CA Justice Carlos Moreno Announces Retirement

Justice Carlos Moreno, 62,

Oh No! One of my heroes, California Supreme Court Justice Carlos Moreno, announced today that he is retiring from the California Supreme Court. Moreno, 62, was appointed to the court by Democratic Governor Gray Davis in October 2001. He is most well-known for being on the short list for President Obama's first Supreme Court justice pick to replace David Souter in 2009. Before that, Justice Moreno was in the 4-3 majority which legalized marriage equality in California in May 2008 and the sole dissenter in May 2009 when the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8 in a 6-1 decision under state law.

Equality California put out a statement praising Justice Moreno for his service and calling on Governor Jerry Brown to appoint an LGBT replacement:

“Justice Moreno has a long and very distinguished record of public service.  He took an unequivocal stance on the judicial branch’s moral responsibility to protect minorities. During his nine-year tenure, he has been a champion of equal protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Californians, and he will leave behind an honorable legacy with his staunch commitment to uphold justice, fairness and equality.

“Governor Brown is now presented with a unique opportunity to make history by appointing the first openly lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender judge to the state’s highest court, and we urge him to consider nominating an openly LGBT judge to fill the vacancy.” 

There are only three known out state Supreme Court justices nationwide, 2 in Oregon and one in Colorado.
With Moreno's departure California's 7-member highest court will have no Latino or African-American members, but will have 3 Asian members (Chin, Cantil-Sakauye, Kennard), and 4 women (Cantil-Sakauye, Corrigan, Kennard and Werdegar).

9th US Circuit Sends Prop 8 Question To CA Sup Ct

Perry v. Schwarzenegger (Prop 8 Case): ORDER CERTIFYING A QUESTION TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

CA Sup Ct Refuses To Force State To Appeal Prop 8

The California Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to force the state of California, as represented by the Governor and Attorney General of the state, to act as defendants in the federal Proposition 8 lawsuit, Perry v. Schwarzenegger.


As I blogged about earlier in the week, the Pacific Justice Institute sued the Governor and Attorney General on Monday to attempt to force them to defend Proposition 8, but the 3rd District Court of Appeals rejected their argument. Now the state's highest court has also rejected their legal argument.

The court did not explain why it rejected the emergency petition filed by the Pacific Justice Institute. The institute had argued that the attorney general and governor were required to uphold all laws, including initiatives passed by voters.

Earlier Wednesday, lawyers for Attorney General Jerry Brown and Schwarzenegger filed letters with the court maintaining state officers have authority to choose which laws they challenge or defend in court.

"The governor, like any litigant, has complete discretion over his own litigation strategy, including whether or not to appeal an order," counsel Andrew Stroud wrote for Schwarzenegger. "Here, the governor exercised his discretion and decided not to file an appeal."

[...]

Schwarzenegger, who has been under pressure from fellow Republicans to appeal Walker's decision, has said he supports the judge's verdict. Brown, who is the Democratic nominee to succeed Schwarzenegger as governor, has said he cannot defend Proposition 8 because he agrees it is unconstitutional.

"Although it is not every day that the attorney general declines to defend a state law, the state Constitution or an initiative, he may do so because his oath requires him (to) support the United States Constitution as the supreme law of the law," Deputy Attorney General Tamar Pachter wrote on Brown's behalf Wednesday.

The coalition of conservative and religious groups that sponsored Proposition 8 has appealed Walker's ruling to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. But doubts have been raised about whether its members have authority to do so because as ordinary citizens, they are not responsible for enforcing marriage laws.

The 9th Circuit has said that is one of the issues it will take up when it hears oral arguments in early December.

If the federal appeals court dismisses the appeal because the ban's proponents lack legal standing,  Walker's ruling would become final unless the U.S. Supreme Court agrees to take up the case.

All people interested in marriage equality will be watching the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals arguments very closely in this case. It would sort of be unfortunate f the case was decided on a relatively abstruse legal point like standing, instead of the very importantfederal constitutional issues raised in Walker's District Court opinion of August 4.

