermont, momentum shifted across the country. Next came a victory in Maine, and votes for equality in New Hampshire and the District of Columbia. Following the unanimous Iowa decision, the leaders of the state legislature declared, "When all is said and done, we believe the only lasting question about today's events will be why it took us so long." And I stood with political leaders in New York as Governor Paterson said "we have the wind at our backs" and announced the introduction of a marriage equality bill, emphasizing what we all know to be true: "this is a civil rights issue."
But today,our hearts and thoughts are focused on California. Lambda Legal is prepared to dig in and keep fighting. Today we are launching "Marriage Watch: California" to provide legal information and support to any same-sex married couples who face discrimination or lack of respect for their marriages in California. Information is available at www.lambdalegal.org/marriagewatch or by calling Lambda Legal's Marriage Watch Team at (213) 382-7600 ext. 300.
The Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) civil rights organization, responded to the California Supreme Court's split 6-1decision today ruling that Proposition 8, the narrowly approved measure which eliminated the right of same-sex couples to marry, is valid. As a result of the court's decision in Strauss v. Horton, California becomes the first state in the nation to strip away marriage rights for same-sex couples. As same-sex couples and allies from across the country react to the news, HRC is releasing an online, YouTube video set to the song "I Won't Back Down": www.HRC.org/California.
"Today's ruling is a huge blow to Americans everywhere who care about equality. The court has allowed a bare majority of voters to write same-sex couples out of basic constitutional protections," said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. "This ruling is painful, but it represents a temporary setback. There will be a groundswell to restore marriage equality in our nation's largest state, and HRC will not give up until marriage equality is restored in California."
One significant effort already underway is a strategic partnership between HRC and California Faith for Equality (CFE), a statewide group established to educate, support and mobilize faith communities on LGBT equality. The partnership joins CFE and its 6,000 supporting faith leaders with both HRC's Religion and Faith Program expertise as well as HRC's National Field Department to broaden, diversify and deepen religious support for marriage equality in California.
"This ruling couldn't be more out of step with what's happening across the country," said Solmonese, pointing to recent marriage victories in Iowa, Vermont and Maine. "We have no choice but to return this basic question of fairness for the estimated 1 million LGBT Californians back to the voters."
"While we are relieved that the 18,000 couples who married before the Prop 8 vote will still have valid marriages, it does not in any way remove the sting of this ruling," added Solmonese.
Over the past decade, public acceptance of marriage equality for same-sex couples has changed dramatically. For the first time, more Americans say they support marriage for same-sex couples (49%) than oppose it (46%), according to the latest Washington Post/ABC poll released in late April...
Statement by Rea Carey, Executive Director
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
"This is a day of immensely conflicted feelings. We are profoundly disappointed the court has upheld Proposition 8. Banning the fundamental freedom to marry for same-sex couples is unfair, unjust and flies in the face of progress occurring throughout the country, from the Iowa heartland to the rocky shores of Maine. That California is taking a step backward at this moment in history is disconcertingly out of step with society's growing support for equality, and personally painful to committed couples who will be blocked from marrying in California. It is a travesty that the court has, for the first time in California history, permitted a simple majority to use the initiative process to strip a fundamental right from a minority group.
"We are pleased, however, for the more than 18,000 same-sex couples who legally married before the ban took effect and will see those marriages remain intact. But there is no getting around the fact that stripping basic freedoms from people by majority vote is cruel and morally wrong. As long as Proposition 8 remains in effect, untold numbers of same-sex couples will be relegated to second-class status. We refuse to settle for this inequity, and are committed to working with our partners in California to eradicate this terrible injustice and achieve full equality."
[Below the fold are links to more ruling reactions, including religious right/conservative "Christian" organizational reactions.]
From Autumn -- this is the split decision most of us expected. Proposition 8 was upheld, but the 18,000 weddings performed last year before the initiative was repealed will stand.
In summary, we conclude that Proposition 8 constitutes a permissible constitutional amendment (rather than an impermissible constitutional revision), does not violate the separation of powers doctrine, and is not invalid under the "inalienable rights" theory proffered by the Attorney General. We further conclude that Proposition 8 does not apply retroactively and therefore that the marriages of same-sex couples performed prior to the effective date of Proposition 8 remain valid. Having determined that none of the constitutional challenges to the adoption of Proposition 8 have merit, we observe that if there is to be a change to the state constitutional rule embodied in that measure, it must "find its expression at the ballot box." (In re Marriage Cases, supra, 43 Cal.4th 757, 884 (conc. & dis. opn. of Corrigan, J.); see also id. at pp. 861, 878 (conc. & dis. opn. of Baxter, J.).)
