Showing posts with label lawsuit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lawsuit. Show all posts
These Three Men Will Decide Fate Of Proposition 8
 |  |  |
| Hawkins | Smith | Reinhardt |
The 3-member panel for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals who will hear oral arguments on Monday December 6th in the federal Proposition 8 case, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, has been announced. It consists of the most liberal member of the gigantic 26-member 9th Circuit, Hon. Stephen Reinhardt (appointed by Carter in 1980), a moderate jurist named Hon. Michael Daly Hawkins (appointed by Clinton in 1994) and a right-wing ideologue, N. Randy Smith (appointed by George W. Bush in 2007).
Most commenters think that the make-up of the panel indicates a likely 2-1 decision in favor of the good guys (supporters of marriage equality), which will probably get appealed to an 11-member panel of the 9th Circuit called an en banc panel. From there, it's direct to the Supreme Court of the United States, the highest court in the land.
First Comprehensive Review of U.S. Laws On HIV/AIDS Released
The Center for HIV Law and Policy today released the first comprehensive analysis of HIV-specific criminal laws and prosecutions in the United States. The publication, Ending and Defending Against HIV Criminalization: State and Federal Laws and Prosecutions, covers policies and cases in all fifty states, the military, federal prisons and U.S. territories.
“In the United States there are many shocking cases of persons being prosecuted for otherwise-legal conduct solely based on their HIV status,” said René Bennett-Carlson, CHLP’s Managing Attorney, and one of the authors of the manual, “This singling out of people with HIV for arrests and punishment without consideration of the responsibility of all parties in a sexual relationship, the actual risk of HIV transmission, and whether transmission even occurred is based on intolerable ignorance about HIV. These laws and prosecutions have no positive impact whatsoever on HIV infection rates or risk behavior.”
People are being imprisoned for decades, and in many cases have to register as sex offenders, as a consequence of exaggerated fears about HIV. Most of these cases involve consensual sex or conduct such as spitting and biting that has only a remote possibility of HIV exposure. For example, a number of states have laws that make it a felony for someone who has had a positive HIV test to spit on or touch another person with blood or saliva. “We hope that this resource will put a spotlight on this terrible injustice and make it easier for advocates to defend against these discriminatory prosecutions,” Bennett-Carlson added.
Some examples of recent prosecutions discussed in CHLP’s manual include:
· A man with HIV in Texas is serving thirty-five years for spitting at a police officer;
· A man with HIV in Iowa, who had an undetectable viral load, received a twenty-five year sentence after a one-time sexual encounter during which he used a condom; his sentence was suspended, but he had to register as a sex-offender and is not allowed unsupervised contact with his nieces, nephews and other young children;
· A woman with HIV in Georgia received an eight-year sentence for failing to disclose her HIV status, despite the trial testimony of two witnesses that her sexual partner was aware of her HIV positive status;
· A man with HIV in Michigan was charged under the state’s anti-terrorism statute with possession of a “biological weapon” after he allegedly bit his neighbor.
Ending and Defending Against HIV Criminalization: State and Federal Laws and Prosecutions is intended as a resource for lawyers and community advocates on the laws, cases, and trends that define HIV criminalization in the United States. Thirty-four states and two U.S. territories have HIV-specific criminal statutes and thirty-six states have reported proceedings in which HIV-positive people have been arrested and/or prosecuted for consensual sex, biting, and spitting. At least eighty such prosecutions have occurred in the last two years alone.
The catalog of state and federal laws and cases is the first volume of a multi-part manual that CHLP’s Positive Justice Project is developing for legal and community advocates. The goal of the Positive Justice Project is to bring an end to laws and policies that subject people with HIV to arrest and increased punishment on the basis of gross ignorance about the nature and transmission of HIV, without consideration of the actual risks of HIV exposure.
