Lambda Legal Describes What the DOMA Repeal, Respect for Marriage Act, Will Do For Us

Lambda Legal helpfully goes into detail how the DOMA repeal Respect for Marriage Act will benefit us if it passes.

Lambda Legal-Respect for Marriage Act Benefits

Court Denies LGBT Legal Organizations to Join as Plaintiffs in Federal Prop 8 Case

Today Judge Vaughn R. Walker of the U.S. District Court in San Francisco denied the request of Our Family Coalition; Lavender Seniors of the East Bay; and Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) to join Perry v. Schwarzenegger, a federal lawsuit challenging California's Proposition 8.

"Nothing in the record before the court shows the current parties are incapable of delivering a full record that represents all of the parties interests," the judge said.

A statement by Lambda Legal, the ACLU and the National Center for Lesbian Rights:

On behalf of our clients, we are disappointed that the court did not permit organizations that represent California's diverse lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community to participate in the case as the Court weighs the harms inflicted by Proposition 8. The significance of this case for our entire community is enormous. To exclude the people whose very freedom is at stake is troubling.

Our commitment to restoring marriage for all Californians is unwavering, and we will continue to do everything within our power to secure full equality and justice for LGBT people.

Law Dork says the groups will "be limited to filing amicus briefs, memoranda submitted to the court representing the views of non-parties who have an interest in the outcome of the case. At the trial court level, they will not have the ability to participate in depositions or request discovery. On appeal, they will have the option of requesting time at the oral argument, though, at this point, it is unclear how willing the plaintiffs will be to consent to any potential argument-sharing arrangement. In short, this has moved the LGBT legal organizations to the periphery of a very prominent and potentially landmark case."

Unite the Fight will continue to report on today's hearing. Other issues to be settled: whether or not the case should go to a public bench trial, a first for a same-sex marriage case. Plaintiffs support a trial, while defenders of Prop 8 do not.

UPDATE: San Francisco Has Filed to Intervene in the Olson/Boies Federal Case Against Prop 8

UPDATE: The amazing Therese Stewart, San Francisco's Chief Deputy Attorney, is more than happy to contribute to the "factual record" that Judge Walker is asking for in this case. Why? "Stewart’s been trying to get a judge to look at the facts about sexual orientation and discrimination for about four years," reports Legal Pad. And boy, does she got a record to give! Read more.

San Francisco has followed ACLU, NCLR and Lambda Legal in filing a motion to intervene in the federal case challenging Prop 8, the case headed up by power team Ted Olson and David Boies. (Read brief.) With Judge Vaughn Walker wanting to fast track the case while keeping a very thorough record for appellate courts, this new motion could possibly slow the process down while adding to the already building tension surrounding the case. Yet at the same time, it will add to the record.

The American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER), which currently has the sole right to direct the case and is funding the lawsuit, filed as plaintiffs along with two same-sex couples. Its president, Chad Griffin, sent a letter to the three organizations accusing them of trying to wrestle control of the case, or in the very least, take credit for its possible success. AFER had reached out to the groups before filing, but they declined to be involved.

In its filing, San Francisco said it would add "a unique local government perspective" and extensive LGBT rights experience to the case, if allowed to intervene, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. The city pledged to cooperate with the attorneys for the plaintiffs.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker scheduled a hearing on San Francisco's motion to intervene for August 19. A hearing is still expected on the earlier motion to intervene filed by the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal and the American Civil Liberties Union.

LGBT Groups Respond to Icy Reception of Their Intent to Intervene on Fed Prop 8 Case

Thursday brought news of what's being described as a "turf war" over the federal case being brought against Prop 8 by the American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER) helmed by Ted Olson and David Boies.

NCLR, ACLU and Lambda Legal had initially declined to be part of the case describing it as "ill-timed" and gave disparaging remarks about it in the press, but have since filed a motion to intervene to be part of the case.

In response to the motion, Board President of AFER Chad Griffin sent them a rather harsh letter in which he states, "You have unrelentingly and unequivocally acted to undermine this case even before it was filed. In light of that, it is inconceivable that you would zealously and effectively litigate this case if you were successful in intervening. Therefore, we will vigorously oppose any motion to intervene."

Today, Law Dork reports on the groups' response to the letter.

Jenny Pizer of Lambda Legal, who in the letter is mentioned to have wanted the word "supportive" in relation to the friend of the court briefs they filed along with the other LGBT groups, not used.