Appellate Court Rejects Attempt To Force Prop 8 Appeal

Recall that earlier this week heterosexual supremacists from the Pacific Justice Institute sued the Governor and Attorney General claiming that they were trying to avoid a "constitutional crisis" by forcing these elected officials to appeal Proposition 8 in federal court, even though both men have declared their belief that the measure violates the U.S. constitution.

On Thursday came word that their lawsuit was summarily rejected. by the 3rd District Court of Appeals:

The institute said it would file an immediate appeal to the state Supreme Court in hopes of getting a reversal by Sept. 11, the deadline for state action in the Prop. 8 case.

"When the people peacefully enact a constitutional provision and the attorney general refuses to give them meaningful review in the federal judiciary, then you have a veto by the executive branch," said the institute's lawyer, Kevin Snider. "That is a constitutional crisis, usurping the power of the people."

The reason why this legal skirmish is important is that there is a very live question of who has "standing" (or legal authority) to appeal Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling declaring Proposition 8 violates the federal constitution. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will hear the appeal the week of December 6th.

Governator Nominates API Woman To Head CA Sup Ct

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has nominated 50-year-old Tani Cantil-Sakauye to replace California Chief Justice Ron George who announced he was retiring recently. Cantil-Sakauye's nomination would mean that the state's highest court would now have a female majority: Carol Corrigan, Kathryn Werdegar, Joyce Kennard and Tani Cantil-Sakauye.

The Los Angeles Times reported her reaction to the nomination:

"I have had the distinct pleasure of being a municipal court judge, a superior court judge and an appellate court justice," she said. "As a jurist, woman and a Filipina, I am extremely grateful for the trust Gov. Schwarzenegger has placed in me. I hope to show young people what they can achieve if they follow their dreams and reach for their full potential."

Cantil-Sakauye is a Republican of Filipino descent and has served as a Court of Appeals judge since 2005. She's married to a Police Lieutenant and has two daughters.

Celebrity Friday: Ronald George

Chief Justice Ronald George, 70, of the California Supreme Court announced this week that he does not want to seek another 12-year term in November 2010, after serving 19 years on the court.

George is most well-known as the author of In re Marriage Cases, which legalized same-sex marriages in 2008 as well as Strauss v. Horton the 2009 case which upheld Proposition 8, the state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage passed by voters in November 2008.

Governor Schwarzenegger will now have an opportunity to appoint another member of the Supreme Court, which can be ratified by the voters in November 2010.

First Anniversary of Marriage Equality in California

It was one year ago today that same-sex couples were allowed to start getting legally married in California. The first such couple was Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin, who had been together for 55 years. They were married by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom in City Hall on June 16th, 2008. Del later passed away in her sleep on August 27th, 2008 and thus didn't live to see Proposition 8 pass.

MadProfessah and His Husband will be appearing at an event in West Hollywood City Park commemorating the occasion at 4pm today. There are also other big announcements coming....

Why The Federal Lawsuit Against Prop 8 is Wrong

The day after the California Supreme Court announced its shameful ruling upholding Proposition 8, former Bush Administration Solicitor General Ted Olson and David Boies Gore's attorney in the classic Bush v. Gore announced a federal lawsuit challenging the legality of Proposition 8 under the United States Constitution.

The LGBT organizations were not amused:

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.

Pam at Pam's House Blend has posted a lengthy analysis of the implications of the federal lawsuit for the generally accepted strategy of the national LGBT civil rights organizations. She asks two Questions of the Day:

* 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.

My answer to both questions is Yes and one of the smartest legal minds in the LGBT community, University of Pennsylvania Law Professor Tobias Wolff agrees with me:

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.

[...]

What does all of this mean for the Olson / Boies lawsuit? Insofar as their lawsuit argues that marriage equality for everyone is required under the U.S. Constitution, there is a strong argument that the lower federal courts should simply dismiss and decline to hear the case because they are bound by Baker v. Nelson. If that happens, then the Supreme Court itself is the only one that could overrule its earlier precedent and actually decide the case on the merits.

