QUEER QUOTE: Charles Cooper, Leading Anti-Gay Lawyer Has A Lesbian Daughter

Charles Cooper is one of the most famous and longest-serving opponents to same-sex marriage in the country. He is something like the "anti-Evan Wolfson." He represented Hawaii in the first major case where a state supreme court ruled that traditional marriage laws were discriminatory way back in 1993 and has been active in very many of the legal skirmishes around marriage equality ever since.

He is infamous for responding to U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker's question of how exactly marriage is only for procreative purposes in the Proposition 8 trial in 2010 Cooper responded: "Your Honor, my answer is I don't know. I don't know." Cooper defended California's ban on same-sex marriage all the way to the United States Supreme Court, eventually losing in Hollingsworth v. Perry.

This week came word that even this venerable opponent of marriage equality is coming around to the side of equality and justice, atleast for members of his family. Apparently his daughter is a lesbian and she is going to be marrying her female partner soon and Cooper is delighted.

This rapprochement is today's Queer Quote:

“My daughter Ashley’s path in life has led her to happiness with a lovely young woman named Casey, and our family and Casey’s family are looking forward to celebrating their marriage in just a few weeks."

And so it goes, my gentle readers, and so it goes.

Legal Bills Of Proposition 8 Federal Case Exceeded $6.4 Million

The Washington Blade reports that according to tax records, the federal lawsuit to eliminate California's Proposition 8 resulted in some $6.4 million going to the high-powered law firms of Ted Olson and David Boies. Olson and Boies were the unlikely due behind the Perry v. Schwarzenegger lawsuit in May 2009 that eventually became the successful Hollingsworth v. Perry win at the United States Supreme Court in June 2013.

The lawsuit was sponsored by the American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER) which was created by Chad Griffin at the time the suit was filed. According to the same records, AFER has raised nearly $15 million dollars since its inception and March 31, 2013.

The American Foundation for Equal Rights between 2009 and 2013 paid more than $6.4 million to two law firms that successfully argued against California’s Proposition 8.

Tax filings indicate former U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson’s law firm – Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP – received $1,691,714 from AFER for “legal and ancillary legal expenses”between April 23, 2009, and March 31, 2010. The organization paid the law firm $958,655between April 1, 2010, and March 31, 2011, and another $2,758,352 between April 1, 2011, through March 31, 2012.

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP received $537,939 from AFER between April 1, 2012, and March 31, 2013. The organization also paid David Boies’ law firm – Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP – $468,089 for “legal and ancillary legal expenses” between April 1, 2010, through March 31, 2011.

Some  have questioned why such prominent lawyers did not work on this seminal civil rights lawsuit pro bono, which has generally been the custom in other movements. Others point out that the $15 million raised (and presumably spent) by AFER is much less than a ballot measure campaign to overturn Proposition 8 would have cost. And you may remember in 2009 there were very many people (vocally opposed by  a coalition of groups that included yours truly) who wanted to go to the ballot as soon as possible. Also, no LGBT legal minds thought that a federal challenge to Proposition 8 would succeed and were strongly opposed to the Olson-Boies lawsuit at the time.

Another reason why this is useful information is that AFER is now involved in another federal lawsuit, Bostic v. Rainey, in which they are suing to have Virginia's ban on same-sex marriages invalidated. On Valentine's Day, a federal judge struck down that ban and put a stay on her decision pending a resolution on appeal to the 4th Circuit or above. Lambda Legal and the ACLU have successfully petitioned to intervene in that case, which was opposed by AFER.

There is currently a race to see which federal lawsuit will get to the Supreme Court. Even though a dozen U.S. district courts have struck down marriage bans, no U.S. circuit courts have (yet). Oral argument in the Utah case (Kitchen v. Hebert) before the 10th Circuit and in the Nevada case (Sevcik v Sandoval) in the 9th Circuit are scheduled for April. It will be interesting to see if AFER's profile or reputation will be negatively impacted by these revelations despite their winning track record on restoring marriage to California on a timeline faster than the LGBT establishment expected.

