For a long time, the LGBT community has avoided bringing a federal claim regarding marriage equality. That will change tomorrow when Ted Olson, former solicitor general under W, and David Boies, his rival in Bush v. Gore.
In a project of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, Olson and Boies have united to represent two same-sex couples filing suit after being denied marriage licenses because of Proposition 8.
Their suit, to be filed in U.S. District Court in California, calls for an injunction against the proposition, allowing immediate reinstatement of marriage rights for same-sex couples.
The California Supreme Court ruled in May 2008 that state law prohibiting same-sex marriage was unconstitutional under the privacy, due process and equal protection guarantees of the California Constitution. (LA Times 5/26/09)
Lamda Legal and other national LGBT legal organizations have explicitly stayed away from pressing this in federal court in order to stay away from the conservative federal courts. But, I suppose it had to happen sometime. The likelihood of success seems slim at this point, especially for the injunction. In all likelihood, we're going to fight Prop 8 at the ballot.
That being said, we are right on the underlying argument: LGBT couples are denied the equal protection of the law.
UPDATE (by Be_Devine): Interestingly, Boies and Olson filed their lawsuit last Friday, before the California Supreme Court even decided the Prop 8 cases. They filed the case in the Northern District of California in San Francisco, and the case was assigned to Judge Vaughn Walker. Judge Walker currently the Chief Judge of the Northern District. He was nominated by President George I in 1989. Reagan nominated him earlier, but his nomination failed. He endured anger from the left because of his membership in the Olympic Club, a private club that was, at the time, all-male and for representing the U.S. Olympic Committee in its suit to stop the use of the term "Gay Olympics." Judge Walker has, however, publicly called for the legalization of drugs. He is considered a conservative judge, but if anything, he is unorthodox.
UPDATE by Brian: I've posted the complaint over the flip. You can also find it here.
Calitics can be very 30,000 feet. We look broadly at the policy issues that face Californians, point out what's good, what's bad, and what's stupid. On occasion it turns personal, in that one member of our community or another is affected by the decisions made in Sacramento and throughout California politics. I've seen people struggle with EDD, and people get laid off and furloughed. These are all very real and poignant to me.
But the decision to uphold Proposition 8 deals a devastating blow to so many Californians, and it does for me. Marriage equality is really a whole lot less about any one specific marriage, my own or any other, than about the fact that the state draws a line between a marriage between those of the same gender and an "opposite marriage" as Carrie Prejean likes to say. In a very real way, the Supreme Court said today that second-class citizenship is sufficient for a suspect class.
More broadly, this decision strikes at the heart of California's equal protection clause. It is far reaching in that it allows the people of California to vote on people they do or do not like. It turns our bedraggled system of initiatives into a high school popularity contest, where the cool kids get to do as they like. Or, as Justice Moreno summed it up:
The rule the majority crafts today not only allows same-sex couples to be stripped of the right to marry that this court recognized in the Marriage Cases, it places at risk the state constitutional rights of all disfavored minorities. It weakens the status of our state Constitution as a bulwark of fundamental rights for minorities protected from the will of the majority. (Justice Moreno's dissent, at 2)
Yes, this does affect me personally. Sure, sure, my marriage is still valid, but frankly so what? My marriage now carries an asterisk. A footnote, an exception that only mocks those who bear it. What a prize, I get to keep using the word "marriage" but I'm simultaneoulsy slapped across the face.
Ultimately, this too shall pass. At this point, it is merely a question of when Prop 8 will be repealed. It is a question of campaign strategy, and of polling, and of money. But never doubt that this decision was an anachronism before the ink was dry. It is a stain upon our legal heritage, but a stain that can be smudged, with enough hard work, into something that we can point to as a moment of transformation through adversity.
