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.

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

UPDATE: Larry Kramer, who inspired the founding of ACT UP, tells the groups to butt out of the case in an email:

i implore your three organizations, lambda legal of los angeles, national center for lesbian rights, and aclu lgbt project, to not interfere with the olson/boies case. you will only botch up what they are trying to achieve. you have thus far not achieved it on your own and with your own tactics, so why are you trying to kybosh someone who has come along with fresh new energy, ideas, and clout? you are only behaving in the worst possible bitchy way, the way gay groups can fall victim to when their feelings are hurt. keep your noses out of it, will you please? i beg of you. you should be cheering these guys from the sidelines and showering them with gratitude for coming along and trying to help us in our hugely enfeebled position, brought on in great part by our inability to work together effectively ourselves. you are only perpetuating this useless behavior.

larry kramer

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER) announced that they would be taking the fight against Proposition 8 to the federal court with power team Ted Olson and David Boies at the helm, numerous LGBT groups immediately issued a press release stating their opposition to this strategy, "reminding the LGBT community that ill-timed lawsuits could set the fight for marriage back."

The groups associated with the press release included ACLU, Lambda Legal and NCLR. However, now they have changed their tune and have filed a motion to intervene (see definition), which would allow them to be co-plaintiffs on the case. Having fought for marriage equality in the state for sometime, it appears they don't want to be edged out. And though they did file amicus curiae (friend of the court briefs) for the lawsuit, it was clear the support was lukewarm.

"These groups wish to illustrate for the court the diverse needs of their members and the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community generally to provide the full factual record," said Jennifer C. Pizer, National Marriage Project Director for Lambda Legal in the press release stating their new intentions.

Yet now, after slamming the case since day one in the media, "It would appear Lambda Legal, National Center for Lesbian Rights and the ACLU LGBT Project are either realizing the case might actually be successful and therefore want to ride its coattails for credit and relevancy, or—depending on your capacity for cynicism—are intentionally dragging down a suit from a rival group working for the same cause," says Towleroad.

I hate to say it, but I agree. I'm all for uniting our efforts and our resources, but this action from these LGBT groups comes off as wanting credit for what now appears a chance at success. Having faith and trust in each other is key to winning, and these groups did not demonstrate that from the beginning. Now it just sounds as if they're looking for the media attention that a win could bring.

Chad Griffin, Board President for AFER, sent the groups a rather harsh letter. In it, he provides numerous examples of AFER's attempts to involve the groups from the beginning, but also he provides numerous other examples of how they dissed the case to the media.

He opens the letter with the following:

"On behalf of the plaintiffs and our board, donors and supporters, I am writing to ask that you not intervene in Perry v. Schwarzenegger.

"Given our willingness to collaborate with you, and your efforts to undercut this case, we were surprised and disappointed when we became aware of your desire to intervene.

"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."

Here is the letter in full:

American Foundation for Equal Rights Letter

The San Francisco Gate is calling this another skirmish within the LGBT equal rights movement due to the passing of Prop 8 and its aftermath.

I'm hearing some say this does not look good for us because its showing divisions amongst us. However, I would like to remind them that civil rights movements in the past weren't fully united and had their own share of disagreements. Not everyone agreed with MLK or the tactics that he used - some to the very end. But constant questioning of our strategies is essential to final victory.

History is hindsight 20/20, and because MLK was pivotal in winning the rights for African Americans, it now appears as if everyone was behind him from the beginning. We look back and think, "He did no wrong." And that is just not the case.

Nor will it be the case for us. We will have disagreements. We will pursue different strategies. We will have "skirmishes." However, as Chad Griffin of AFER told Unite the Fight about the beginning of the case, "We're in a war, and we [AFER board] discussed where we could take the war. If you have a single goal in winning that war, you want to have the opposition on the defensive on all fronts."

In regard to the LGBT groups criticisms, he said, "We can all agree to disagree on different tactics but at the end of the day, we all have the same goal - we can all agree on winning full federal rights for all lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people."

It appears now the groups are agreeing with AFER's strategy to achieve that goal.

Don't get me wrong - I have nothing but respect for these groups. I for one am a fan of Jenny Pizer - she has done great work and I was thrilled to have a chance to meet her on several occasions. However, I would like to see us reach our goal as fast as possible. If these groups' direct involvement cause a delay in the courts because they failed to act earlier, then they shouldn't have direct involvement. But AFER is open to their consultation and assistance, and if that's the best resolve for a united front, then these groups need to accept their position and assist in fighting to the end for the common goal of full equality under federal law.