This is an important fact to understand for a number of reasons. First, as a simple matter of predicting what will happen, it's entirely possible that the Olson / Boies lawsuit will be dismissed very quickly by the lower federal courts. Second, it reinforces the point made by the LGBT groups about the importance of laying a solid groundwork before we get our one shot at litigating this issue before the Supreme Court (and, realistically, we will likely get only one shot). Baker v. Nelson prevents the lower federal courts from engaging in the ordinary process of wrestling with a contentious issue in a series of cases before the Supreme Court finally weighs in. It is therefore all the more important to develop a solid foundation of precedent in the state courts, because we may not have the opportunity to do that in the federal courts. And, with all due respect to Olson and Boies and despite my whole-hearted agreement that we should not have to wait to enjoy the rights that we deserve, the fact is that the Civil Rights Movement was the most strategic, careful and patient litigation effort that this country had ever seen, waiting decades to bring the school desegregation and anti-miscegenation cases until they knew that they had laid a sufficient groundwork to achieve a victory before the Supreme Court. I am thrilled at the outrage that these two men feel on our behalf and I welcome their input and their efforts. But they do need to learn their history.

Two more quick points. This kind of "dismissal for want of a substantial federal question" is not a good way to decide cases, and there is a strong argument that it should always be construed narrowly. So, for example, in the challenge to the federal portions of DOMA that GLAD has brought in Massachusetts federal court, Baker v. Nelson should not pose any obstacle. GLAD is raising a very different kind of claim -- that the federal government can't discriminate against couples who have already been validly married by their home state. The lower federal courts are free to decide that issue on its merits.

By the same token, if Olson and Boies had brought a much narrower challenge to Proposition 8 -- if they had argued that the particular sequence of events in California raised a unique constitutional problem because Prop 8 took marriage away from a group of people who already enjoyed equal rights under state law -- then matters would be different. Baker v. Nelson probably would not control a more carefully drafted lawsuit like that, and the dangers associated with such a lawsuit might be somewhat more contained (though there would still be serious questions about whether it represents the right approach). There are hints of that more narrow argument in the Olson / Boies complaint, but only hints -- in the end, they do not make the more careful argument but instead just go for broke.

What do you think?

Sheila Kuehl's Brilliant Analysis Of Prop 8 Ruling

One of the smartest people in politics gay or straight, is former California State Senator Sheila James Kuehl, who sent out this brilliant analysis of the California Supreme Court Prop 8 ruling in Strauss v. Horton yesterday.

The Opinion

Today, the California Supreme Court ruled on the validity of Proposition 8, the measure adopted by California voters last November to add a new section 7.5 to Article I of the California Constitution, as follows: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California".

The measure was challenged by a coalition of organizations and individuals who favor the ability of same-sex couples to marry on three bases:

1. That the measure adopted by the voters 52% to 48% was not a simple amendment to the state Constitution, which may be adopted by a majority vote, but, rather, a revision to the Constitution, which may not. The Constitution may only be changed in one of these two ways, and, if the change is actually a revision to the Constitution, it must either be passed by a two-thirds vote of each house of the state Legislature and put to a vote of the people, or proposed through a constitutional convention and put to a vote.
2. The second challenge theorized that Prop 8 violated the separation of powers principle because it abrogated a previous Supreme Court decision which held that, under Equal Protection and Due Process principles, same sex couples had the same right to marry in California as opposite sex couples.
3. The Attorney General advanced a different theory: that the "inalienable" right articulated by the Court in the Marriage Cases could not be abrogated by a majority vote unless there was a compelling state interest in doing so.

The Court rejected all three, holding that they were required to find that the Constitution could be amended by a majority of voters in any election, even if the amendment abrogated a fundamental right previously articulated by the Court.

How Could They Say That?

The Court set out the legal principle that distinguishes an amendment from a revision: That it must change the basic governmental plan or framework of the Constitution. In deciding whether Prop 8 did, indeed, change the Constitution at such a basic level, the Court decided it did not, and, also, that it did not "entirely repeal or abrogate" the rights articulated in the Marriage Cases.