Because now it is up to us to turn that stain upon our legal system into a piece of art worthy of the masters at the ballot. It is not enough to merely state that we oppose Prop 8. We must do the very tough work to defeat the measure. We must build a campaign structure that combines the energy of the grassroots support for marriage equality, but also the best lessons from campaigns in the past. We must have a structure that is responsive, yet nimble. Our failures in the past must be a lesson.
But, this is the last blow of a dying effort. We've tasted marriage equality here. We have it elsewhere. As Eva Patterson states in the video, life will go on. We will have to work harder and smarter in the future, but the days of such nonsense will get rarer and rarer. Because some truths really are self-evident:
But even a narrow and limited exception to the promise of full equality strikes at the core of, and thus fundamentally alters, the guarantee of equal treatment that has pervaded the California Constitution since 1849. Promising equal treatment to some is fundamentally different from promising equal treatment to all. Promising treatment that is almost equal is fundamentally different from ensuring truly equal treatment. Granting a disfavored minority only some of the rights enjoyed by the majority is fundamentally different from recognizing, as a constitutional imperative, that they must be granted all of those rights. (Justice Moreno's dissent, at 6-7)
It's cold comfort to many that history is moving in the right direction, with five states already on their way to marriage equality. But it's our job to make sure history moves faster towards equality here in California.
We must redouble our efforts in California to finally win this fight for equal rights. Please, take a moment today and lend your voice to this just cause.
Let's be respectful. But let's be clear. We must start changing minds today. I know many of my fellow Californians may initially agree with this ruling, but I ask them to reserve final judgment until they have discussed this decision with someone who will be affected by it.
Please talk to a lesbian or gay family member, neighbor or co-worker and ask them why equality in the eyes of the law is important to every Californian. Please talk to local business leaders who know that this will cost jobs and make California less competitive. Please remember we all know someone who is hurt by this decision today. Please reach out to these friends, family members, co-workers and neighbors and discuss why this decision is wrong for California.
California, at its best, is a beacon of equal rights and equal opportunities. If we want to prosper together, we must respect one another.
That's why we must resolve to restore marriage equality to all Californians. Let this work start today. Sign our petition and join the efforts of the Courage Campaign and Equality California.
In the spirit of helpfulness, here is a link to the Supreme Court's Prop 8 High Profile Cases page. You'll find the decision posted there in just under an hour.
UPDATE by Dave: The egg stays off Tommy Christopher's face, as the Court upholds Prop. 8 by a 6-1 count, with Judge Moreno the only dissenting vote. The judges unanimously uphold the 18,000 existing marriages.
UPDATE by Robert: The decision is about as bad as it can get - the logic used to uphold Prop 8 is everything Ken Starr hoped it would be. Two key excerpts:
Contrary to petitioners' assertion,
Proposition 8 does not entirely repeal or abrogate the aspect of a same-sex couple's state constitutional right of privacy and due process that was analyzed in the majority opinion in the Marriage Cases - that is, the constitutional right of same-sex couples to "choose one's life partner and enter with that person into a committed, officially recognized, and protected family relationship that enjoys all of the constitutionally based incidents of marriage" (Marriage Cases, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 829). Nor does Proposition 8 fundamentally alter the meaning and substance of state constitutional equal protection principles as articulated in that opinion. Instead, the measure carves out a narrow and limited exception to these state constitutional rights, reserving the official designation of the term "marriage" for the union of opposite-sex couples as a matter of state constitutional law, but leaving undisturbed all of the other extremely significant substantive aspects of a same-sex couple's state constitutional right to establish an officially recognized and protected family relationship and the guarantee of equal protection of the laws.
And the clear embrace of the Starr Doctrine:
Neither the language of the relevant constitutional provisions, nor our past cases, support the proposition that any of these rights is totally exempt from modification by a constitutional amendment adopted by a majority of the voters through the initiative process.
To the CA Supreme Court, voters can do whatever the fuck they want to via the initiative process.
CA is officially broken.