The New York Times and Washington Post are reporting that Sonia Sotomayor - a Hispanic, Catholic, female appellate court judge - is going to be the Obama Administration pick for the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). The official announcement will come at 10:15AM EDT (7:15AM PDT).
At 10:00AM PDT (1:00PM EDT), the California Supreme Court is going to rule on the Prop 8 challenge.
Two Questions:
• Do you think the timing of this Supreme Court pick is designed to coincide with the California Supreme Court ruling? This will definitely force Republicans to discuss gay marriage and other social issues that will no doubt further their party image as one that seeks to divide America over social issues. (Am I being too cynical?)
• Do you think we'll get an official Obama Administration statement on the Prop 8 ruling? We didn't get statements on other recent events related to same gender marriage/marriage equality rulings and votes -- Do you think because of the Supreme Court pick (a focus on the law day) that the administration will have to respond, or do you think they'll just try to keep quiet?
Here is a thoughtful piece by Christopher Geidner@ Law Dork. He discusses the soon-to-be known decision about Prop 8 and the possible reactions in the LGBT community if the ruling is not in our favor -- either nullifying all the same-sex marriages or allowing the thousands of existing marriages to remain intact while still affirming Prop 8. He belives the Supreme Court will have the split decision. He also shares my concern that we have to worry just as much about misplaced anger turning into violence as we do from the right.
Assuming that outcome, which I believe is most likely, I'd ask - and hope our national leaders would ask - that we all take a breath before acting. As, I wrote Friday, the decision to be issued today is a legal determination about the structure of the California Constitution and the procedures available to the people to amend it. A fair and vigorous debate has been had about whether Proposition 8 was the type of change envisioned as an amendment or if it was a revision, which would require a more lengthy and difficult process.
The California Supreme Court, at least a majority of its justices, already has shown its support for marriage equality. There can, thus, be no claim made that this court comes at the issue of gay and lesbian equality with anything less than good faith.
I understood - and participated in - rallies held across the country following the passage of Proposition 8. I understood the stark awakening that the vote was for many young LGBT people and our allies. I supported this rejuvenated "gay movement." We have seen the fruits of that awakening in Iowa, Vermont, D.C., Maine and New Hampshire, as well as in countless other states, cities and communities across the nation.
We must not let today's ruling change that momentum.
Geidner reminds readers that this ruling is not about the merits or legality of same-sex marriage -- the same state Supreme Court is the one that decided gays and lesbians could marry. So what we -- or perhaps Californians -- should be angry about is a state Constitution that allows civil rights to be placed on a ballot measure. And:
Even if there is some overriding federal claim that marriage equality is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, it was not raised by the parties here.
...we have spent the past decade decrying those who demean the legitimacy of court decisions by attacking them. It would turn that principled stand on its head to say that this court, which previously held that marriage equality was guaranteed by the California Constitution, is somehow responsible in today's decision for "denying an entire group of people our civil rights."
He's right. For most of us, we won't have our state legislatures to count on to give us marriage equality, and certainly not "the people" if measures like Prop 8 make it on the ballot -- our rights will be ultimately be determined by the courts (and the President, Congress, and SCOTUS).
That said, if any or some marriages are nullified today, perhaps we can channel that anger in a positive way. I'm actually kind of skeptical that one can expect logical or rational reactions from angry people being denied civil rights by technicality, but one can try:
Rather than spouting anger at these rallies, organizers and speakers should be spouting information about legislative battles going on in their states and counties. The California rallies should be an opportunity to sign up marriage equality precinct captains all across the state, people who will be the local voices changing minds across that state.
For instance, a Blender suggested that people hand out a Dallas Principles flyer at these rallies -- ask and you shall receive. We do need to keep our eyes on the prize. After all, it's easier to motivate people to attend a rally out of anger or joy; it's unfortunately harder to get them to call their lawmakers or lobby their state elected officials to move the equality ball forward. The opposition however, has no difficulty getting people to call, write and show up at legislatures around the country on a regular basis.
There is also a postcard template available; download the front and the back elements.
The wait is excruciating now that we know the State Supreme Court decision on whether California's Proposiation 8 will stand is tomorrow. If you go to the site Day of Decision, you will see that in over 90 cities, there are reaction events planned around the U.S. and Canada.
The actions are being coordinated nationally through the www.DayOfDecision.org website co-founded by Chicago gay activist Andy Thayer and pioneer national lesbian activist Robin Tyler of Los Angeles who, with her wife Diane Olson, was the first lesbian couple to file in the historic CA Marriage Equality Case, and are petitioners (plaintiffs) in the case brought before the CA Supreme Court to overturn Prop 8.