Law Dork reports: “'It just leaves me scratching my head a little bit.' She said that Griffin had been 'delighted' by the filing of the amicus brief and that her concern about the word 'support' was that it mischaracterized the purpose of the friend-of-the-court filing: 'It’s not an endorsement of what’s in [the initial Olson-Boies] brief; it’s a complimentary presentation.'”

In regards to the groups delaying the case by jumping in at this point of the process, a concern shared by Unite the Fight, Pizer told Law Dork that the concerns about delay were unwarranted and the Lambda is “committed to an efficient but complete presentation of the case.”

Law Dork writes, "James Esseks, the co-director of the ACLU’s LGBT Rights Project, said of the distinction between the groups’ initial response and their filing on Wednesday, 'People can disagree about when and whether to jump into the pool, but once you do it makes sense to swim as hard as possible to get to the other side. . . . We’re all in the pool; it’s not just those plaintiffs.'”

Esseks added, “We know what the Alliance Defense Fund” — a group involved in many similar lawsuits and who will be supporting the Prop 8 proponent intervenors — “We know what arguments they’ll make.”

“Any suggestion that [the groups] would want to lose a marriage case is off-the-wall to me. It’s unfathomable,” Esseks told Law Dork in response to Chad suggesting that they would not rigorously argue the case they had initially dissed.

Shannon Minter, the legal director at NCLR, agreed. “Our only focus right now is on doing everything we can to help win the case.”

Law Dork concluded, "The lawyers for the proposed intervenors might be coming late to the party, but the reality is that the groups they are representing have the right to seek intervention in the case and to have counsel of their choosing in such an intervention effort. And though AFER clearly would strongly prefer for the other groups to remain as amicus participants only — and not be representing actual parties to the case — it is equally clear that Judge Walker is interested in presenting a robust factual record to the appellate court in this case, which is precisely what the proposed intervenors could help him do."

In the end, Law Dork hopes that everyone involved can sit down and discuss what's best for the case, a similar call that Unite the Fight made yesterday. However, I concluded that these groups should remain as consultants and not co-plaintiffs given that the course to trial is already underway and the division these groups have created over it.

Let Olson and Boies do what they phenomenally do best. To assume they will not do their homework and not know what the Alliance Defense Fund is going to argue is a pretty shallow response to the concerns brought up by AFER. The groups also don't respond to the harsh and divisive statements the groups made in the media about the case, signaling again that this is more about turf than it is about fighting for equal rights. It's an ego thing.

Yet they do make a solid point in that the groups they represent will will round out the case, representing the diversity of Californians harmed by Prop 8 and adding more facts to be recorded by the court in a case that will undoubtedly reach the appellate.

Having witnessed much division within our population, I get very impatient with those who purposefully and inappropriately voice they do not support others' efforts because of ego or a minor disagreement in tactic, which is my initial problem with NCLR, ACLU and Lambda Legal.

However, if these groups are truly ready to hop on board and can fully make this case stronger, without delaying the trial as Pizer says, I am willing to change my stance and say let them on board as co-plaintiffs to represent our LGBT diversity. Maybe AFER will too.

But first, let's hope they sit down and talk.

ACLU, LAMBDA LEGAL AND NCLR FILE FRIEND OF THE COURT BRIEF BACKING FEDERAL CHALLENGE TO PROP. 8

The American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal and the National Center for Lesbian Rights filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief late tonight backing the federal challenge to Proposition 8 led by the American Foundation for Equal Rights and attorneys Theodore Olson and David Boies.

“Proposition 8 violates the federal guarantees of equal protection and due process,” the brief states. “Proposition 8 denies same-sex couples the right to marry in a unique historical context in which the denial can only be deemed a declaration of inequality.”

"We are pleased to have the support of the ACLU, Lambda Legal and NCLR, which have brought inspiring leadership and legal expertise to the cause of ensuring all Americans are treated equally under the law," said Foundation Board President Chad Griffin. "This case is about the denial of fundamental Constitutional rights, and its significance is underscored by the united front presented by the coalition backing this case."