UPDATE by Dave: State Senator Mark Leno, who wrote the two gay marriage bills passed by the legislature and vetoed by Arnold Schwarzenegger, has released a statement. So has Sen. Feinstein, CDP Chair John Burton, House Speaker Pelosi and Lt. Governor Garamendi. I'll catalog them on the flip:
UPDATE by Brian:I'll post videos from SF City Attorney Dennis Herrera's press conference as soon as I can upload them.
UPDATE by Brian: You can find the decision here if the court's site isn't working for you.
Building off the earlier open thread - In a 6-1 decision, the California Supreme Court upheld the validity of Prop 8. It held that a bare majority of California's voters has the right to single out an unpopular group and strip them of fundamental rights.
The only justice on the right side of history is Justice Moreno.
The Court held that a constitutional revision occurs only when it makes "far reaching changes in the nature of our basic governmental plan." Anything else is an amendment an can be passed by a bare majority. The court held that the effect of Prop 8 is "only" one of nomenclature, and thus it does not make any changes to the nature of our government plan.
Justice Werdegar was the only justice in the majority who is intellectually honest enough to call a spade a spade. She didn't hide behind the majority's false argument that California's law on revision/amendment distinction has always supported the decision to uphold Prop 8. Instead, she wrote her own concurring opinion specifically to point out what the majority hides: that the California Supreme Court had to make new law in order to reach its result of upholding Prop 8:
until today the court has gone only so far as to say that “a qualitative revision includes one that involves a change in the basic plan of California government, i.e., a change in its fundamental structure or the foundational powers of its branches.” (Legislature v. Eu, supra, at p. 509, italics added.) Today, the majority changes “includes” to “is,” thus foreclosing other possibilities.
* * *
The history of our California Constitution belies any suggestion that the drafters envisioned or would have approved a rule, such as that announced today, that affords governmental structure and organization more protection from casual amendment than civil liberties.
This is judicial activism at its worst. Today, the Supreme Court significantly narrowed the definition of what is a "revision" that has been California law since the 1894 case of Livermore v. Waite. They invented a new definition only because it would suit the result that they wanted. And the result that the Court wanted so much that they were willing to create new law is to strip a previously protected minority of its fundamental civil rights.
While you weren't paying attention, the LA Times got word of the Supreme Court decision on Prop 8. No, they don't actually have any word from the court, but "some people are saying":
The California Supreme Court is expected to uphold Proposition 8, November's ballot measure banning same-sex marriage, with a decision coming in the next few weeks.(LAT 5/7/09)
Oh, well, if some people are saying, then it must be true.
The article goes on to talk about the broad-based, grassroots movement for repeal of Prop 8. Throughout the state, you have what we never had in the run-up to Prop 8, a true neighbor to neighbor outreach program. We have more field efforts now, before there is even a measure filed with the AG's office, than we ever did during the "campaign." From established Progressive and LGBT organizations to brand new grassroots teams, this thing is bubbling up. Just like Jaws: The Revenge, this time it's personal, because also like Jaws: The Revenge, Prop 8 was a horrible movie.
But, this is still the first time that progressives have ever worked to put an affirmative measure before the people. The Right's GOTV "marriage protection" measure Prop 22 got well over 60% of the vote, yet Prop 8 just barely squeaked by. The tide is turning. But of course, the Right wants to freeze time right there:
"There's no doubt the other side is going to try to make great hay out of Iowa and Maine . . . but none of those places are California. And California voters have now twice voted on this," he said. "What part of 'No' don't they understand?"
Well, this is just rich, coming from California's Social Right. How many times has parental notification gone down now? Let's see, there was Prop 73, then Prop 85, and then Prop 4. So, that would be 3, or, to be exact, 3 more times than progressives have tried to put marriage equality on the ballot. Really, Mr. Schubert? You are going to use that line and expect to get away with brutalizing the scions of logic?
Oh, surely Socrates and Plato are spinning wildly in their graves right about now.