“We support the work of the Center for HIV Law and Policy’s Positive Justice Project. This manual is a tremendous achievement and provides a desperately needed resource for the HIV community,” said Vanessa Johnson, Executive Vice President of the National Association of People with AIDS (NAPWA). “NAPWA proposed the idea of an HIV criminalization manual to CHLP because of their reputation in this area, and because criminalization acts as a disincentive to testing. It discourages testing by imposing huge risks and penalties on a positive test result. Criminalization also is an unwarranted assault on the rights and dignity of people living with HIV.”
Catherine Hanssens, Executive Director of CHLP, added, “These laws make the statement that those who test positive for HIV are too toxic to have intimate relationships, that HIV is highly infectious, and that only those who get tested bear any responsibility for preventing the spread of sexually-transmitted diseases. These laws treat people with HIV as if they are packing an unlicensed, loaded gun – as if the very fact of HIV infection is proof of criminal intent.”
René Bennett-Carlson concluded, “Three decades into the HIV epidemic, it is time to bring this kind of ignorance and hysteria to an end.”
The manual can be accessed and downloaded at www.hivlawandpolicy.org/
# # #
The Center for HIV Law and Policy is a national legal and policy resource and strategy that works to reduce the impact of HIV on vulnerable and marginalized communities and to secure the human rights of people affected by HIV. We increase the advocacy power of advocates, and community members, and advance policy initiatives that are grounded in and uphold social justice, science, and the public health. We do this by providing an accessible web-based resource bank; leadership and analysis on key policy issues; and direct back-up to advocates on initiatives through our interdisciplinary support networks of experts, activists, and high-quality resources.
Eddie Long Files Court Papers Denying Sexual Allegations
Eddie Long has formally filed legal paperwork denying the claims of four young Black men that he had sex with them while they were 18 or younger and under his care as part of his youth ministry.
The Church that the founded, the New Birth Missionary Baptist Church also filed paperwork denying the charges.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports:
The Church that the founded, the New Birth Missionary Baptist Church also filed paperwork denying the charges.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports:
Hmmm, I do believe perjury is a crime and bearing false witness is a sin, right? Does Eddie Long know that?On Monday [November 1], Long filed four separate responses, each about 30 pages and denying each accusation point by point. He admitted that he took the men on trips, but he denied the complaints of sexual contact. He did admit to hugging some of the men."Bishop Long admits that it is common among his church congregation for members to hug each other and hug the Bishop," the suit reads.Long also admitted to giving the plaintiffs gifts, including cars, and helping them financially, but he denied that it was in exchange for sex. He said he has "provided sporadic financial assistance," and he routinely pays for rent and other expenses for New Birth members, according to the filings.In the filings, Long also admitted to speaking on the phone with the men, but said he could not recall who initiated the calls. He also admitted that the men called him "Daddy," "Bishop" and "Granddaddy," but said many members of his congregation called him similar names."Bishop Long admits that he mentors many young men from challenged backgrounds who have often been without the benefit of a male role model," according to his filings.In his filings, Long said he is a "bold revolutionary spiritual leader," and Long has built a ministry that places "special emphasis on outreach to men, reinforcing to men the importance of partnering with a ministry that will grow them spiritually."
Mississippi Black Corrections Officer Fired For Being Gay
André Cooley, a corrections officer in Forrest County, Mississippi, was fired recently after his employer discovered he was gay.
The Clarion-Ledger reports on a lawsuit filed by the ACLU on behalf of Cooley against the Sheriff's Department, Sheriff Billy McGee and other jail employees.
The incidents pertinent to the lawsuit began with a 911 call placed by Cooley on June 14, requesting help in a domestic disturbance.A Hattiesburg Police Department report lists Cooley as the victim and describes his male companion as the assailant. The complaint states Bolton also responded to the call and ordered Cooley to report to his immediate supervisor before returning to work after learning of the two men's relationship.McGee on Monday said he stood by the decision to fire Cooley."He got in a fight with his boyfriend, and the police were called to his house for a domestic disturbance," McGee said. "Those kinds of incidents don't speak well for people in law enforcement."
[...]