The coalition that has led the legal fight against Proposition 8 is now formally supporting the federal challenge. The ACLU, Lambda Legal and NCLR led the battle in the State Supreme Court to overturn Proposition 8 after the November 2008 election. They also joined the City and County of San Francisco, which filed an amicus brief last week, in spearheading the successful litigation that led to the California Supreme Court in May 2008 recognizing marriage as a fundamental right guaranteed to all Californians under the state constitution.

A hearing on the case is scheduled in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, on July 2. The suit was filed last month and also calls for an injunction against Proposition 8 until the case is resolved, which would immediately reinstate marriage rights to same sex couples.

Also last week, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is named in the suit in his capacity as the state’s chief executive, filed papers with the court that did not dispute Proposition 8’s unconstitutionality and called for swift action by the courts to ensure people’s constitutional rights are protected. Two weeks ago, Attorney General Jerry Brown, who is named in the suit in his capacity as the state’s chief legal officer, filed papers that called Proposition 8 unconstitutional.

The suit was filed by two same-sex couples who wish to be married but, because of Proposition 8, have been denied marriage licenses.

“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.

NY State High Court to Hear Same-Sex Marriage Challenge

The Christian right wing group, Alliance Defense Fund, is getting its way. New York State's highest court agreed Tuesday to hear two cases challenging New York's recognition of same-sex marriage performed legally elsewhere, like Massachusetts, Connecticut and Canada.

Neither case involved Gov. David A. Paterson’s directive last May that ordered state agencies to recognize legal same-sex marriages performed outside New York State.

One case, Godfrey v. Spano, stems from the Westchester County executive’s 2006 decision to begin officially honoring out-of-state marriage licenses for gay couples the same way it did for heterosexual couples.

The other case, Lewis v. New York State Department of Civil Service, was filed after the department agreed in 2007 to begin recognizing out-of-state, same-sex marriages for the purpose of extending health insurance to spouses of public employees.

Brian Raum, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, said Tuesday that the group believed that the Court of Appeals would reverse the lower courts in both cases.

“We’re confident that we’re on the right side of the law,” Brian Raum, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund told the New York Times. “The law in New York states it will not recognize marriages that conflict with public policy in New York. Since New York only recognizes marriage between one man and one woman, for any court to recognize same-sex marriage would be to recognize marriages that run contrary to New York law.”

Lambda Legal is representing Westchester County and the civil service department.

“I think the rulings in the lower courts were correct and consistent with all the other prevailing decisions in the state,” said Susan Sommer of Lamda Legal. “I’m looking forward to making the same arguments to the high court so we can ask it to affirm those same arguments that have prevailed in all other cases.”

UTF finds that its ironic that the Alliance Defense Fund motto is "Defending Our First Liberty." I gather from their website what they mean by "first" is the liberty to hear and speak the truth.

Whose truth? Whose liberty? Obviously theirs, because they don't care if they trample on anyone else's already given liberty to "defend" their own. The state of New York has already ruled to recognize same-sex marriages legally performed elsewhere.

What does this have to do with them? Nothing. But for some insane obsessive reason, they'll insert themselves into the situation and do anything to keep gays from marrying. I'll have to give them this - they are motivated to stick to their mission. But I'd like to suggest them a slight change. "Defending Our First Liberty - And Trampling All Others."

A Compromise for Marriage Equality?

On February 21, a NY Times op-ed piece written by David Blankenhorn and Jonathan Rauch argued that the federal government should recognize state marriage laws and itself only extend civil union status to relationships recognized in such states. This argument was presented as an attempt to compromise the opposing views on same-sex marriage.

Reading this, I grew more and more irritated - where in the history of civil rights has any minority group compromised their rights? What makes us any different? Why set up a "special" new system for a group that has been accused so many times of wanting "special" rights when all we want is what our fellow citizens already have?

I was preparing a post in response, but the Advocate.com presented three great responses from marriage equality leaders that I feel do a much greater job responding than I ever could. They are Evan Wolfson from Freedom to Marry, Nicky Grist of Alternatives to Marriage Project and Jenny Pizer of Lambda Legal, who will be arguing against Prop 8 in the CA Supreme Court this Thursday, March 5th.

An excerpt of Jenny's response:

"We do not think it's a good compromise at all. The heart of the issue is that we're talking about civil marriage and the fact that the government should be treating everyone equally in this civil institution. They would never suggest that the government disallow interfaith or interracial marriages -- or people who remarry after divorce -- just to accommodate some who oppose such unions on religious grounds.