This is where the Court seriously lost its way.

Marriage is Just A Word....Not

Here's what the majority opinion said, which I think is not only seriously in error, but a cowardly about-face from their language in the Marriage Cases, which is reprinted in the next section.

First: today's decision:

"In analyzing the constitutional challenges presently before us, we first explain that the provision added to the California Constitution by Proposition 8, when considered in light of the majority opinion in the Marriage Cases, supra, 43 Cal.4th 757 (which preceded the adoption of Proposition 8), properly must be understood as having a considerably narrower scope and more limited effect than suggested by petitioners in the cases before us. Contrary to petitioners' assertion, Proposition 8 does not entirely repeal or abrogate the aspect of a same-sex couple's state constitutional right of privacy and due process that was analyzed in the majority opinion in the Marriage Cases - that is, the constitutional right of same-sex couples to "choose one's life partner and enter with that person into a committed, officially recognized, and protected family relationship that enjoys all of the constitutionally based incidents of marriage" (Marriage Cases, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 829). Nor does Proposition 8 fundamentally alter the meaning and substance of state constitutional equal protection principles as articulated in that opinion. Instead, the measure carves out a narrow and limited exception to these state constitutional rights, reserving the official designation of the term "marriage" for the union of opposite-sex couples as a matter of state constitutional law, but leaving undisturbed all of the other extremely significant substantive aspects of a same-sex couple's state constitutional right to establish an officially recognized and protected family relationship and the guarantee of equal protection of the laws."

In other words....what's the big deal about the word "marriage"?

As it turns out, quite a bit. Here's what the same Court said about it in the Marriage Cases:

First, it set out the principle it quotes in the new opinion:

"In responding to the Attorney General's argument, the majority opinion stated that "[w]e have no occasion in this case to determine whether the state constitutional right to marry necessarily affords all couples the constitutional right to require the state to designate their official family relationship a 'marriage,' " because "[w]hether or not the name 'marriage,' in the abstract, is considered a core element of the state constitutional right to marry, one of the core elements of this fundamental right is the right of same-sex couples to have their official family relationship accorded the same dignity, respect, and stature as that accorded to all other officially recognized family relationships.

But, then, the Court answers its own question as to the importance of the word Marriage:

"The current statutes - by drawing a distinction between the name assigned to the family relationship available to opposite-sex couples and the name assigned to the family relationship available to same-sex couples, and by reserving the historic and highly respected designation of marriage exclusively to opposite-sex couples while offering same-sex couples only the new and unfamiliar designation of domestic partnership _ pose a serious risk of denying the official family relationship of same-sex couples the equal dignity and respect that is a core element of the constitutional right to marry."

It is a distinction that makes an enormous difference and, therefore, should be seen as a revision to the state's Equal Protection and Due Process requirements.

By hanging its decision that Prop 8 was an amendment and not a revision on the slim and dishonest statement that same sex couples are not denied legal rights by denying them the "word" marriage, the Court errs.

Justice Moreno, in Dissent

Bless his heart and his mind. Here is what he says:

"The question before us is not whether the language inserted into the California Constitution by Proposition 8 discriminates against same-sex couples and denies them equal protection of the law; we already decided in the Marriage Cases that it does. The question before us today is whether such a change to one of the core values upon which our state Constitution is founded can be accomplished by amending the Constitution through an initiative measure placed upon the ballot by the signatures of 8 percent of the number of persons who voted in the last gubernatorial election and passed by a simple majority of the voters. (Cal. Const., art. II, § 8.) Or is this limitation on the scope of the equal protection clause to deny the full protection of the law to a minority group based upon a suspect classification such a fundamental change that it can only be accomplished by revising the California Constitution, either through a constitutional convention or by a measure passed by a two-thirds vote of both houses of the Legislature and approved by the voters? (Cal. Const., art. XVIII.)