Here is a video of an interview with Coooley discussing the lawsuit.According to the complaint, Cooley obtained a copy of the police report on June 15, saw he was listed as a victim acting in self-defense and began trying to reach Bolton. He instead reached Brannon, and Brannon told him he was to be terminated because of the "type of situation" in which he was involved.The complaint also states Brannon told Cooley he was fired because of his sexual orientation, and that Brannon later told Cooley's former co-workers that he was fired because he "turned out to be a faggot," according to the lawsuit, which represents one side of a legal dispute.The Sheriff's Department also contested Cooley's application for unemployment benefits. A decision from the Mississippi Department of Employment Security dated July 21 says Cooley "displayed inappropriate conduct and behavior while off-duty, unacceptable for any officer."[...]."What makes things particularly difficult in Mississippi is that there's no federal or state law forbidding discrimination (on grounds of sexual orientation)," [Cooley's lawyer] Atwood said.
DADT Update: 9th Circuit Issues Stay Until 10/25
Chris Geidner of Metro Weekly is reporting that the 9th Circuit has issued a stay of Judge Phillips' injunction in Log Cabin Republicans v. United States, which means that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is back in effect.
To wit:
To wit:
After DADT had been halted from enforcement for nearly 200 hours, the Ninth Circuit order legally makes DADT enforceable again for the time being.
In a brief order, Judges O'Scannlain, Trott and W. Fletcher wrote:This court has received appellant’s emergency motion to stay the district court’s October 12, 2010 order pending appeal. The order is stayed temporarily in order to provide this court with an opportunity to consider fully the issues presented.
Appellee may file an opposition to the motion for a stay pending appeal by October 25, 2010. To expedite consideration of the motion, no reply shall be filed.The judges' order means that a temporary stay of the trial court injunction of DADT has been granted until the Ninth Circuit can decide -- sometime after Oct. 25 -- whether to issue a stay pending the appeal of the case to the Ninth Circuit.
[...]
If a stay is granted pending the appeal, however, DADT would likely go back into effect in the interim, as the appeal is not even scheduled to complete the briefing process until the second week of March 2011.
DADT Update: Federal Judge Refuses To Lift Stay
The Department of Justice has appealed her ruling, and is expected to appeal her injunction, to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. I support the appeal of the ruling, but not of the injunction. A single federal judge should not be making public policy for the entire federal government. I suspect the government will lose on appeal as well. I would NOT support an appeal to the United States Supreme Court at that time.
Meanwhile, since DADT is no longer in effect right now and the Pentagon has told recruiters they can accept LGBT recruits, Dan Choi has apparently successfully reenlisted in the military, this time the Marines.
DOJ Appeals Rulings Against DOMA To 1st U.S.Circuit
As Chris Geidner of PoliGlot reports:
In a move expected by most legal observers, the U.S. Department of Justice this afternoon filed notices of appeal in two cases striking down the federal definition of marriage, contained in the Defense of Marriage Act, as unconstitutional.
[...]
The White House issued no comment on the filing and directed questions to DOJ.
The filing of the notice means that the record of the trial court case will be sent to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Once the record is complete, DOJ will have 40 days to file its brief. GLAD or Massachusetts, depending on the case, will then have 30 days to file its brief. The government then has 14 days to file a reply brief.
The full statement by Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) is:
Today, the Department of Justice filed a notice of appeal in the case of Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, the challenge brought by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) to Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Representing seven married same-sex couples and three widowers, GLAD filed Gill in March 2009. The case was heard in May 2010 by U.S. District Court Judge Joseph L. Tauro, who issued a decision finding DOMA Section 3 unconstitutional on July 8, 2010.
“We fully expected an appeal and are more than ready to meet it head on,” said Mary L. Bonauto, GLAD’s Civil Rights Project Director. “DOMA brings harm to families like our plaintiffs every day, denying married couples and their children basic protections like health insurance, pensions, and Social Security benefits. We are confident in the strength of our case.”