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.

"The View"s Joy Behar Grills NOM's Maggie Gallagher on Marriage Equality

Kate Kendell: renewed hope that the court will overturn Prop 8

Kate Kendell, Executive Director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, sent along this piece from her blog, Out for Justice, as we wait to see whether the recent events bolstering equality will have any effect on the California Supreme Court. Kendall was quite pessimistic after the CA Supreme Court hearing, but she's feeling more upbeat now about the prospects of Prop 8's demise.

"With its groundbreaking marriage decision a year ago, the California Supreme Court set us on a path that - despite some setbacks - has led to one marriage victory a week in the past month: A first-ever unanimous state supreme court ruling in Iowa; a huge victory in Vermont, where there was strong enough support for marriage equality to override their Governor's veto; and tremendous movement in the legislatures of New Hampshire and Maine, with similar progress likely in the months ahead in New York and New Jersey. The result has been a profound sea change in public opinion, including my own view of what the next month will bring here in California.

"Just this week, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll showed "a sharp shift in public opinion on same-sex marriage. Forty-nine percent said it should be legal for gay people to marry" - an 11 point shift from a similar poll conducted by the Post just three years ago.

"I have always believed the California Supreme Court should strike down Prop 8 because the law is so overwhelmingly on our side. But I feared that other factors might result in an adverse decision. That fear has now been replaced by hope as courts and legislatures - as well as public opinion - have moved sharply in our direction. The Court can cement its legacy by overturning Prop 8 and upholding our Constitution's promise of equal protection. Or it can cause untold pain and hardship to our community and forever undermine the independence of the judiciary and the historic role of the courts in protecting minority rights.

"I believe the Court will do the right thing."

In strength and solidarity,
Kate Kendell
Executive Director
National Center for Lesbian Rights

So what do you think is going to happen?

Crossposted with Pam Spaulding of Pam's House Blend.

The Tension Behind Bay Area Reporter's Story on Grassroots Growing Pains

Today, Seth Hemmelgarn of the Bay Area Reporter (BAR) ran a story titled "Growing pains seen in grassroots work" which describes some of the tension in the marriage equality movement as the power begins to shift from the old guard leadership to the new generation of powerful grassroots leaders heading the charge for change.

Specifically, the story focuses on Robin McGehee, the head organizer for the large event "Meet in the Middle 4 Equality" or known as MITM. (Disclosure: Unite the Fight is the official blog covering the event.)

The tension described in the story rose when Robin was informed by local community member Sandy O'Neill of Visalia, CA, that Geoff Kors, President of Equality California (EQCA), had mentioned to her at the Dinah Shore fundraising event in Palm Springs that they were supporting buses to transport people to Fresno for MITM. In fact, no monetary support from EQCA for the event had been given.

"I went [to the Dinah Shore fundraiser] to tell Geoff and Kate [Kendall, Exec. Director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR)] how excited I was to see MITM on their websites, especially after their absence in the valley during the No on 8 Campaign," Sandy told Unite the Fight.

She says Kate sat with her and her wife at their table talking about the movement and MITM and that then she had a chance to talk to Kors. When she brought MITM up to Kors, Sandy quoted him as saying, "Yeah, we're providing the buses for that."

Kors told Unite the Fight, "I don't recall having this conversation. There was no such commitment."

"Reason it sticks in my mind is I just read about those buses coming from other cities on the MITM website. 'How are we going to pay for that?' I thought. I assumed it would be the community paying for that," says Sandy. "When Geoff said they were providing the buses, I thought, 'Oh, that's how.'"

Sandy then emailed Robin congratulating her on the support from EQCA. This was what took Robin by surprise.

Robin told Unite the Fight that Equality California first contacted Robin last month after having been asked what they knew about MITM. Not knowing much about the event up to this point, EQCA reached out.

Says Robin, "They did contact me last month and asked how they could help. We gave them several options, one being financial support if possible. We mentioned that grassroots groups, such as Courage Campaign and White Knot, had donated money for operating costs and that if they knew someone willing to give, that would be great because most of the cost was going on my credit card."