For reasons elaborated below, I conclude that requiring discrimination against a minority group on the basis of a suspect classification strikes at the core of the promise of equality that underlies our California Constitution and thus "represents such a drastic and far-reaching change in the nature and operation of our governmental structure that it must be considered a 'revision' of the state Constitution rather than a mere 'amendment' thereof." (Amador Valley Joint Union High Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1978) 22 Cal.3d 208, 221 (Amador Valley).) The rule the majority crafts today not only allows same-sex couples to be stripped of the right to marry that this court recognized in the Marriage Cases, it places at risk the state constitutional rights of all disfavored minorities. It weakens the status of our state Constitution as a bulwark of fundamental rights for minorities protected from the will of the majority. I therefore dissent."

Me, too.

MadProfessah Statement On Prop 8 Ruling

Fan of MadProfessah.com, Lisa Derrick of La Figa interviewed me immediately after today's press conference with several of the plaintiffs in Strauss v. Horton, which I emceed in my capacity as Board President and co-founder of the Jordan/Rustin Coalition, the only Black LGBT political organization in Southern California, and posted the video:

CA-GOV: 2010 Republican Candidates Statements on Prop 8 Ruling

There have been dozens of statements and press reactions to the California Supreme Court decision on Proposition 8 today. Two statements that I am very interested in as a Californian voter were made by the leading Republican candidates for Governor.

Current Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger made the following statement about the Proposition 8 ruling today:

"While I believe that one day either the people or courts will recognize gay marriage, as governor of California I will uphold the decision of the California Supreme Court. Regarding the 18,000 marriages that took place prior to Proposition 8's passage, the court made the right decision in keeping them intact. I also want to encourage all those responding to today's court decision to do so peacefully and lawfully.

Meg Whitman, Republican candidate for governor, today issued the following statement on the California State Supreme Court Proposition 8 ruling:

"I believe the California State Supreme Court made the right decision. Last November, the people of California passed Proposition 8, and today the Court upheld their decision. This simple yet powerful fact is the foundation of our democracy. Regardless of one’s position on the measure, this ruling gives people confidence that their vote matters and can make a difference."

California Insurance Commissioner and Republican candidate for Governor Steve Poizner issued the following statement today:

"The California Supreme Court took the appropriate action today in upholding the will of the people by affirming Proposition 8. The people of California have spoken. They voted decisively that marriage should remain between a man and a woman. That is also my personal view.

"There was much more at stake today than even the issue of gay marriage, as important and emotional as it is for so many people on both sides of the issue. If the Court had overturned Proposition 8, it would have had set a terrible legal precedent, divided Californians even further, undermined support for the judiciary and state government itself while serving as a tremendous blow to the fundamental American concept of government of the people, by the people and for the people.

"Regardless of which way the Court ruled today, a particularly shameful element of this issue has been the Attorney General's unethical abandonment of his legal responsibility to the people of California. It is no surprise that Jerry Brown politicized and abused his latest position in an unprecedented way in order to play political catch-up with Gavin Newsom.

"As Governor, Brown opposed marriage for gay Californians. As a candidate for Attorney General, Jerry Brown refused to publicly support gay marriage. But once Gavin Newsom gained the upper hand on the issue with Democratic primary votes, Brown used his office as the state's lawyer to suddenly become an advocate of gay marriage and attempt to subvert the twice expressed will of the people of California. As he enters the fifth decade of his political career, Jerry Brown seems determined to go down in history as the man who was on more sides of more issues than any other California politician."

Note that Poizner attacks both Newsom and Brown for their position on marriage equality while ignoring Antonio Villaraigosa completely. (The Los Angeles Mayor's reaction is here.) It is very clear that the Governor's race in 2010 will be a proxy fight about marriage equality.

Text of CA Supreme Court Upholding Prop 8

S168047

Publish at Scribd or explore others:

Hat/tip to Jeremy as GoodAsYou

CA Supreme Court Upholds Prop 8 and My Marriage

The California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8 by a vote of 6-1 and upheld the estimated 18, 000 same-sex marriages unanimously.