The case is now before the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The next step will be for the government to file its brief to that court arguing that Judge Tauro’s ruling was wrong. GLAD will then file its brief in opposition to the government, and finally the government will file a reply brief. At that point, the appeal will be scheduled for oral argument. Briefing could be concluded by the spring of 2011 with oral argument to follow by the fall of 2011.
The government also today filed its notice of appeal in the related case Commonwealth of Massachusetts vs. Department of Health and Human Services.
Co-counsel in the Gill case are attorneys from the firms Foley Hoag LLP, Sullivan & Worcester LLP, Jenner & Block LLP, and Kator, Parks & Weiser, PLLC.
Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders is New England’s leading legal organization dedicated to ending discrimination based on sexual orientation, HIV status, and gender identity and expression.
MadProfessah supports the appeal by the Administration and fully expects GLAD to be successful at the 1st Circuit appellate level and U.S. Supreme Court.
10 States File Joint Brief Supporting Prop 8 Proponents
10 states have filed amicus briefs with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on the behalf of the heterosexual supremacists who are defending Proposition 8 on appeal from the August 4th striking the gay marriage ban as unconstitutional. The ten states who signed the brief are: Wyoming, Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia.
Additionally, many other heterosexual supremacists groups such as PFOX and the Ethics and Public Policy Center have also filed briefs supporting Proposition 8 and "protecting traditional marriage."
For more info see the Courage Campaign's Prop8TrialTracker.com
Additionally, many other heterosexual supremacists groups such as PFOX and the Ethics and Public Policy Center have also filed briefs supporting Proposition 8 and "protecting traditional marriage."
For more info see the Courage Campaign's Prop8TrialTracker.com
CA Sup Ct Refuses To Force State To Appeal Prop 8
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.
Homophobes Sue Schwarzenegger and Brown To Force Prop 8 Appeal
Word comes today that heterosexual supremacist losers in the Perry v Schwarzenegger lawsuit are seriously worried about not having standing to appeal the federal lawsuit, so they have sued the state defendants Attorney General Jerry Brown and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in state court in an attempt to force them to defend Proposition 8.
Equality California's executive director Geoff Kors said:
Brown has said both in legal filings and public statements that he has sworn to uphold the state and federal constitutions and therefore can not defend Proposition 8 because he thinks it is an unconstitutional violation of gay Californians' civil rights.
"The attorney general does not believe that he can be forced to prosecute an appeal of a decision with which he agrees," Brown spokeswoman Christine Gasparac said Tuesday.
In seeking to make the state file an appeal, Pacific Justice Institute is trying to address the possibility that the case might get short-circuited before the 9th Circuit can consider if Proposition 8 passes constitutional muster.Most experts think that it is very doubtful that a state court will attempt to compel another branch of government to defend a federal lawsuit.
Equality California's executive director Geoff Kors said:
“This is an outrageous attempt to try and force elected officials who have sworn to uphold the United States Constitution to defend a law that the Federal Court has found to be unconstitutional. It demonstrates their acknowledgement that the proponents of Proposition 8 lack standing to appeal, that the case should be dismissed and loving same-sex couples should be allowed to exercise their constitutional right to marry.”
Federal Prop 8 Decision TOMORROW!
The American Foundation for Equal Rights has announced that the decision in the federal challenge to California's Proposition 8, Perry v. Schwarzenegger will be released tomorrow, Wednesday August 4th (Barack Obama's 49th birthday!)Federal district court judge Vaughn Walker is widely expected to strike down Proposition 8, but his reasoning and the extent of his ruling should be very interesting. Ted Olson and David Boies were the attorneys for the plaintiffs.
UPDATE TUESDAY 08/03/2010 6:41PM
The decision will be released electronically on the federal court's website between 1pm and 3pm on Wednesday August 4th.
VitaminWater Is Declared A Scam!
OMG! Vitaminwater has been ruled to be a marketing scam by a federal court. This is very sad to me because I love drinking Vitaminwater! I like the "dwnld" and "XXX" flavors. I never believed the "health claims" but I figured that it was better than drinking juice or Gatorade.However, the Center for Science in the Public Interest points out that each 20 ounce bottle ofVitaminwater has 32.5 g of sugars. There is no Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) of sugars, but official guidelines indicate that a good goal is at most 40g of sugars for someone who has 2000 calories per day.
