The day before elections, Judge Walker, who is presiding over the federal challenge to Prop 8, held a hearing over a dispute concerning the proponents of Prop 8 and their unwillingness to hand over certain ordered internal campaign communications regarding messaging to the plaintiffs.
These documents are vital to the plaintiffs in their effort to prove that those responsible for Prop 8 are not concerned about the welfare of the state, traditional marriage or the weak argument of protecting procreation, but that they acted out of animus toward the LGBT population.
On November 11, Judge Walker ordered they hand over the documents, stating that they were not protected from disclosure.
Well, it gets better. They still haven't handed over the documents. According to California attorney Rick Xiao at blog Proposition 8 and the Right to Marry:
Today Judge Walker dropped the hammer on Prop. 8 proponents and ordered immediate production of internal communications concerning their campaign strategies and messages to voters. Among other things, Judge Walker admonished Prop. 8 proponents that his previous discovery orders, while being appealed to the Ninth Circuit, remain in effect because the appellate court has not issued a stay. Thus, Prop. 8 proponents risk contempt of the court if they continue to withhold production. According to today’s order, Prop. 8 proponents are ordered to produce additional responsive documents on a rolling basis to conclude not later than the close of fact discovery on November 30, 2009.
Here is the copy of the order, an order he's had to issue THREE TIMES:
Two years ago, Republican San Diego mayor Jerry Sanders changed his mind when it came to marriage equality. Tearfully, he held a press conference and announced his intentions to sign a City Council resolution directing the City Attorney to file a court brief in support of same sex marriage. A year later, Sanders won re-election.
Herrera said Mayor Sanders readily agreed. Which is very encouraging. The mayor suffered scrutiny and backlash for abandoning his former position. The fact that he's ready to take an oath and testify in trial shows the courage of his convictions.
Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin lauded an historic vote in a House committee that moves the nation a step closer to equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) Americans.
The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee today passed the Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act (H.R. 2517), authored by Congresswoman Baldwin (D-WI). Under the legislation, same-sex domestic partners of federal employees living together in a committed relationship would be eligible for health benefits, long-term care, Family and Medical Leave, and federal retirement benefits, among others. The domestic partners of federal employees would also be subject to the same responsibilities that apply to the spouses of federal employees, such as anti-nepotism rules and financial disclosure requirements.
“Today’s actions mark another significant step in our march toward LGBT equality,” said Congresswoman Baldwin, Co-Chair of the House LGBT Equality Caucus. “Our movement is gaining momentum around the country and Congress is following the will of the people. Today is a day to celebrate yet another milestone and recognize anew that ‘the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.’”
The bill now moves to the full House for consideration. In a ceremony at the White House in June, President Obama voiced his strong support for the measure.
"U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Stephen Reinhardt deemed the denial of healthcare and other benefits to the spouse of federal public defender Brad Levenson to be a violation of the Constitution's guarantee of due process and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, which is prohibited by California state law," says the Los Angeles Times.
Brad Levenson and Tony Spears were married July 12, 2008 during the time marriage equality was legal in California.
Back in February, Judge Reinhardt had ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which bars gay federal employees' spouses benefits, is unconstitutional.
In his ruling, Reinhardt wrote:
"The denial of federal benefits to same-sex spouses cannot be justified simply by a distaste for or disapproval of same-sex marriage or a desire to deprive same-sex spouses benefits available to other spouses in order to discourage exercising a legal right afforded them by the state."
Wednesday's order doesn't give Levenson and Spears spousal benefits, but it does order the government to give compensation. The couple had calculated how much more they would have to spend without the benefits, and it wound up being thousands of dollars.
"The judge's order is expected to resolve the injustice Reinhardt has cited in previous orders in Levenson's case. But it also recognizes the status quo of federal government rejection of gay marriage under the Defense of Marriage Act," says the Los Angeles Times. 'Several other challenges by those denied federal benefits, like filing joint tax returns, are making their way slowly through the federal courts."
New York
Back in April, New York's high court agreed to hear anti-LGBT Alliance Defense Fund lawsuit against the state, challenging its recognition of same-sex marriages performed outside its borders and granting benefits to these couples.
Today, however, the court rejected ADF's challenge 4-3 on the narrow basis of benefits, not on whether or not the legislature should legalize marriage equality. The court also noted that under the state's constitution, same-sex marriage isn't legal but it doesn't address recognizing legally performed same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions.
"The effect of the majority's rationale in affirming these orders will be to permit an unworkable pattern of conflicting executive and administrative directives ... (at the) individual discretion of each agency head," Judge Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick warned in an otherwise concurring opinion.
"We ought to avoid the confusion that would arise from a same-sex couple considered legally married by one agency for one purpose, but not married by another agency for a different purpose," the judge wrote.
With Thursday's court decision, legally married same-sex couples will be entitled to public employee health insurance coverage and certain other benefits provided to heterosexual spouses.
A new poll released today shows that New Jersey residents support marriage equality more than they oppose it. By a 46% - 42 % margin, New Jerseyans favor legalizing same-sex marriage with 12% still unsure. The marriage question was asked after Election Day. The poll has a +/-3.3% margin of error.