The court is expected to announce one of three likely decisions Tuesday, May 26th at approximately 10 AM Pacific Time:
1) Upholding the anti-gay Proposition 8 in full, including invalidating the 18,000+ same-sex marriages that were solemnized before the proposition's passage last November 4th;
2) Upholding Proposition 8's ban on all future same sex marriages, but allowing the 18,000 already conducted to stand; or,
3) Invalidating in its entirety Proposition 8's discriminatory ban on same sex marriage.
Lesbian and gay activists would consider the upholding of Proposition 8 in whole or part (#1 and #2 above) to be a serious defeat to be met with angry protests. On the other hand, a complete invalidation of Proposition 8 would lend an immense boost to the already powerful momentum for equality provided by the recent wins for same sex marriage in Iowa and Vermont.
Robin Tyler and Diane Olson appeared on NBC Nightly News last night in a segment on the upcoming ruling.
There is a Facebook group for the project, and Soulforce has issued a call for action as well. More below the fold.
Update (from Autumn): Above the fold, copy of the notice. Below the fold: Statement by the National Center For Lesbian Rights (NCLR) -- one of the LGBT Civil Rights organizations that argued this case before the California Supreme Court.
Please select the graphics to see source documents.
According to the California Supreme Court website, the decision will be issued at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, May 26th. Further details here (pdf).
Click here to find a Day of Decision event near you. (thx Karen! :)
The Supreme Court has indicated that the filing of a written opinion in the following case(s) is forthcoming. At the filing time designated below, the filed opinion(s) will be accessible at the judicial branch web site (www.courtinfo.ca.gov) and copies will be made available at the Supreme Court Clerk's Office.
[Generally, the description set out with regard to each case is reproduced from the original news release issued when review in the matter was granted, and is provided for the convenience of the public and the press. The description does not necessarily reflect the view of the court, or define the specific issues that will be addressed by the court.]
STRAUSS et al. v. HORTON (HOLLINGSWORTH et al, Interveners)
S168047
TYLER et al. v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA et al. (HOLLINGSWORTH et al, Interveners)
S168066
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO et al. v. HORTON (HOLLINGSWORTH et al. , Interveners)
S168078
Argued in San Francisco 3-05-09
The court issued an order to show cause in Strauss, Tyler, and City and County of San Francisco directing the parties to brief and argue the following issues: (1) Is Proposition 8 invalid because it constitutes a revision of, rather than an amendment to, the California Constitution? (See Cal. Const., art. XVIII, ยงยง 1-4.) (2) Does Proposition 8 violate the separation of powers doctrine under the California Constitution? (3) If Proposition 8 is not unconstitutional, what is its effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before the adoption of Proposition 8?
If the California Supreme Court was planning to hand down a ruling Thursday, it would have coincided with the 30th anniversary of the "White Night" riots in San Francisco (following Dan White's relative slap on the wrist for murdering Harvey Milk and Mayor George Moscone). Uh, not good. Towleroad's source said:
"Newsom reached out to the Supreme Court and asked them to hold off releasing their decision so it did not coincide with the White Night riots."
I don't have anything to confirm this, but I'm getting all sorts of emails right now about police putting barricades up around the courthouse, indicating there will be an announcement of the day of decision with the decision itself coming on Thursday.
Update: Californians Aganist Hate responded with a press to news in the San Diego Union Tribune article linked to in this diary. Images to the press release, linked to a PDF of the press release, are below the fold.
Oh, I can't wait until Peter LaBarbera and Matt "Bam-Bam" Barber get a hold of this story.
From the San Diego Union Tribune's Boycotted hotelier woos gays, regarding how hotelier Doug Manchester is now responding to the boycott:
Manchester brushed [the boycott] off at first, but he seems to feel otherwise now:
His plan - which his people warned this newspaper against publishing, even after a Hyatt representative discussed it - is to give $25,000 to a national organization that promotes civil unions and domestic partnerships.
Manchester also is considering offering $100,000 in hotel credit to local gay and lesbian organizations so they can use the Grand Hyatt for events such as fundraisers.
The $125,000 total matches what he gave to Proposition 8. So it would be even-steven
(I reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally recommend reading this who article -- it even contains a warning to the U-T reporter from the Doug Manchester camp about not publishing on this possible balancing action by Mr. Manchester.)
My guess is that if the California Supreme Court affirms Prop 8 and marriage inequality is affirmed, there will be a new proposition in 2010. And if there's a new proposition to repeal Prop 8, the financial retribution people like Doug Manchester's experienced is going to put a damper on donations to any No On Prop ___ Campaign arising against a proposition repeal Prop 8.