By now, most of us have seen the despicable ad unleashed in several key states this week in response to our two historic victories in Iowa and Vermont.
It was commissioned by the National Organization for Marriage (but only if you’re straight) whose website reveals some of their misleading tactics, thoroughly dissected on Pam’s this morning.
What strikes me most is their desperation. Turning themselves into victims is the only weapon the anti-LGBT industry has left. Yes on 8’s Frank Schubert himself has said that attacking LGBT folks directly doesn’t work anymore. We can be thankful for that, but must we must learn to effectively respond with the truth to this new tactic.
To succeed, opponents of the freedom to marry must convince moderates that loving, married same-sex couples somehow pose them a risk. They must stir up enough fear and doubt that otherwise fair-minded people will err on the side of discrimination.
They claim this is not just about marriage. They’re right.
How do you get voters in a supposedly tolerant state like California to vote to take away rights from people without making yourself look like a hateful bigot in the process? Simple - you cast yourself as a victim of hate, even though you're the one trying to take rights away from people.
One of the most powerful weapons in the Yes on Prop 8 campaign's arsenal was the argument that same-sex marriage rights would somehow limit religious or parental freedoms. The No on 8 campaign never effectively countered this, and this conservative victimology helped insulate Prop 8 supporters from being called to account for their bigotry.
As the marriage equality movement racks up victory after victory - Iowa, Vermont, and soon New Hampshire - the opponents of equal rights are plotting their counterattack. The National Organization for Marriage is running this creepy ad shown at right arguing that a "storm" is coming - that the "rights" of religious people and parents to teach hate and inequality are under attack by those damn liberals who want to turn all your children gay.
Their arguments are based on lies, and always have been - marriage equality in California wouldn't have changed how preachers preach or how teachers teach, and Vermont's new marriage law makes clear that religious freedom is still respected.
But these arguments are also powerful. Conservative victimology has been one of the key methods by which Prop 8 supporters have escaped responsibility for their actions or even acknowledging what Prop 8 was - an attack on the legal equality of thousands of Californians merely for their sexual orientation. When framed this way the Yes on 8 position becomes almost unassailable, immune to criticism. "They're just protecting their freedoms," we're supposed to think, and not be allowed to ask them to face the realities of what they have done, not be allowed to criticize them for voting to take away equal rights and destroy existing marriages, and not be allowed to act with our own conscience by demanding equal rights for everyone. Each of those acts is cast as an aggressive and hurtful act, where the oppressed are cast as oppressors.
These folks have nothing left in the tool box after the Iowa ruling decimated the excuse that religious opposition should govern civil law. So now the folks at the National Organization for Marriage have decided to send out e-blasts and a new video that uses a multi-racial set of actors to portray the aggrieved heterosexuals affected by same-sex couples being allowed to marry.
You might laugh at these fundnuts, but they are crafty, and don't mind continuing to promote outright lies and deception.
We're winning the battle for equal rights. But to ensure that equal rights prevail across the nation - and here in California - we have to push back against these lies.
UPDATED by Brian: It seems the audition videos tape was leaked, and it's now on YouTube. Yay, fun! Nothing makes you cynical like seeing a bunch of actors saying the same thing, because they, you know, really care about it. Check the video (h/t CapAlert) over the flip.
I'm doing my taxes today. It's always a fun weekend around the house. Or, well, completely devoid of fun is a better description. At any rate, you all have been there so I don't need to describe the emotions of the tax weekend.
But guess what? I get extra super duper fun! As one of the lucky 18,000 or so couples that got married in California, we get to also prepare a phony federal tax form that will not actually be filed. Because somehow the federal government doesn't really need to give full faith and credit to the marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples.
I posted the news on the book of faces today that I'd be doing the glorious chore of taxes, and friend of Calitics, Chad Jones, spoke up:
We paid an extra Gay Tax not being able to file our federal return jointly. It's a total pain in the ass to have to do a phony federal return to base your state taxes on (which makes the Gay Tax glaringly obvious). And the FTB can't handle electronic filing from same-sex couples so you have to mail it in and wait for your refund.