Currently, MITM is costing $19,000 and growing.

Robin is known for direct responses and cutting to the heart of the matter. So when asked by Bay Area Reporter Seth Hemmelgarn if EQCA was financially contributing to this large scale event, Robin said no. In an attempt to explain that the financial support might still be coming, Robin explained that she was told by a local community member, Sandy, who attended the above mentioned fundraiser, that EQCA had stated they would be supporting the event with buses. But, as the lead organizer of the event, she had no details to that account.

Frustrations with EQCA and the No on 8 Campaign in the Central Valley stem from the lack of support that they felt during the campaign period. When many central valley activists contacted the campaign asking for support in the solidly red territory of the state, they barely got yard signs.

"When the No on 8 campaign took over, they moved the [EQCA] staff out of the valley," Kors said. "That was a mistake."

Robin and the valley area have been very vocal about their feeling of abandonment. "I did tell EQCA about my personal frustrations with how the valley was treated."

And that's not all she's communicated. Robin, who attended the February 26 San Francisco town hall, took the little time left at the town hall to make her position clear by reading the MITM mission statement. An excerpt:
More...

"It would be neglectful not to mention our LGBT brothers and sisters who have not relocated to LGBT friendly places like the bay or LA areas feel like we live in a Third World gay ghetto that somewhat in an after-thought was sent limited rations of resources and supplies as the helicopter jetted back to the safe Mecca of San Francisco and we were left to fend for ourselves. Many might see this statement with the purpose to place blame or shame on any one person or organization, but as a people of faith and courage, we have to believe that all those involved in the fight to secure marriage rights for our community did what they felt was best at the time."

While reading this at the town hall, Robin says the EQCA panelists and leaders "went to the back of the room to hobnob with the local dignitaries and basically ignored me, Kip Williams [organizer of One Struggle, One Fight] and other leaders talking about next steps. When they asked emerging leaders to speak, it was disingenuous."

Robin repeated the adjective "disingenuous" to EQCA themselves after they called her frustrated over the Bay Area Reporter article. She heard from their communication director and the director of their public education arm.

Robin quoted them as saying, "We never promised anything." But Robin didn't back down and countered, "I know that you haven't promised anything, but you are stating, publicly, a different message."

Finally, Kors called. "I never said anything about buses [at the Dinah Shore event]," Robin says Kors told her. "Maybe Kate [Kendall of NCLR] did at an NCLR event."

He asked her why she told Seth he shouldn't be running our next campaign and Robin stated, "You're a good fundraiser and have made fantastic legislative connections, but not a campaigner. You're not in touch with the community." She even went on to say, "You're disingenuous. You're treating me like I'm naive."

About an hour after calling Robin, Kors emailed her asking her for the MITM budget and which grassroots groups had donated and how much. Robin gave the budget but refused to say who had given what. "It should not matter who gave what - either you believe in and support the event or you don't - this is not a competition," she told Unite the Fight.

Robin claims that EQCA has stated that they may be able to give $1000, but because MITM is not a non-profit organization or a 501(C)3 and the donation would not be tax deductible, they are still deciding what they are going to do. They offered to receive donations through their "Let California Ring" website, but Robin declined, honestly stating, "If they were answering my questions about the dishonesty that has plagued this entire conversation, we as a community, may be willing to let them serve as our fiscal agent. But right now - we'll have to operate without their donation and fundraise forever to pay off the debt. For grassroots organizers, it should not be this hard."

Robin also heard from Kate Kendall of NCLR who clarified that she had mentioned at the Dinah Shore event that there were in fact buses available for people to use but that she would never raise money claiming it was for one purpose and then using it for another.

"I never said that's what they were doing," Robin told Unite the Fight was her response. "But someone claimed they were supporting us with buses. Someone is lying."

"Look, I don't care what happens for me after MITM. I was a nobody before this and can return to being a nobody afterward," said Robin. "If I have to take forever to pay off my credit card for this, I will. But I just think it's time for them to be honest."

Many feel change is coming. Molly McKay of Marriage Equality USA, who was an outspoken critic recently said, "Overall, I'm feeling very encouraged" by the efforts of EQCA and other groups.

"We feel like there has been a willingness ... to think outside the box and do things in a new way, and I think that we are on the right track," said McKay.