Strike this one up to Lessons Learned about LGBT people's pink dollar buying habits -- we reward companies that support LGBT civil rights and LGBT equality by spending our money on their products and services, and withhold pink dollars from companies that actively work against LGBT civil rights and LGBT equality.
Kate Kendell, Executive Director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, sent along this piece from her blog, Out for Justice, as we wait to see whether the recent events bolstering equality will have any effect on the California Supreme Court. Kendall was quite pessimistic after the CA Supreme Court hearing, but she's feeling more upbeat now about the prospects of Prop 8's demise.
With its groundbreaking marriage decision a year ago, the California Supreme Court set us on a path that - despite some setbacks - has led to one marriage victory a week in the past month: A first-ever unanimous state supreme court ruling in Iowa; a huge victory in Vermont, where there was strong enough support for marriage equality to override their Governor's veto; and tremendous movement in the legislatures of New Hampshire and Maine, with similar progress likely in the months ahead in New York and New Jersey. The result has been a profound sea change in public opinion, including my own view of what the next month will bring here in California.
Just this week, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll showed "a sharp shift in public opinion on same-sex marriage. Forty-nine percent said it should be legal for gay people to marry" - an 11 point shift from a similar poll conducted by the Post just three years ago.
I have always believed the California Supreme Court should strike down Prop 8 because the law is so overwhelmingly on our side. But I feared that other factors might result in an adverse decision. That fear has now been replaced by hope as courts and legislatures - as well as public opinion - have moved sharply in our direction. The Court can cement its legacy by overturning Prop 8 and upholding our Constitution's promise of equal protection. Or it can cause untold pain and hardship to our community and forever undermine the independence of the judiciary and the historic role of the courts in protecting minority rights.
I believe the Court will do the right thing.
In strength and solidarity,
Kate Kendell
Executive Director
National Center for Lesbian Rights
In what is sure to anger and frustrate the fundies yet again, KnowThyNeighbor has launched a searchable database of Arkansans who signed a petition to ban gay adoption and foster care rights. The information is a matter of the public record, provided by the Arkansas Secretary of State's office; KnowThyNeighbor.org simply scanned the paper petitions and transcribed them and placed pdf versions of the actual document the citizen signed. You'll recall that the discriminatory ballot measure passed overwhelmingly last year, 57% to 43%. KnowThyNeighbor:
"This is about responsibility and dialogue," said Tom Lang, KnowThyNeighbor.org's director. "These petition signers need to stand behind their signatures and be responsible for this dehumanizing attack on the gay community. It's disgraceful that they have chosen to exercise their prejudice at the expense of children who are now being denied access to loving adoptive and foster parents. Such activity must be challenged and cannot be allowed to pass under the cover of darkness."
As in Massachusetts and Florida, KnowThyNeighbor.org expects that many petition signers will be confronted about their actions as their names are discovered on the website by family members, friends, coworkers, customers, and acquaintances. "These conversations can be uncomfortable for both parties," says Lang, "but they are desperately needed. The more that gays and lesbians talk about the importance of their relationships and their love for their children, the faster stereotypes break down and both sides begin to realize how much they have in common."
During the Prop 8 battle in California, donor information, also part of the public record, was placed into a searchable database available on web sites: the San Francisco Chronicle, the LAT, Mormons for Prop 8, a mapped version at sfist, 8Maps.com, among other places, and ProtectMarriage.com and the bible beaters filed a challenge to the voter-approved law requiring transparency in campaign finance. Imagine that -- disagreeing with a law determined by "the people?" That's rich -- and turning to the "activist judges" for help, no less; it's laughable.
These donors who helped pass Proposition 8 are angry that boycotts and actions were taken to publicize their decision to foment bigotry, yet are the same people who used pressure tactics on anti-Prop 8 supporters.
At least one businessman who donated to "No on 8," Jim Abbott of Abbott & Associates, a real estate firm in San Diego, received a letter from the Prop. 8 Executive Committee threatening to publish his company's name if he didn't also donate to the "Yes on 8" campaign.
Those public disclosure laws are good -- until they aren't -- to the haters.
Technology, in this case, enables public records to be easily accessible and activists are able to use this information in ways never thought possible (on either side). So, do you think there will be an outcry in Arkansas about this?
Saddleback Church mega-church pastor and the man who delivered the invocation at the President's inaugural, Rick Warren, went on Larry King last night and insisted, despite all the video footage out there of him on his anti-gay efforts, that he isn't against gays or same sex marriage. (!). Right. What was that about bearing false witness? From the transcript:
KING: How did you handle all the controversy that resulted about the president selecting you?