The CSPI sued Coca-Cola over the claims the company makes for Vitaminwater and a federal judge refused to dismiss the lawsuit.
By including the suggestion that the product will “keep you healthy” or “help bring about a healthy state of physical and mental being” alongside such statements, the quoted language implies that the nutrient content of vitaminwater may help consumers maintain healthy dietary practices. I conclude, therefore, in light of the language and context in which they are used, that the statements on the “defense” and “B- Relaxed” labels constitute implied nutrient content claims which use the word “healthy.” Such claims are in violation of violation of FDA regulations because . . . vitaminwater achieves its nutritional content solely through fortification that violates FDA policy.
Hat/tip to Joe.My.God
READ Gill v. OPM Decision Striking Down DOMA
A big day for supporters of marriage equality today! A federal judge struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act in two cases, Gill v. OPM and Massachusetts v. DHHS today. The first case was filed by Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) on behalf of seven same-sex couples who are married in Massachusetts and would like the federal government to recognize that status. The second case was filed by former Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley.
Here's the text of the Massachusetts v. Department of Health and Human Services case:
Here's the text of the Gill decision:
Here's the text of the Massachusetts v. Department of Health and Human Services case:
Federal Court Hears Challenge To DOMA
Today, federal judge Joseph Tauro is hearing oral arguments in Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, a constitutional challenge to Section 3 of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which purports to disallow any federal benefits to any marriage which does not consist of one man and woman.Cue the press release:
This lawsuit has a very good chance of succeeding, even with a court with Scalia on it.Federal Court Hears Arguments in DOMA Challenge
This morning in Boston, six years after the first same-sex couples in the country started marrying in Massachusetts, eight married same-sex couples and three widowers went to Federal District Court to hear arguments in their challenge to Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). DOMA defines marriage as only between a man and a woman for all purposes under federal law.
Represented by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), the plaintiffs in Gill et al. v. Office of Personnel Management, all married in Massachusetts, have each been harmed by DOMA treating them as unmarried.
“This is a classic equal protection issue. The Constitution applies to gay and lesbian citizens, and married ones, too,” Mary L. Bonauto, GLAD’s Civil Rights Project Director, told the Court. “What governmental purpose does the US have as an employer in treating some of its married employees, retirees and surviving annuitants differently from other married persons, such that Nancy Gill pays for a self and family plan like some of her married colleagues, but the plan doesn’t cover her own spouse?”
Bonauto presented a three-pronged legal argument: By singling out only the marriages of same-sex couples, DOMA violates the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution; DOMA represents an unprecedented intrusion of the federal government into marriage law, which for 230 years has been legislated by states; and by denying federal protections to families, DOMA burdens the marriages of same-sex couples and their right to maintain family integrity.
U.S. District Court Judge, Joseph L. Tauro, vigorously questioned plaintiffs and defendants in a courtroom packed with supporters and media. Judge Tauro heard GLAD’s motion for summary judgment as well as the federal government’s motion to dismiss. The hearing addressed the core issue of whether DOMA Section 3 is constitutional six years after the first same-sex couples in the country started marrying in Massachusetts, the result of GLAD’s groundbreaking marriage case, Goodridge v. Department of Public Health.
As a result of DOMA, passed by Congress in 1996, plaintiffs in GLAD’s lawsuit have been denied survivor benefits on a deceased spouse’s pension; denied health insurance coverage for a spouse on a federal family plan; denied Social Security spousal, death, and widower benefits; and denied the ability to file federal income taxes jointly as married.
“DOMA means that our country doesn’t treat our family or our marriage as equal to our friends’ and coworkers’ families,” said plaintiff Nancy Gill after the hearing. A U.S. Postal Service employee, Gill, with her spouse Marcelle Letourneau, is raising two children in Brockton. “Under DOMA, we are not married, and my federal employer must deny Marcelle my health benefits. Under DOMA Marcelle won’t receive the federal health benefit given to surviving spouses. She’ll also be denied my pension benefits.”