Like Chad, we too will be paying the gay tax. There is simply no other reason than our sexuality that we are paying this tax. I'm not going all anti-tax here, it's just that I don't see the reason that one couple should be treated differently than another for tax purposes.
Just as a reminder to all any judges who happen across the issue, this is actually in the constitution:
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof. (U.S. Constitution, Art. IV, Sec. 1)
But, really the failure of courts to enforce the full faith and credit is a bigger issue than taxes, it has a larger effect on our system of property generally. In a very real way, that we don't apply this clause allows people to escape valid obligations. It is a crack in the greater "Rule of Law." Or, well, Harvard Law Professor Joseph William Singer said it a lot better just after the Massachusetts marriages were performed:
Now that same sex marriages have been occurring in Massachusetts for almost a year, the issue of interstate recognition is no longer merely a theoretical issue. Most scholars have either argued that the full faith and credit clause does not mandate recognition of same sex marriages or that it does so for limited purposes or for marriages of Massachusetts residents but not nonresidents seeking to evade their restrictive home state marriage laws. This article argues that the full faith and credit clause should be interpreted to require interstate recognition of same sex marriages validly celebrated in Massachusetts and that Congress does not have the power to deny such recognition under the "effects thereof" language of the full faith and credit clause. Rather than focusing on the rights of same sex couples to have their valid Massachusetts marriages recognized elsewhere, we should focus on the obligations inherent in the marriage relationship. Both Congress and the majority of states have passed so-called Defense of Marriage Acts (DOMAs). If these laws are constitutional, they effectively authorize partners in same sex marriages to relocate to other states and evade their obligations as spouses and parents under Massachusetts law. Those states have made themselves havens for fleeing debtors. Using traditional and modern choice-of-law analysis, as well as analogies to the law of divorce and corporate governance, this article argues that the full faith and credit clause should be interpreted to require recognition of marriages that are valid where celebrated to avoid inconsistent obligations, to allow free interstate travel and commerce, and to prevent the states from authorizing married partners to walk away from their concededly valid and persisting obligations under Massachusetts law. (Stanford Journal of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties)
The Mormon Church went to great lengths to hide their invovlement in the Prop 8 campaign. Sure, we all know that they were deeply engaged, but Fred Karger, of Californians Against Hate, alleges that they deliberately obfuscated their activities, in violation of California's Political Reform Act. Karger previously filed a complaint alleging unreported contributions, which the Mormon church later admitted and filed an amended report.
This one takes a slightly different angle. Karger argues that the Mormon Church set up an organization, the National Organization for Marriage, with the express purpose of passing Prop 8, and then funded that without properly reporting. While complete records aren't available, it is believed that over $2 Million passed through NOM, with little reporting on where that money came from.
Bill Clinton must make a choice. He must decide whether a speech for big bucks is more important than honoring a labor and activist boycott. On Feb. 15, the former President is scheduled to make a speech at the Manchester Hyatt.
As a refresher, Mr. Manchester gave some of the initial seed money to get Proposition 8 on the ballot, $125,000 to be exact. Since then, a coalition of labor, LGBT, and grassroots organizations has promoted a boycott against the hotel. And it has been quite successful, with groups such as the American Assoc. of Law Schools moving their events.
But our former Democratic president still seems intent on breaking the boycott. That's why a diverse coalition of leaders has taken an ad out in the New York Daily News to ask him not to break the boycott. You can check the ad to the right, and in context at the Daily News politics blog. Also, read the full letter at their site, moveclintonspeech.info. It's signed by leaders like San Diego city councilman Todd Gloria, Unite-HERE Local 30 president Brigette Browning, San Diego Dem. County Chair and DNC member Jess Durfee, and the Courage Campaign's Rick Jacobs.