MadProfessah hosted the lead press conference in Los Angeles with reactions from the plaintiffs in Strauss v. Horton, the lawsuit to strike down Proposition 8.

I'll have more on this later.

Press Release On Tuesday May 26 News Conference

(Los Angeles, May 22, 2008) — The California Supreme Court has announced
that it will rule Tuesday, May 26, 2009, on whether Proposition 8, passed
by a slim majority of voters on November 4 and eliminating the right of
same-sex couples to marry, was a valid amendment to the California
Constitution.

At 10:30 a.m. – approximately a half-hour after the expected posting of the
ruling – attorneys for plaintiff couples and community leaders will hold a
news conference to discuss the ruling and what it means for California’s
same-sex couples and their families, communities of color, and the future
of LGBT rights in California. Clergy members will deliver an invocation
at 9:45 a.m., shortly before the ruling is announced.

WHEN: Tuesday, May 26, 2009
9:45 a.m. Clergy Invocation
10:30 a.m. News Conference

WHERE: Lucy Florence Cultural Center
3351 W. 43rd Street, L.A., CA 90008

WHO:
Ron Buckmire, Jordan Rustin Coalition
Jenny Pizer, Lambda Legal Marriage Project Director and Co-counsel, Strauss v. Horton
Mark Rosenbaum, Legal Director, ACLU of Southern California Rocky Delgadillo, City Attorney of Los Angeles
Nancy Ramirez, Western Regional Attorney, MALDEF
Rev. Eric Lee, President/CEO, Southern Christian Leadership Conference of Southern California
Marc Solomon, Equality California (organizational plaintiff in Strauss v. Horton)
Jorge Amaro, Latino Equality Alliance
Doreena Wong, API Equality
Lorri L. Jean, CEO, L.A. Gay and Lesbian Center

Gay rights groups filed Strauss v. Horton, challenging Proposition 8, on
November 5. The National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal and the
ACLU, representing six couples and Equality California, argued that the
radical change attempted by Proposition 8 amounts to a “revision” of the
California Constitution that cannot be accomplished by a simple majority
vote of the electorate unless first approved by a two-thirds vote of both
houses of the Legislature. Civil rights groups representing people of
color and other minority groups joined the challenge because of a shared
concern about protecting the constitutional guarantee of equality.

Local couples and community leaders will be available in English, Spanish,
Chinese and Korean for one-on-one interviews.

No Prop 8 Ruling Thu May 21: Only 3 Dates Left!

Joe.My.God posted this screen shot of the California Supreme Court website indicating that despiite all the rumors to the contrary, there will not be a decision in the Proposition 8 case tomorrow,

That being said, it leaves only three potential dates for what LGBT activitsts are calling DecisionDay:

 TUESDAY MAY 26TH
THURSDAY MAY 28TH
MONDAY JUNE 1ST

The Justices have until Wednesday June 3rd to release their decision, becase if they don't issue a decision within 60 days of oral argument (Thursday March 4th) then they don't get paid their salaries! (It's in the State Constitution.)

Thus there's a 2 to 1 chance that Meet in the Middle will be happening in Fresno, CA next weekend.

First Anniversary of CA Gay Marriage Decision

Kate Kendell, Executive Director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, one of the lead counsels for the plaintiffs in the In Re Marriage Cases lawsuit has issued a statement on the 1-year anniversary of the May 15, 2008 decision entitled "Fasten Your Seatbelts":

Today is the one year anniversary of the California Supreme Court’s groundbreaking ruling striking down the exclusion of same-sex couples from the right to marry. On the morning of May 15, 2008 I stood on the Supreme Court steps—with hundreds of others—and cheered, the Court’s ruling clasped in my hand. The sun was bright, filling San Francisco's Civic Center Plaza with warmth rivaled only by the elation spreading across the faces of the joyous crowd. I was surrounded by plaintiff couples from our marriage case and our colleagues from Lambda Legal, the ACLU, Equality California, and Our Family Coalition. But what I will always remember—more than anything else—was the profound belief that life had changed forever for every LGBT person in the nation.