PASTOR RICK WARREN, DELIVERED PRAYER AT OBAMA'S INAUGURATION: Yes, you know, Larry, there was a story within a story that never got told. In the first place, I am not an anti-gay or anti-gay marriage activist. I never have been, never will be.
During the whole Proposition 8 thing, I never once went to a meeting, never once issued a statement, never -- never once even gave an endorsement in the two years Prop 8 was going.
What? I can't stand it when these interviewers don't bother challenging outright BS like this statement! Witness Lie #1 - support for Prop 8:
Let's continue...
The week before the -- the vote, somebody in my church said, Pastor Rick, what -- what do you think about this?
And I sent a note to my own members that said, I actually believe that marriage is -- really should be defined, that that definition should be -- say between a man and a woman.
And then all of a sudden out of it, they made me, you know, something that I really wasn't. And I actually -- there were a number of things that were put out. I wrote to all my gay friends -- the leaders that I knew -- and actually apologized to them. That never got out.
There were some things said that -- you know, everybody should have 10 percent grace when they say public statements. And I was asked a question that made it sound like I equated gay marriage with pedophilia or incest, which I absolutely do not believe. And I actually announced that.
All of the criticism came from people that didn't know me.
WARREN: Not a single criticism came from any gay leader who knows me and knows that for years, we've been working together on AIDS issues and all these other things.
Rick Warren: But the issue to me is, I'm not opposed to that as much as I'm opposed to the redefinition of a 5,000-year definition of marriage. I'm opposed to having a brother and sister be together and call that marriage. I'm opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that a marriage. I'm opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.
Steven Waldman: Do you think, though, that they are equivalent to having gays getting married?
Rick Warren: Oh I do. ...
What is it with these people -- fundies like Warren hate to be cornered on national TV being a bigot, even to the point of drop-dead, bald-face lying. The reason they can do this is because they know that a general-interest host will rarely be well-informed and have clips at the ready to smoke the lies out, and Warren knows a hell of a lot more people watch Larry King than saw that Beliefnet interview.
He continues trying to spin this, and flat out avoids commenting on the Iowa decision.
KING: All right. Do you, therefore, criticize or not comment on the Iowa court decision to permit gay marriage?
WARREN: Yes. I'm -- I'm totally oblivious to -- to what -- that's not even my agenda. My agenda is two things.
One, today is the 15th anniversary of the genocide in Rwanda. It's a national day of mourning, which I -- as you know, I've been heavily involved in -- in Rwanda and helping rebuild that nation and I'm very concerned about that.
Wow, it was certainly on his agenda when he was urging his followers to support Prop 8 to protect marriage from the homosexuals.
UPDATE: I just received this defense of Warren in my inbox:
Pam,
I am disappointed in your accusing Rick Warren of being anti-gay. He appears loving gay people in fact. Jesus Christ loves homosexual and heterosexual people alike. Rick Warren is following the steps of Jesus Christ who is the Truth. I follow Him as well.
In His Name,
Tim VB
I dashed off this:
Then why did Rick Warren support stripping the civil rights of married gay couples in California by endorsing Prop 8. That has nothing to do with religious marriage. Jesus never condemned homosexuality. He said nothing about the subject at all.
Rick Warren needs to read the Iowa court decision on the separation of church and state.
OK, now there is another reason why it can be argued that a federal case has merit at this time, and it needs discussion. Regardless of the timing of the case, part of what is going on here is by filing at the federal level it is a direct challenge to this White House. The Obama admin has tried mightily (and ridiculously) to keep this a states' rights issue -- to the point of believing there's no reason to even have to publicly recognize the progress and setbacks.
In 1972 -- 5 years after Loving v. Virginia, the anti-miscegenation case -- the Supreme Court actually did weigh in on the question of the federal constitutional argument for marriage equality. In a case called Baker v. Nelson, the Minnesota courts had denied a marriage equality claim by a gay couple. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, which responded by dismissing the appeal "for want of a substantial federal question." This is a type of action that the Court uses only infrequently -- even a lot of lawyers have not heard of it. What it basically means is that the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal without issuing any written opinion, expressing the view that there was no serious federal or constitutional issue to be decided -- in other words, it said that it could dismiss without even issuing a written opinion because the claim on appeal did not have enough merit to warrant a full explanation.
The wait is excruciating now that we know the State Supreme Court decision on whether California's Proposiation 8 will stand is tomorrow. If you go to the site 
Saddleback Church mega-church pastor and the man who 