Rest assured that if Clinton plans on busting the boycott, he'll have to pretend he doesn't notice the rally outside. Activists from around the region are planning on protesting the speech. Clinton should move the speech or just not give it. Together, we will bend the arc of history for justice. But we must be united.
I already posted on one of the more interesting events of the Equality Summit from Saturday, the election/past year review. I wrote it at the event so memory was a bit fresher. If you haven't had the chance to read that, it might be worth a read. If you'd like to relive the whole experience, EQCA has made everything available on Google Video. Here's Part 1 and Part 2 of the Election Review. You'll find other videos along the Google sidebar from the plenary meetings. Part 2 has the very insightful Marriage Equality USA presentation and the David Binder presentation. I think the one thing that I hope people took away from Binder's presentation, if they took nothing else with them, is that phone calls don't work. It's something that most field organizers can tell you. But it's cheap and easy, but sometimes you get what you pay for.
There was a bit of fun to be had afterward with Asm. Tom Ammiano's take on the situation. After all, it's pretty hard not to have a smile on your face after 10 minutes of his jokes. But what I got out of the review panel, and from the speeches of Ammiano and many other leaders that were outside of the campaign was something more basic. Simply, don't hide the ball. Marriage equality is about love. It is about two people who want to spend their lives together. No matter how much spin you put on it, if we win an election any other way, it is a hollow victory indeed.
I'm now sitting in a rather large ballroom type venue in the LA Convention Center. All around me is an amazing collection of LGBT (and allies) leaders. In some respects, no matter the forum, it has to be a positive thing just to get these people all in one room. I'm ready to play the name game or something with all these cool people.
After an inspiring invocation, the meeting actually began with a panel discussing what happened. The panel sounded great, like it was the Obama team calling down from on high about their great victories. The only problem, of course, is that we didn't win. The field team discussed their goals and what actually happened. And as somebody who did some volunteering on the campaign, I can affirmatively say there were some big ol' rose colored glasses going on here.
There was glorification of the Let California Ring program. Don't get me wrong, it was an enormously successful education campaign, but that's where the successes ended. When the transition to the campaign occurred, it seemed like we lost our way. But yet, we learned of the goals of the campaign, and their numbers. They reached 180K voters, but volunteerism could have been so much stronger. Their best laid plans either never came to fruition or suffered from poor execution.
I appreciated the information, but the problem is still the same. This is a top-down lecture, with little interaction. That is, until Mollie McKay and the Marriage Equality USA Team came on to point out what went wrong with the campaign. Mollie went on to provide a real-world look at what happened. What we heard for the next 15 minutes was the best summary of the failures of the campaign. They had a great powerpoint presentation, that I hope to get a digital copy to post online soon. I don't know that I've seen an applause like that on a speech regarding Prop 8 since, well, the election. Their main points:
* Clergy leaders were underutilized by the campaign
* Leaders of color were underutilitzed by the campaign
* No on 8 ads lacked heart and LGBT people
* Prop 8 creates dangerous situations for children and families
* No on 8 field plan lacked visibility and missed potential volunteers
* The No on 8 Campaign abandoned the Central Valley
The worldwide media attention surrounding our massive grassweb efforts for gay rights has been tremendous. Join the Impact was a HUGE success and will continue to thrive because of our efforts. We've reacted to anti-gay ballot initiatives in California, Arizona Florida, and Arkansas with anger, with resolve, and with courage. NOW, it's time to show America and the world how we love. Gay people and our allies are compassionate, sensitive, caring, mobilized, and programmed for success. A day without gays would be tragic because it would be a day without love.
On December 10, 2008 the gay community will take a historic stance against hatred by donating love to a variety of different causes. On December 10, you are encouraged not to call in sick to work. You are encouraged to call in "gay"--and donate your time to service! December 10, 2008 is International Human Rights Day. CLICK HERE to join us, and search or add to the list of human rights organizations that need our help RIGHT NOW.