This next quote is key! "The survey also shows that if the state Legislature passes a bill legalizing gay marriage, 52 percent would accept the decision, while 40 percent would support a constitutional amendment banning the practice."
On Monday I reported that state Sen. Paul Sarlo mentioned that the state's marriage bill may not get out of his committee so that the full senate could vote on it. Currently, there is a time crunch. Pro-marriage equality Gov. Jon Cozine was voted out of office earlier this month and will be replace by Chris Christie who adamantly opposes same-sex marriage.
Many fear that the defeat in Maine gave politicians cold feet, but this poll hopefully will thaw them out.
“New Jerseyans are more supportive of gay marriage than opposed to it, and more importantly, a majority would accept a legislative decision legalizing same-sex marriages,” said David Redlawsk, director of the Rutgers-Eagleton Poll and professor of political science at Rutgers University. “While this tests opinion outside the intensity of a campaign to ban gay marriage, as occurred in California, there is more of a ‘live and let live’ attitude in New Jersey than in many other states that have dealt with this issue.”
For a year now, the debate on when to go back to the ballot to restore marriage equality to California and repeal Proposition 8 has raged not only amongst the Golden State's LGBT population and its allies but also nationwide.
After the devastating defeat in Maine, the fundamentalist pundits claimed that it was a sign Americans were not ready for legalized same-sex marriage, despite the many advances in Iowa and New England. Unfortunately, contrary to what the politicians say, legislators in both New York and New Jersey appear to have taken a cue from what happened in Maine and are dragging their heels on voting for proposed marriage equality legislation in their respective states.
"SignForEquality.com today launched a groundbreaking effort to gather signatures to repeal Proposition 8 and restore equal marriage rights for same-sex couples marking the first time that social networking technology has been used to qualify a California initiative for the ballot," said the group's press release Monday.
On the same day, California Secretary of State issued a statement that five ballot initiatives had been submitted and approved for signature gathering that caused some confusion.
John Henning, co-founder of LHC, confirmed with Unite the Fight (UTF) that five versions of repeal language were submitted to the Secretary.
"The reason we submitted five back in September was because of ongoing discussions about which five were most appealing to voters," Henning said. "There were some that voters responded to better."
"The research that was underway at the time did inform the five ways the language was written, but we didn’t have any conclusive results on which of the five versions was the best. So we made that decision based on our own good judgment," Henning said.
Henning explained that all the language is very similar and was vetted by very prominent lawyers in the marriage movement, along with other leaders and Equality California (EQCA), the state's largest LGBT advocacy group.
Marc Solomon, Marriage Director for EQCA, confirmed this back in October with UTF. "It was mainly Geoff," he said, referring to Geoff Kors, EQCA's Executive Director. "He’s a Stanford educated lawyer and has much more legal expertise than I do."
Version 5 or 09-0042 ended up being the final language behind which the signature gathering campaign was launched. Henning said that the statewide organizing group Restore Equality 2010 (RE 2010) was involved in the decision making process.
"The final decision was made about a week before they were approved," Henning informed. "We allowed for plenty of time to think about it and [RE 2010]'s Interim Administrative Group (IAG) to consider the matter and give advice. We waited to choose because we wanted the input from everybody we could possibly have."
Henning said that the executive committee of LHC was strongly in favor of version 5 and that the IAG voted unanimously for it.
The full language reads:
This amendment would amend an existing section of the California Constitution. Existing language proposed to be deleted is printed in strikeout type. Language proposed to be added is printed in underlined type.
Section 1. To protect religious freedom, no court shall interpret this measure to require any priest, minister, pastor, rabbi, or other person authorized to perform marriages by any religious denomination, church, or other non-profit religious institution to perform any marriage in violation of his or her religious beliefs. The refusal to perform a marriage under this provision shall not be the basis for lawsuit or liability, and shall not affect the tax-exempt status of any religious denomination, church or other religious institution.
Section 2. To provide for fairness in the government’s issuance of marriage licenses, Section 7.5 of Article I of the California Constitution is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Marriage is between only two persons and shall not be restricted on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, gender, sexual orientation, or religion.
In an email blast sent out Monday, RE 2010 gave a list of actions for supporters of the signature gathering campaign, including donating to reach their goal of $10,000 to cover the cost of the petition drive.
“We set a goal of $10,000 between now and December 1 for a variety reasons," said Jane Wishon, who is part of RE 2010's IAG. "We need money to start the process, update our website and logo, and provide resources for signature gatherers all over the state so that can be out gathering signatures rather than worrying about raising the money needed.”
“At the same time, we need to prove to the larger donors in the community that we’re legitimate, we’re for real and that we can do this,” she added. Monday's email stated they had succeeded in raising 20% of their goal. "I think today we’re at 25% or over $2,500."
LHC will act as the clearinghouse for the signatures that are turned in and will safeguard those submitted either online or mailed to their PO Box that has been set up to receive large amounts of mail.