Gill was filed on March 3, 2009, and has been called the case with the greatest potential for national impact by the National Law Journal. The Gill legal team is led by Bonauto and GLAD Legal Director Gary Buseck, and staff attorneys Nima Eshghi, Janson Wu, and Samuel Bickett. Co-operating counsel on the case include Foley Hoag LLP (Boston), Sullivan & Worcester LLP (Boston), Jenner & Block LLP (Washington, DC) and Kator, Parks & Weiser, PLLC (Washington, DC).
Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders is New England’s leading legal organization dedicated to ending discrimination based on sexual orientation, HIV status, and gender identity and expression.
Information about the case, the plaintiffs, and the attorneys representing them can be found at www.glad.org/doma.
Protect Marriage Sues Courage Campaign Over Logo Parody
Do you notice anything similar between the two logos above? The bottom one was the official logo of ProtectMarriage.com, the proponents of Proposition 8, the state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in California, who are now the defendant-intervenors in the Perry v Schwarzenegger federal lawsuit going on before a 9th Circuit District Court Judge in San Francisco. The top one is the logo of Prop8TrialTracker.com, which has become one of themost heavily trafficked LGBT weblogs in the last week, since it is an excellent source for real-time information on the landmark trial on the unconstitutionality of Proposition 8.
Last week, ProtectMarriage.com's lawyers sent Courage Campaign (the people who are responsible for creating the Prop8TrialTracker.com website) a cease and desist letter complaining about the use of their copyrighted trademark in the logo of the new website. Courage Campaign replied with a letter that said, in very nice lawyerly language: go f*** yourself.
Yesterday, the heterosexual supremacists responded by filing suit(pdf) in federal court against Courage Campaign. What is amusing about the logo lawsuit is that ProtectMarriage.com is arguing in one federal court that the image of a same-sex couple and an opposite-sex couple are "substantial indistingushable" when depicted graphically, but in their defense of Proposition 8 in another federal court, they are claiming that same-sex marriage and opposite-sex marriage are two completely different and very distinguishable entities (and one of these is much better than the other--guess which one?)
Makes you go, hmmmm, right?
Here's a press release from Courage Campaign about their latest legal response (pdf) to the logo lawsuit:
Courage Campaign Institute responds to Complaint and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order by Prop 8 supporters
Jacobs: "The Courage Campaign Institute will continue to focus our energy on this historic trial and the rights and protections at stake for loving, committed same-sex couples. 'ProtectMarriage.com' can continue to expend time, energy and resources on a logo. Frankly, I think that says a lot about our respective priorities."
LOS ANGELES, CA - The Courage Campaign Institute responded this morning to a complaint and temporary restraining order delivered yesterday by lawyers for ProtectMarriage.com and announced it will continue to refuse to remove a logo on their Prop 8 Trial Tracker website that parodies the ProtectMarriage.com logo.
Courage Campaign Institute legal counsel Nathan Sabri of Morrison Foerster continues to assert in written documents to ProtectMarriage.com that "this difference between our client's logo and your client's logo is a graphical representation of the core difference between Courage Campaign's views and ProtectMarriage.com's views, presented in a sassy way that will not be lost on the public."
In an Opposition response statement filed to the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of California, Sabri cited numerous examples of case law, including cases involving the World Wrestling Federation, Mattel, and Universal Studios to show that Courage Campaign has a legal right to parody the ProtectMarriage.com logo.
Rick Jacobs, Chair of the 700,000-member Courage Campaign Instititute, commented on the irony of ProtectMarriage.com's continued focus on this issue. "We thought that our response laying out the tremendous legal precedent in cases like this would be the end of this silliness," said Jacobs. "But we are more than happy to defend our case if Prop 8 supporters continue to argue that the difference between their logo and ours is 'substantially indistinguishable,' given that their logo features a father and mother and our logo features two mothers."