We are all familiar with the events that followed: the right-wing groups gathered enough signatures to qualify Prop 8 on the ballot, our long and arduous battle against their campaign of deceit and lies, and the devastating moment when—for the first time in California’s history—voters used the initiative process to strip a fundamental right from a minority group

In the wake of that loss, the promise of lasting change, which I felt one year ago, dimmed almost to nothing. Yet now, a year and a huge setback later, our nation has undergone a sea-change in public attitudes and opinion. In the days following the passage of Prop 8, our community and allies banded together and held rallies and vigils attended by thousands; that energy has found life in new organizations and tireless new leadership. In the past few weeks we have seen a major shift as first Iowa, then Vermont, and then Maine embraced full equality and fairness. Just yesterday, Governor John Lynch of New Hampshire said that he would sign the marriage bill passed by the legislature in that state, making New Hampshire the sixth state to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples. New York and New Jersey loom on the horizon and public opinion is shifting massively in our direction.

The past year has been a glorious and crushing roller coaster—it has been a movement. A civil and human rights movement. While we do not know how the California Supreme Court will rule in our current lawsuit challenging the validity of Prop 8, we are fervently hopeful that the Court will once again embrace justice and equality for all. It is time for the insult that is Prop 8 to be struck down. California is now out of sync with the irresistible tide of awareness that it is not merely legally, but morally and socially, intolerable to relegate same-sex couples to anything less than full marriage equality.

Regardless of how the Court rules, we must all renew our commitment to finish this work—for all of us. Fasten your seatbelts. It's going to be a bumpy ride.

The California Supreme Court will be ruling on the constitutionality of Proposition 8 very soon. On every Wednesday and Friday at 10am (until June 3rd), the Court will announce whether the ruling will come out the following business day.

To stay informed of the decision, you can go to Overturn8.nclrights.org

New Field Poll Shows 48% Yes 47% No on Prop 8 Re-Do

Tuesday's Daily Roundup by the Capitol Weekly reports on a new poll which shows a closely divided electorate on the question of whether marriage equality should be allowed in California:

"Voters in California are sharply divided on same-sex marriage, and an amendment to overturn Prop. 8 would depend largely on campaigning and voter turnout, according to a Field Poll to be released today," writes the Chron's Leslie Fulbright.

"The poll of 761 registered voters shows 48 percent in favor of a constitutional amendment to allow same-sex marriages, with 47 percent opposing and 5 percent undecided.

"The California Supreme Court is currently considering challenges to Prop. 8, the initiative passed by voters in November that banned same-sex marriage. Proponents say that if the court doesn't side with them, they will work on a measure to overturn the ban."

Though views on same-sex marriage vary greatly according to age, geography, political party and religious preference, the numbers overall are almost equally split."'

Opinions haven't changed much since November,' said Field Poll Director Mark DiCamillo of the election where 52 percent of voters approved Prop. 8. 'The closeness of the divide suggests it would depend on the quality of the campaigning and voter turnout.'" Dan Walters reads the poll and writes: "It could be argued that gay rights groups had their best shot in 2008 as they sought to defeat Proposition 8 and allow an earlier Supreme Court decision, validating same-sex marriage, to stand. It was an extremely high-turnout presidential election in which Democrats dominated from the White House down."

It's likely that 2010's voter turnout will be millions of voters smaller and somewhat less liberal than the 2008 electorate, although it's not certain yet whether a pro-gay marriage measure would be on the June primary ballot, whose turnout would be even lower, or on the November general election ballot."

If the Supreme Court were to uphold Proposition 8 and gay rights groups were to seek a 2010 measure, only to lose again, their cause could be stalled for many years."

So, what do you think? If the California Supreme Court does not overturn Proposition 8, should we try and repeal it in 2010 or 2012? MadProfessah votes for going forward on November 2010. I seriously question Dan Walters' views on this topic since he has been so wrong before.