"The government shouldn't avoid this conflict and "compromise" by saying that a minority group that has been discriminated against and excluded for a long time should continue to be kept out of the system in order to accommodate the views of people who think this minority shouldn't have equal rights and should be segregated and subordinated."

Check out the full responses at the Advocate.com.

Unite the Fight's Camp Courage Op-Ed

Of the countless meetings I've attended after the election, focusing either on the postmortem of the No on 8 Campaign (including Saturday's Equality Summit), brainstorming strategy, figuring out how to build coalitions, planning events and actions, and trying to determine next steps for the movement, I have not been to one meeting that was as effective, inclusive, practical and educational as the Courage Campaign's Camp Courage.

Held in West Hollywood and knowing that it was going to last from 8:30am-5:30pm, I thought spending my whole Sunday at the event made the whole thing seem daunting. And I was skeptical. After feeling let down after so many attempts to do what the Courage Campaign was attempting, I was prepared to get bored, lose interest in the speakers and eventually tune out altogether. But amazingly, they held my attention the whole time, and I learned a lot. Borrowing the mantra, "Respect - Empower - Include" from the Obama campaign, Camp Courage succeeded in doing just that.

(Due to my having to write the Equality Summit report, I missed the kick off reception the night before, where many told me Cleve Jones gave a riveting speech. Unfortunately, I can't report the details, but if any of you were able to make it, please write me and tell me about it, and I'll post it. Also, I hear there is video of this - please let me know when it is up!)

Camp Courage kicked off strong with Courage Campaign founder Rick Jacobs telling the attendees that California is a "state that is tarnished" with discrimination. Indirectly referring to the Equality Summit and its panel of leaders who populated the stage throughout the whole event, he pointed to the empty stage behind him and said, "There are not a lot of people on this stage. You're the stage!" And that's how the rest of the day went.

Lisa Powell, lead facilitator who had worked with the Obama campaign, did a great job in leading the overbooked event, involving the crowd divided into predetermined groups with active sessions which lasted throughout the day and included:

• Story of Self: finding your voice as an activist. After hearing examples from people telling their stories as to why they're fighting to repeal Prop 8, Lisa broke down the storytelling technique, handed out a worksheet so that each person can shape their own story, and then each participant told their tale to their own group. Learning how to tell your own story is extremely effective in getting others involved in the movement, or opening the eyes of the opponents to the harm of Prop 8. After the sessions amongst the groups, a few were picked to share their story to the whole crowd. Many heart-wrenching tales were given, the unearthing of the motivation driving these activists.
• Story of Us: the amazing Mike Bonin lead this session about building the movement, one leader at a time.
• Voter Persuasion: how to talk to the others in one-on-one encounters. Led by Liz Moore of the SEIU, this was an extremely educational and effective session. After an improvised moment between Lisa Powell and Jenny Pizer, portraying a peaceful interaction between neighbors who voted differently on Prop 8, the groups were given worksheets with various scenarios that they had to improvise amongst themselves. Given tools in how to communicate with the opposition, many learned the power of proper persuasion without making those you disagree with uncomfortable or under attack. The emphasis of persuasion was on baby steps - you can't change someone's mind with one conversation.
  
• Online Tech Tools: this session, led by Julia Rosen, Online Political Director for the Courage Campaign, debuted the organization's online, grassroots tool, Equality Hub, which allows individuals and grassroots organizations to effectively plan events, socialize and organize. It also includes a voter phone banking tool that allows the individual to make phone calls from their own homes, similar to the Obama Campaign site. Definitely worth checking out.
• Into Action: this session broke out into groups that contained practical education on door-to-door canvassing, phone banking, tabling, organizing a political house party and online organizing (which went into further detail about the Equality Hub, but also networking and education about online tools that are effective for planning events and keeping your organization's members or participants active and updated).
• Our Commitment to the Cause: Lisa Powell talked about the organization's commitment, to the movement, but as well as the activists, and referred to the Courage Campaign's project "Please don't divorce us . . . "

More...
Inserted throughout the sessions were touching (and amazingly concise) speeches from married couple Jenny Pizer of Lamda Legal and Doreena Wong, who, speaking on the legal and political context of marriage equality, spoke about their years in activism and told the story that after 24 years together, Doreena's mother felt that Jenny was finally officially a part of the family after marrying her daughter; Torie Osborn spoke on organizing and movement building, focusing on respectful interaction with the opposition and learning how to actively listen; and Mike Bonin, telling his story of self, confessed that after working extremely long hours on the Obama campaign, and feeling ashamed that he didn't do enough for the No on 8 campaign, promised he will never allow himself to put an LGBT initiative "on the back burner."