In a response letter to ProtectMarriage.com sent Friday, January 15, attorney Sabri had previously stated that "while our client does appreciate the irony of the suggestion in your letter that a logo of a family made up of a man, a woman, and two children is 'substantially indistinguishable' from a logo of a family made up of two women and two children, your assertion is incorrect."
"The Courage Campaign Institute will continue to focus our energy on this historic trial and the rights and protections at stake for loving, committed same-sex couples," said Jacobs. "ProtectMarriage.com" can continue to expend time, energy and resources on a logo. Frankly, I think that says a lot about our respective priorities."
Jacobs concluded, "This is yet another attempt by Prop 8 supporters to distract from the facts being brought forth at this trial that are demonstrating quite clearly both the discrimination same-sex couples face and the need and benefit to society of equal treatment under the law."
Courage Campaign's Prop 8 Trial Tracker web site has garnered more than 700,000 views and 5,000 comments since it launched on January 11 and has become a leading source of real-time updates on the Perry v. Schwarzenegger trial.
Why Prop 8 Is Unconstitutional: Read The Olson-Boies Brief
Intrepid lesbian reporter (and now blogger) Karen Ocamb has made available the first plaintiff's brief in the Olson-Boies federal lawsuit challenging Proposition 8, formally known as Perry v. Schwarzenegger at her website.
I have used Scribd to make it available below:
Olson Boies Brief
Kare has all sorts of interesting analysis at her website, and the list of expert witnesses being called by both sides. Check it out now.
I have used Scribd to make it available below:
Olson Boies Brief
Kare has all sorts of interesting analysis at her website, and the list of expert witnesses being called by both sides. Check it out now.
NYT on Timing Of Olson-Boies Prop 8 Federal Case
Monday's New York Times has an article on the much-debated "Olson-Boies lawsuit," formally known as Perry v. Schwarzenegger. Adam Liptak's piece begins with "In Battle Over Gay Marriage, Timing May Be Key":
In a San Francisco courtroom two weeks ago, a prominent lawyer opposed to same-sex marriage made a concession that could mark a turning point in the legal wars over the purpose and meaning of marriage.Unsurprisingly, the federal judge, Vaughn Walker denied Mr. Cooper's motion to dismiss the Olson-Boies lawsuit.
The lawyer, Charles J. Cooper, has studied the matter deeply, and his erudite briefs are steeped in history. He cannot have been blindsided by the question Judge Vaughn R. Walker asked him: What would be the harm of permitting gay men and lesbians to marry?
“Your honor, my answer is: I don’t know,” Mr. Cooper said. “I don’t know.”
However, Liptak goes on to discuss the intra-community debate about whether the lawsuit will be "good for the gays" and generally seems to favor the argument that it is probably premature.
Mr. Olson’s problem, then, is that he may reach the Supreme Court too soon. Public support for same-sex marriage is gaining ground, particularly among younger people. But a majority of Americans remains opposed to the practice.There were 19 years between the first state Supreme Court (California) striking down its interracial marriage ban and the United States Supreme Court following suit nationally. The first state High Court to strike down a marriage law was Massachusetts in 2003 (although 10 years before in May 1993 the Hawaii Supreme Court had ruled that it was likely to find that state's marriage statute unconstitutional but the voters amended their state constitution in 1998 before a final ruling could be made).
At the argument, Judge Walker seemed to share this concern. “Aren’t you just getting ahead of yourself by asserting this claim under the federal constitutional provisions?” the judge asked.
Mr. Olson responded by comparing his case to Loving v. Virginia, the 1967 Supreme Court decision that held bans on interracial marriage to be unconstitutional. But 34 states permitted interracial marriage when Loving was decided. Only six states permit same-sex marriages.
The Loving decision, moreover, came almost two decades after the California Supreme Court struck down a state law banning interracial marriage in 1948 in Perez v. Sharp. The California Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage decision is a little more than a year old, and it has been repudiated by the state’s voters.
[...]