There are some other interesting facts in the crosstabs of the poll:

According to the poll, Democrats favor same-sex marriage by 63 percent and 32 percent oppose. Republicans are 70 percent opposed and 24 percent in favor. In the San Francisco Bay Area, those polled are 64 percent in favor and 31 percent opposed. In Los Angeles County, 55 percent favor and 40 percent oppose. Voters aged 18 to 39 favor gay marriage by 55 percent while those 65 or older are 58 percent opposed, according to the poll.

As I have said before, we need to get Democrats to realize that marriage equality is a central feature of the Democratic agenda. It is also unacceptable that we are only at 40% of Angelenos opposing a constitutional amendment to discriminate against their neighbors relationships.

What is up with that?

Cal Sup Court Oral Arguments Streamed Live

Today is the big day. The California Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments in the cases challenging Proposition 8 today. Pam's House Blend has a live chatroll going...

There are live streams at MSNBC, ABC and CNN.

Liberty Hill Says Today's Oral Argument on Prop 8 "Doesn't Matter"

Progressive foundation Liberty Hill sent an email blast with the provocative title "Why The Ruling On Prop 8 Doesn't Matter" with the following video:

In some ways, it's more effective than Equality California's much maligned video that was released earlier this week. Liberty HIll's is 60 seconds long (twice as expensive to air) and although it has no narrator, it packs an emotional wallop by seeing real live LGBT couples who are impacted by Proposition 8. It is similar to Courage Campaign's "Fidelity: Don't Divorce Us" video which is nearly 4 minutes long but features a heartbreaking musical accompaniment).

Statewide Action Wed 3/4 Before Prop 8 Oral Argument

The California Supreme Court will be hearing oral arguments in "the Proposition 8 cases" (
Strauss v. Horton, S168047; Tyler v. State of California, S168066; City and County of San Francisco v. Horton, S168078) on Thursday March 5th. The day before there will be actions all over the state, hoping to inform the court of the importance of the case to thousands of people. The event is called Eve of Justice: Lighting The Way For The Supreme Court and here is the announcement from the Equal Roots Coalition:

Come out for the Eve of Justice!

March 4 (Wednesday) is the day before the California Supreme Court hears oral arguments on the validity of Prop 8. Let's come together and send a unified message to our fellow Californians, including the Supreme Court Justices that individual liberties like the right to marry are guaranteed by the Constitution to everyone and cannot be stripped away at the ballot box by a bare majority.

Eve of Justice: Lighting The Way For The Supreme Court
Wednesday, March 4th - 5:30pm - 7:00pm
Olvera Street, Downtown LA
(South of Cesar Chavez Ave, between N. Main St and N Alameda St)

·Legal Update from Lambda Legal
·Musical Performances
·Recommitment Ceremonies
·Candlelight pledge

2 blocks West of Union Station, providing easy Metro access from Hollywood, San Fernando Valley, Pasadena, East LA and Long Beach

www.eveofjustice.com/la/

To join the facebook event go to:www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=50722443794

The event is organized by Marriage Equality USA, HRC, EqCA, Join the Impact, GLAAD, Courage Campaign, California Faith for Equality, Progressive Jewish Alliance, Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry California, Amnesty International, Love Honor Cherish, Jordan/Rustin Coalition, Whiteknot.org, API Equality-LA, Equality Network, Somos Familia, Roots of Equality, Gays UN, Postcards to the President, Metropolitan Community Church Los Angeles, F.A.I.R, Latino Equality Alliance, Honor PAC, LA Pride and Christopher Street West, Collage and the Equal Roots Coalition.

March 5th - Supreme Court Oral Argument Hearing 9am to noon.

Television viewing: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/prop8viewing.htm
8:00 AM— NOON
Los Angeles City Hall - Council Chambers (Rm. 340)
200 N. Spring Street, Los Angeles, California 90012
8:00 AM: Council Chambers doors open
8:30 AM: Discussion by City officials & attorneys prior to historic oral arguments re: Prop 8
9:00 AM-Noon: Live Broadcast of the California Supreme Court proceedings
No RSVP required. For more info, email: sp-rsvp@lacity.org

Hope to see YOU there!