At the same time, pollsters and demographers are predicting that Prop 8 won't last all that long. In an article in Capitol Weekly, Rick Jacobs of the Courage Campaign echoes a sentiment felt around the state: We will be ready for another fight in 2010. The Public Policy Institute of California's demographer Hans Johnson puts its outer limit at 10 years.
"I don't know if I'd say two years," Johnson said. "When you look at the age structure, there is no doubt that sometime in the next 10 years, the votes of California will accept, in the majority, gay marriage."
In the end, the right wing has bought themselves a few years. But what was their real return? It is not like they really could use the boost for McCain's chances here that came with a Prop 8 turnout. And it's doubtful they even knew or cared about the other down-ballot races (Bill Hedrick anyone?). No, this wasn't some sort of strategery, it was bigotry for bigotry's sake.
So what did they win? They won the right to be the laughingstock of history. Yes, you too can be a modern day George Wallace. When this book is written, and this chapter of the LGBT civil rights fight comes to a close, the only real losers are those who stood in the way of justice.
Despite threatening weather, organizers estimated that nearly 5,000 people came out to City Hall in Boston, MA to stand together as supporters of marriage equality. Organizers, including local politicians, leaders with Mass Equality, and U.S. Congressional Representatives Rep. Nikki Tsongas and Rep. Edward Markey all spoke to the crowd.
Massachusetts made history in 2004 when it became the first U.S. state to legalize same-sex marriage. That thought was not lost on organizers today, many of whom traveled to California in the lead up to the vote on Proposition 8 to help with the No on 8 campaign. State Rep. Carl Sciortino read from the Constitution of the State of California, "All people are by nature free and independent and have certain inalienable rights." Thus launched the demonstration.
Some quotes and highlights:
Rep. Nikki Tsongas (D-Mass.): "We are a partner with everyone across the country when it comes to bringing about marriage equality."
State Rep. Byron Rushing: "I am here this afternoon because we are engaged in struggle. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. We are here to struggle. In this democracy, marriage is a civil institution, and in a democracy, all civil institutions must be open to all who qualify."
Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass):(Reflecting on the fact that gay marriage is now illegal in California, while it is legal here in Massachusetts) "There is one thing that distinguishes Massachusetts from California on the issue of gay marriage. We are right, and they are wrong! ... Gays should have the same rights as straights. As God's children, they should have the same rights straights have. Everyone is entitled to full rights under the U.S. Constitution, so now we engage in this great struggle. ... They asked the ancient Greek philosopher when we would know full and true justice. And he answered: We would know true justice when all of those who have not been harmed are as angry as those who have!"
Gary Daffin (LGBT political activist and Executive Director, Multicultural AIDS Coalition): "Here in Massachusetts, we wanted our brothers and sisters in California to wake up after the Election and relax and feel at home in their country. It took Black people 400 years for us to feel at home in our own country. It might not take the LGBT community 400 years, but we need to keep fighting."
Heather Baker (special ed teacher and Boston LGBT rights activst): "We are the American family, we live next door to you, we teach your children, we take care of your elderly. We need equal rights across the country."
Even though the weather wasn't picture perfect, the scene outside of Boston City Hall was. And yeah, that may sound cheesy, but the energy level at today's "Join the Impact" rally in Boston gave me faith that we can build this national movement to ensure marriage equality, and work to foster LGBT rights in all 50 states.
Yesterday, the Yes on 8 gave their somewhat premature victory speech. While I think the odds are tough for us to come back in the absentees, it doesn't look good. Either way, it is what it us. They have the numbers right now on their side. Say what you will about discrimination being written into our constitution, or the threshhold necessary for said constitutional graffiti, we only have this from a statement from the No on 8 campaign:
Based on turnout estimates reported yesterday, we expect that there are more than 3 million and possibly as many as 4 million absentee and provisional ballots yet to be counted.