The Blueprint for Equality, LHC's strategy on a 2010 victory released in July, states that 5,500 volunteers will be needed over the course of 150 days to gather the one million signatures required to qualify for the ballot. 5,000 will each spend one day gathering 100 signatures per volunteer, another 500 "super-volunteers" will spend 10 days gathering the same amount each day.
"What we are looking for is a combination of hardcore volunteers" and others who will give one day said Henning. "The ten days over 150 days is one full day every two weeks for the volunteer. To me it’s a commitment, but it’s not an enormous commitment. We’re looking for 500 people throughout the state to give us that commitment."
"Many of these people we won’t actually ever meet because they’ll be inspired to do it through the website or send them in through the mail," Henning added. "On top of that, they’ll be many people who will be sending just 10 signatures. They’ll have friends and family sign and then send them in."
Gathering 100 signatures in a day is challenge, but Henning doesn't doubt that they'll qualify for the ballot. "I'm extremely confident. I wouldn’t be spending my own time if I didn’t think this will be getting on the ballot."
But LHC and RE 2010 have faced many naysayers, some going as far as urging people to decline to sign the petition. They fear that going to the ballot this soon after Prop 8 will create a backlash against the marriage movement. Others have pointed out that polling has shown no shift in opinion in California on the issue of same-sex marriage, and after the defeat in Maine, believe it is unwise to move forward.
"Sadly, there’s a lot of defeatism in our community," Henning responds. "Some of it comes from the pain of losing Prop 8. You have to have faith that things are going to be better. We can’t just wallow in defeat and fear. People are capable of changing their minds. I know there are people who think we can’t win and they’re always be people who think we can’t win. But there are many people who do."
Henning, whose grandfather is from Maine, has spent every summer of his life in Pine Tree state, claims that Maine wasn't a factor in their decision to move forward. "The defeat in Maine was always possible," he said. "Maine is a relatively rural state. It’s not nearly as diverse of a state as California. Not many people know gay people in Maine. I was amazed that it even got far enough for people to vote."
"What happens in a state that is 3,000 miles away and is 1/30 of the size of California doesn’t really affect what happens in California," he added.
Others resistant to going back in 2010 accuse the groups leading the charge of steamrolling and wonder why LHC should be the ones to heading it up.
"Our group has heart and we represent a part of the pure grassroots in the state," Henning said. "We are not a staffed organization. We are not controlled by big donors. We are doing this because we think it’s the right thing to do. There is no agenda. I think people should look to that, that we have consistently pushed for this with no other agenda."
Henning paused for a moment, then added, "Restore Equality 2010 is another group that has taken a leadership position because these other staffed groups have chosen not to. It was never our intention to be the leader of the 2010 charge, and we’re not going to sit down because a large group that claims to be in charge of the movement has decided not to play ball."
EQCA has stated that if the language qualifies for the 2010 ballot, then they will throw their weight behind the campaign to give the best chances of a victory.
"We’re not going to abandon the effort once the initiative qualifies," Henning remarked. "We’re going to be a part of it. We hope that Equality California will be part of it. They said they will be. I hope we do it all together. We know that a lot of people in the LGBT community want this."
Kentucky Equality Federation applauds legislation pre-filed by Representative Mary Lou Marzian (BR 93) to place the issue of same-sex marriage or civil unions back in the hands of Kentucky citizens.
Earlier this year, Kentucky Equality Federation and Marriage Equality Kentucky began collecting signatures to present to lawmakers to repeal the law by giving voters another opportunity to vote on the issue. The "Marriage Declaration," started in July 2009.
Currently, the Commonwealth will not recognize any type of same-sex union. Marriage, domestic partnerships, and civil unions are all illegal in Kentucky (even if performed in other countries or states).
"We are very pleased with Representative Marzain's pre-filed bill," stated Kentucky Equality Federation President Jordan Palmer. "Currently, same-sex couples are basically 'second-class' citizens even though we pay the same taxes as everyone else; same-sex couples currently have absolutely no rights whatsoever and the Kentucky Constitution doesn't mention having a lower class of people. If this passes both the Kentucky House and Senate and voters ratify it, lawmakers would then be able to legislate domestic-partnerships, or civil unions, such as the new domestic partnership law in the state of Washington."
Legislation was also filed this year to repeal Michigan’s Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage.
Palmer continued, "We could certainly reach a compromise with domestic partnerships or civil unions. Being able to file joint income-tax returns, having hospital visitation rights, making medical decisions for your partner, spousal privilege, the right to inherit property, and many other benefits are the very foundation of any union. Same-sex couples are not asking for special treatment, we simple want to be treated equal; we love, honor, and cherish our partners the same as heterosexual couples."
"I realize some will turn this into a religious debate, but we have separate of church and state; the Kentucky Constitution clearly states 'absolute and arbitrary power over the lives, liberty and property of freemen exists nowhere in a republic, not even in the largest majority,' and that is exactly what Section 223A of the Constitution has done. The Constitution also states 'the civil rights, privileges or capacities of no person shall be taken away, or in anywise diminished or enlarged, on account of his belief or disbelief of any religious tenet, dogma or teaching.'"
Posts
SEE UPDATE.