With so much material covered in a relatively small amount of time, it's a marvel that it was all accomplished, and miraculously, on time and on schedule! These Obama-turned-LGBT and equality campaigners know how to lead a large meeting, communicate and educate, but above all, inspire. Led by multi-generational activists, some new and some experienced, Camp Courage offers something for everyone of all ages and backgrounds. Either this is all new to you and you learn the essential basics, or it's a refresher on old skills, you don't leave empty handed.

The Courage Campaign plans to hold many more Camp Courage sessions around the state. They are asking us to vote on where some of them will be. I recommend you do, find one near you (Fresno is already confirmed and they intend to schedule more in San Luis Obsispo, Sacramento, San Diego and San Francisco) and GO. In order for this movement to propel forward and succeed, we must be educated, we must know how to work together, we must be on the same page, and we must remain inspired. Camp Courage is the step in the right direction. Do not miss out. GO.

Shout of thanks to Waiyde Palmer for the pictures.



Lead Facilitator Lisa Powell and Jenny Pizer.

The legendary, first openly out Queer elected to the California Assembly, Shelia James Kuehl, watches from the back as it all goes down.

Rick Jacobs, founder of the Courage Campaign.

Iowa Court Hears Same-Sex Marriage Case Today

UPDATE: This morning Lambda Legal sent out this message, inviting everyone to a teleconference regarding the Iowa Supreme Court hearing their cases for same-sex marriage.

BREAKING NEWS: This morning, Lambda Legal argued our historic marriage case, Varnum v. Brien,

before the Iowa Supreme Court. "We hope that the Court breathes life into the Iowa Constitution's promise of equality," said Camilla Taylor, Senior Staff Attorney and chief architect of the lawsuit.

The case was argued this morning on behalf of Lambda Legal's six plaintiff couples and their children by co-counsel Dennis Johnson, former Iowa Solicitor General and partner at the firm Dorsey and Whitney.

Lambda Legal would like to invite you to a telephone briefing this Thursday, December 11, at 2:00 pm EST (1:00 pm CST, 11:00 am PST) to learn more about this landmark case. We are making history again, and we would like for you to share in this historic moment on the road to marriage equality.

In August of 2007, a district court ruled that denying marriage to same–sex couples violates the Iowa Constitution. But the court granted a stay of the decision pending appeal to the Iowa Supreme Court. In March of 2008, we filed our brief with the Iowa Supreme Court, which was joined by 15 friend–of–the–court briefs supporting same-sex couples seeking the right to marry and the right of their children to have their families treated fairly.

Ingrid Olson and her partner Reva Evans are plaintiffs in the case with their son Jamison. Today Ingrid said: "My grandparents were married 68 years and Reva's grandparents were married 57 years. My family values the importance of marriage and commitment, and I learned that lesson very early — it's a lesson I want to pass on to our son."

Please join us for our one-hour briefing Thursday, December 11 at 2:00 pm EST (1:00 pm CST). Our Senior Staff Attorney and architect of the marriage case, Camilla Taylor, and Dennis Johnson, former Iowa Solicitor General and partner at the firm Dorsey and Whitney, will provide an overview of this latest case for marriage equality in Iowa.

Here are the call-in instructions:

Step 1: Call 888-640-7748

Step 2: Enter code 958621#

Questions can be emailed before and during the call to libertycircle@lambdalegal.org.

(We will not be able to respond to all questions during the call, but we will try to respond later in writing to any questions that we do not have time to address.)

With your support, we are making history. Please consider making a year–end donation and join us this Thursday, December 11, to hear how your support is making a difference!

More...


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Iowa Supreme Court will hear a same-sex marriage lawsuit brought against the state today by six same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses because they were gay. This case "could echo throughout the nation" says USA Today.

If the judges rule in favor of the plaintiffs, Iowa law would make it much more difficult to overturn through a ballot initiative than in California, making Iowa the first mid-western state to allow same-sex marriage.

See local station KCCI article and video on today's session. Also, visit local LGBT Iowa advocacy group, One Iowa for more information and how you can get involved and offer support.