"Kingdom of Heaven" Brief

The posts on here are pretty serious, so I figured we could have a laugh but at a relevant topic. A brief has been filed with the California Supreme Court using the "Almighty Creator's Law" to back its argument to support Prop 8 and ban same-sex marriages. They are "Acting on behalf of the Almighty Eternal Creator." Gee, I'm sure God is so grateful to have mere humans put words in his mouth. Talk about mixing Church and State!

You have to read it to believe it. (It's a PDF download)

Kingdom of Heaven Brief

Panel at UCLA Law School

The Critical Race Studies Program at UCLA School of Law invites you to a Roundtable Discussion and Dialogue on Race and LGBT Rights:

The Aftermath of Prop 8: Is Gay Really the New Black?

• How should we respond to the argument that "blacks betrayed gays" in supporting Prop. 8?
• Does this framing suggest that all blacks are straight and all gays are white?
• How does the dominant interpretation of Prop. 8 compare various communities of color?
• What can we learn from the political and representational strategies of the campaigns regarding Prop. 8 in California?
• What does a multiracial and coalitional politics for LGBT equality require and promise for winning and sustaining equal rights?
  

Professor Russell Robinson, who teaches Race, Sexuality and the Law at UCLA School of Law, will moderate an urgent roundtable discussion on the repercussions of the passage of Proposition 8 and the racial discourse surrounding its passage. The panelists will include political activists, community organizers, professors and students of diverse racial and sexual identities.

Wednesday, November 19th, 2008
6:00pm to 7:30pm
UCLA School of Law - Room 1430

For questions, please contact Professor Robinson by email at robinson@law.ucla.edu

Co-sponsored by the Williams Institute and the African American Policy Forum

To Stay or Not to Stay Prop 8

I've had help filtering through some legalese filed today by the Attorney General (more than one, but all similar) from those in the know. It discusses whether or not the enactment of Prop 8 should be put on hold. I'll try to put this as simply as possible.

• Titled "RESPONDENTS' PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF, INCLUDING WRIT OF MANDATE AND REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF", filed by the Attorney General (AG)
  
• In layman's terms, the Respondents position is:
  

1. The petitions (to overturn Prop 8) raise issues of statewide importance that can only be decided by the California Supreme Court
2. The Court should NOT stay Prop 8 while its decision is pending

• We think, "Why NOT stay it?" Well, back when San Francisco married same-sex couples, the case Lockyer vs. The City and County of San Francisco was brought to the Court, which decided the marriages were invalidated. The Court said if it delayed its decision on the validity of these San Francisco marriages, people in the meantime could act on these marriages, creating changes in their lives that could do irreparable harm, more harm than if they, the Court, decided immediately that the marriages were not valid.
  
• So staying Prop 8 could create marriages post-election but pre-ruling on Prop 8 that could be invalidated, making these couples vulnerable and creating the same situation as above if the Court doesn't act immediately.

What does this mean? It remains to be seen if the Court intends to decide if the government will allow same-sex marriages in the interim (if the Court follows precedent, it will not to avoid harm to these couples). Good news is that it appears the Court will decide on the overall legality of Prop 8.

The Lawsuits Against Prop 8 - should we keep the fight at a state level?

Unite the Fight! asked Brad Parr, an attorney in Beverly Hills, to write a guest post explaining the content of the four lawsuits filed against Prop 8, how the California constitution supports their arguments, and why he thinks we should keep the battle for same-sex marriage at a state level and not bring it to the federal level . . . for now.

We have posted his explanation in four images below, left to right.






I asked Brad about the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Even if we win in California, as long as DOMA remains, we are still second-class citizens because we won't get federal benefits. He responded:

"I believe that DOMA's unconstitutional. Period. Full Faith and Credit can't be selectively applied (very quickly: the Constitution mandates full faith and credit but states that Congress will decide how it's implemented. Pro-DOMA people say that this lets Congress decide what gets full faith and credit; that can't be right. It's an enabling clause and it doesn't let Congress decide exceptions. This hasn't been litigated against but I think it's a huge danger to federalism if the Court comes out the wrong way.)


I also, however, agree with the point that as long as DOMA is on the books, we won't be fully equal, and there will be a host of federal benefits unavailable to us even if we get it at a state level. I just don't think it's time to go there, at least, through the courts. Obama could, however, do a lot of good for us from a legislative point of view."

Brad did offer a glimmer of hope for the judicial process, referring to an article published today in the Los Angeles Times. You can read it here

LA Protest, Nov. 15th, 2008

Community Organizing Meeting

ACT UP alumni and Unite the Fight! is currently working with many LGBTQ organizations, plus labor organizations and activists groups of color, to hold a community organizing meeting to inform the community about the great work of many groups, gay and straight, and to communicate and discuss the next steps, strategy and direction of this amazing movement demanding equal rights for all.

Details of this meeting will be posted here soon, so stay tuned (you can subscribe to the blog to stay posted - subscription option listed on right side).

In the meantime, Unite the Fight! will continue to post what's happening in the movement, reporting on the different groups, what they're doing and how you can stay involved. Check the many different links to these groups' websites on the right side, further down. (If you have a group or organization not listed, please contact us and we'll add it)

Also, a great tool at the bottom of the blog is a calendar with events and their details listed. Check it out! If you hear about an event not listed, let us know!

Need Encouragement about the Fight?

Anna Quindlen has written the most moving editorial for Newsweek, title "The Loving Decision." Using civil rights history, she argues that it is inevitable that gays and lesbians will have the right to marry.

Using the Loving vs. Virginia case, where Mildred Jeter, an African-American, and Richard Loving, a caucasian, married in DC, she describes how they went home to Virginia and were pulled out of their own bed and arrested in their own home for miscegenation.

I'll quote Anna's last paragraph that brought tears to my eyes:

"The last word here goes to an authority on battling connubial bigotry. On the anniversary of the Loving decision last year, the bride wore tolerance. Mildred Loving, mother and grandmother, who once had cops burst into her bedroom because she was sleeping with her own husband, was quoted in a rare public statement saying she believed all Americans, "no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry." She concluded, "That's what Loving, and loving, are all about."

Read the whole article here