“We should buckle our seatbelts,” [openly gay New York University Law] Professor [Kenji] Yoshino said. “A comprehensive vetting of the empirical issues by a judicial tribunal is welcome and long overdue. Walker’s trial bids fair to be a trial in an almost scientific sense of the word.”
So, if one measures from Hawaii's Baehr v. Lewin case, a ruling from the United States Supreme Court in 2012 would also be 19 years between first State Supreme court action to federal imprimatur, but the more apposite case is Massachusetts' Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health which went into effect in May 2004. Following the Loving v. Virginia mathematics would mean the U.S. Supreme Court wouldn't legalize same-sex marriage nationally until 2023. Extending the analogy to the historical moment when interracial marriage was legalized nationally by then a majority of states would allow same-sex marriage, an unlikely prospect due to the 30 states where voters have amended their state constitutions to prevent their Courts and legislatures from expanding the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples.
Soon we will find out when (and whether) states will start repealing these anti-gay marriage constitutional amendments. More likely than not, California will be in the vanguard in that battle, too.
WA Heterosexual Supremacists Win Temporary Stay From Kennedy
The stakes are getting higher and higher in Washington state over whether the names of the people who signed petitions which allowed Referendum 71 to barely qualify for the November 3rd 2009 ballot will be released to the public. Earlier today, Justice Anthony Kennedy re-instated a U.S. District Court ruling that had been overturned by a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel on Thursday which had shielded the names of heterosexual supremacists who were told they were signing petitions to ban gay marriage, when really what Referendum 71 would do is eliminate Washington state's recently enacted comprehensive domestic partnership law.
According to the SCOTUS blog which monitors all actions by the United states Supreme Court:
According to the SCOTUS blog which monitors all actions by the United states Supreme Court:
UPDATE 2:55 p.m. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy on Monday afternoon put back into effect, temporarily, a federal judge’s order that protects the privacy of signers of a petition seeking a voter referendum on a gay rights law in Washington State. He did so, however, only until a further order is issued by himself or by the Court; the order is here. Kennedy acted on the basis of the application, before getting a response, due this afternoon, from state officials. FURTHER UPDATE 5:50 p.m. The state officials’ response is now in; it can be found here.It is likely that Kennedy will refer the matter to the full Court and the matter will be resolved on Tuesday.
Prop 8 Federal Case Heading To January 2009 Trial
Wednesday was a big day in the Olson-Boies federal lawsuit better known as Perry v. Schwarzenegger: U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker denied motions to dismiss the lawsuit which means that there will most likely be a federal trial in January 2009 on whether Proposition 8 violates the United States Constitution.
From Law Dork:
From Law Dork:
It should be fascinating to see how this lawsuit develops.Judge Walker ruled that a trial, or at least more evidence, is necessary before he can make a determination about what standard of review to apply when judging whether Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of due process or equal protection based on either sex or sexual orientation claims.
Importantly, Judge Walker struck a blow today to proponents’ claimed state interest of protecting “traditional” marriage, finding that “tradition alone is not enough.” He likewise dismissed proponents’ claim concern about California becoming a “marriage mill” if same-sex marriages were allowed in the state. Finally, Walked found that furthering male-female procreative protections was “suitable for a fuller development at trial.” The Proposition 8 proponents had asked the judge to rule that the Plaintiffs had failed to show that Proposition 8 is unrelated to a legitimate state interest, which he refused to do.
Walker stated that neither Romer v. Evans nor Lawrence v. Texas foreclosed what level of scrutiny to apply in this case as to the claimed sexual orientation discrimination, but found instead that the determination requires a full factual record. He noted that the Proposition 8 proponents’ failure to address the first two Carolene Products factors – immutability of the characteristic and political powerlessness of the affected group – impairs their argument against strict scrutiny. These factors, Walker stated, are thus “prime issues for trial.”
Interestingly, Judge Walker also left open the door to a sex-based discrimination claim of Plaintiffs, stating that it was not possible to make a determination on this question as a matter of law and that a further factual record was necessary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