Marc Solomon, who helped MassEquality in Massachusetts win marriage equality there, joined EQCA April 1 as its marriage director. The BAR quoted him at the recent San Francisco town hall, "Our plans for the Central Valley will be led and guided by the people doing the work in the Central Valley ... We realize we need to do a lot better there."

Kors told Unite the Fight they were hiring staff today "to do regional work. They will be [in the Central Valley] for the long term."

Kors said he found the BAR article, "surprising and confusing," having spoken to people mentioned in the article for some time and offering support, without hearing of any problems. "I hope we all can focus on unifying the community to fight against an emboldened enemy."

Robin does regret she let the BAR "bait her" with Seth's questions and does in fact have a desire to have good working relationship with the EQCA and NCLR. "Different stories are floating around out there. I didn't make this happen, though. I try to make every decision I make come from honesty and the heart. All in all, I have to answer to me, my family, my community."

As many leaders and grassroots organizers have told this blog, it's time we move on and work together, heading in one direction. Growing pains will exist. Miscommunications will abound. Feelings will be hurt. But we all have to keep our eye on our shared ultimate goal - FULL EQUALITY FOR ALL.

Iowa Puts Pressure on California Supreme Court

Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights and lead counsel for same-sex couples and Equality California in Strauss v. Horton, the challenge to Proposition 8 currently pending before the California Supreme Court, wrote a guest post on Bilerico Project about the implications of the Iowa Supreme Court's ruling on same-sex marriage for California's own high court.

Excerpts:

. . .the Iowa court repeatedly underscored that equal protection is one of the "basic principles essential to our form of government," part of our very "blueprint for government," essential to the continued existence of "our republican form of government and our freedoms," and the foundation of "the rule of law." That is the centerpiece of our argument in the Prop 8 case. What is at stake in the Prop 8 case is not just marriage for same-sex couples, but the foundational principle that all people are entitled to equal protection of the laws.

Today's decision from Iowa strongly reinforces that the California Supreme Court must not permit a simple majority of voters to jettison that defining hallmark of our government by eliminating a right only for an unpopular minority. . .

Especially in light of today's decision, it would tarnish the California Supreme Court's credibility and stature for the court to back away from its prior decision and pretend that Proposition 8 does not relegate same-sex couples and their children to a second-class status. Proposition 8 installs an invidious inequality in the heart of the California Constitution. There is no principled way for the California Supreme Court to uphold Proposition 8 without compromising its prior decision in the Marriage Cases and causing grievous and unjust harm to an entire class of California families.

This is a defining moment for our state and for the California Supreme Court. The Court's decision in the Prop 8 challenge will either reaffirm the centrality of equality in our constitutional system, or it will hold, for the first time in our state's history, that a simple majority can amend the constitution to impose inequality on an unpopular minority.

Read the amazing full post at Bilerico Project.

NCLR Director Says, "We're Going to Lose" Prop 8 Decision

Veteran civil rights attorney and executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Kate Kendall, told the Dallas Voice what she thinks the outcome of the CA Supreme Court's decision will be on Proposition 8. “We’re going to lose,” she said. Her organization is deeply involved with the case.

“I think it was very clear from the oral arguments that the court intends to uphold Prop 8,” Kendell added. “I’ve never seen a court so unequivocally telegraph their thinking.”

She thinks there's a 98 percent chance for the California Supreme Court to uphold Proposition 8 but to affirm the 18,000 same-sex marriage performed before the initiative passed, which she thinks “requires no courage” from the court.

“On this issue, with this court, they seem almost to intentionally communicate how they’re planning to rule,” Kendell said. “The only way they can get an opinion out in 90 days is if there’s already a draft opinion.”

Kendell believes the only way Proposition 8 can be overturned is at the ballot box. She said it would be extremely unwise to pursue a federal appeal given the current makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court, because a decision from the high court saying there’s no federal constitutional right for same-sex couples to marry likely couldn’t be overturned for 20-30 years. (See Rep. Barney Frank's opinion of the court)

The only question that remains, according to Kendell, is whether Prop 8 opponents should place a proposed repeal of the measure on the ballot in 2010 or in 2012. She said a vote next year would mean collecting 700,000 signatures this summer and raising another $40 million in a bad economy on the heels of last year’s campaign.

“My suspicion is that 2010 is too ambitious, and we certainly don’t want to be back on the ballot and lose,” she said.