Here's hoping for a Dewey defeats Truman moment, but I think they are a bit optimistic about those numbers. Turnout cratered after the polls closed on the east coast and people started learning about Obama's success. My guess is that turnout will end up around, or slightly below, the 2004 total of 12.6 million. That's substantially less than Field's estimates of 13.6 million, but still much more than the 10.3 million votes currently counted in the presidential election. So, the fat lady has yet to sing on Prop 8, despite the AP and the Yes campaign.
That being said, the legal response to any prospective Prop 8 victory has already begun. First, there's the issue of retroactivity. Jerry Brown said over the summer that he thinks it isn't retroactive, and the ACLU is backing that position. We probably won't see a challenge to that until we have some real-life facts to challenge that on. I'm not sure when that will happen, but I can't imagine the right-wing will want to just leave this hanging for too long.
Then there's the bigger question of whether Prop 8 is valid at all. Back in June/July, ACLU, EQCA, NCLR, etc, filed a lawsuit regarding whether Prop 8 was a revision or an amendment. There is a big difference there. Revisions can only be accomplished through a constitutional convention and lots of 2/3 votes, while amendments require a bare majority at the polls. Yeah, it's a big deal.
Before I go on, I'll say this. It's at best a 50-50 shot, and that might be generous. Not that we have a weak case, but what is critical here is that this will take monumental courage from our Supreme Court. As you probably know, our Court faces election, and a decision in favor of marriage here will open them up to even more electoral challenges. Rose Bird is your big case there. However, the Justices should know that if they follow their convictions, and the case law set down before them, the LGBT community, as well as the greater progressive community, will come out in force in support of these Republican judges. We will give them money, and we will support their reelection to the Court. Rose Bird was a lesson that we shouldn't forget.
Two months ago, when Del Martin died, we all lost a beacon of light and Phyllis Lyon lost her wife and companion of 56 years.
Upon Del's death, Phyllis said, “Ever since I met Del 55 years ago, I could never imagine a day would come when she wouldn’t be by my side. I am so lucky to have known her, loved her, and been her partner in all things. I also never imagined there would be a day that we would actually be able to get married. I am devastated, but I take some solace in knowing we were able to enjoy the ultimate rite of love and commitment before she passed.”
But that's not how those who support Prop 8 saw it. This is how they saw it, as captured by the amazing photographer Bill Wilson at Del Martin's memorial service at City Hall in San Francisco.
These people who hide behind the euphemism of "family values" protested Del's memorial with signs like "MOURN FOR YOUR SINS," "DON'T WORSHIP THE DEAD," and "YOU'RE GOING TO HELL."
The public face of those who support Prop 8 is not their real face. This is who they are. Narrow minded, hateful bigots who interrupt a memorial service to tell an 83 year old widow that her wife is going to hell for having loved.
These are the people who want to tell Phyllis that she was never really married to Del. The ones who want to forcibly end my marriage to Brian. The ones who think they are wise enough to decide who other people can and can't love.
And just where do these people come from that have donated $4,499,258.05 from 10/27-10/30? It's not surprising that the vast, vast majority of the money donated to the Yes on 8 campaign is from out of state.Take a look at the donations from this week alone. Only a quarter of the donations to Yes on 8 came from California. The biggest chunk came from Utah. Texas had a sizable chunk as well. Take a look at the graph compiled my by lovely husband, Brian Leubitz.
We need to fight these out-of-state hatemongers with all of our power. Stop the lies! Stop the hatred! Walk, knock, call, e-mail, tell everyone you know that we need to protect our residents and our Constitution. NO ON 8!!!
Despite threatening weather, organizers estimated that nearly 5,000 people came out to City Hall in Boston, MA to stand together as supporters of marriage equality. Organizers, including local politicians, leaders with Mass Equality, and U.S. Congressional Representatives Rep. Nikki Tsongas and Rep. Edward Markey all spoke to the crowd.