Last-Ditch Motion To Stop CA Marriage Equality Denied By SCOTUS

A desperate (and frankly frivolous) motion to (again) stop same-sex couples from marrying in California and resuscitate Proposition 8 that was filed by the heterosexual supremacists at ProtectMarriage.com on Saturday was denied without comment by Justice Anthony Kennedy a little after noon on Sunday. Kennedy, who wrote the 5-4 majority in the pro-gay marriage decision striking down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act United States v. Windsor was actually in the minority of Justices in the 5-4 Hollingsworth v. Perry  majority deciding the fate of Proposition 8. Perry effectively ended California's state constitutional same-sex marriage ban from 2008 by denying the Proposition 8 proponents legal standing to continue their appeal of Vaughn Walker's 2010 ruling declaring the measure violated  the federal constitution.

SCOTUS blog reports the delightful news of the final nail being hammered in Proposition 8's coffin:

Last Wednesday, the Supreme Court had ruled that the measure’s backers did not have a legal right to defend the measure in either the Supreme Court or, earlier, in the Ninth Circuit Court. While the Supreme Court considered that case, the 2010 decision by a federal judge in San Francisco striking down “Proposition 8″ had been on hold. It was that hold (or “stay”) that the three-judge Circuit Court panel lifted on Friday. Very soon after that, gay and lesbian couples started getting married in ceremonies across the state. Thousands of such couples have now obtained marriage licenses from officials in the state.

Since Justice Kennedy offered no explanation for denying an application claiming that the Ninth Circuit panel had no authority to lift its stay, there is no way to know what legal rationale he had used. It could have been that the sponsors of the measure lacked a legal right to pursue their challenge further, that even if they had such a right it was without legal merit, that the lower court did have the authority to decide for itself when to lift the stay, or perhaps that events had just moved too rapidly in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling that it would be inappropriate to try to roll them back.

Although attorneys for the ballot measure’s sponsors have been creative in finding new ways to try to press the challenge, the brief action by Kennedy on Sunday may have removed the final barrier to the full achievement of marriage rights for gays and lesbians in the nation’s most populous state. California is the thirteenth state where same-sex marriages can occur now, or soon, when new laws in a few of the states take effect this summer. The District of Columbia also allows such marriages.

The Hollingsworth v. Perry case (which began as Perry v. Schwarznegger)  is finally over. Proposition 8 is dead. The bittersweet feeling from election night on 2008 (Obama wins! Marriage Equality loses!) is now dissipated. The kultukampf is finished in California and the forces of "equal justice under law" have won this battle.

 But the culture war goes on in the country because there are 37 states which do not have marriage equality, and the vast majority of those states (exactly thirty, according to Wikipedia)  have explicit state constitutional bans on recognizing or enacting same-sex civil marriages. New Mexico and New Jersey are the only two states, I believe, that have neither laws or constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriages. I guess there must be five states which only have statutes banning same-sex marriages (according to Freedom to Marry, these five are Illlinois, Pennsylvania, Indiana, West Virginia and Wyoming).

In fact, New Jersey currently has a civil unions law, and Lambda Legal announced it is refiling a case there, opening up the famous Lewis v Harris New Jersey State Supreme course case which ruled that the legislature had to offer all the same rights and benefits to same-sex couples as it does to different-sex couples. With the addition of federal benefits to same-sex married couples, no state that purports to claim that a civil union meet the Lewis v. Harris (and 1999's Baker v. Vermont) standard has a legal leg to stand on.

In New Mexico, which also does not have any law banning same-sex marriages, the question of whether county clerks have the right to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples is being asked directly of the state Supreme Court. The Court has not decided whether it will take the case, and the state Legislature has repeatedly refused to pass legislation enacting marriage equality of even domestic partnerships.

And of course, in 29 states you can be fired (without a state-based legal recourse) if your employer merely thinks that you might be gay, lesbian or bisexual. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act would make it illegal as a measure of federal law for that to be the case.

AFER Head Chad Griffin Named HRC Head

Chad Griffin, 38, is board president and founder of the American Foundation
 for Equal Rights, the group that organized the Proposition 8 federal lawsuit

The Advocate is reporting that 38-year-old political consultant Chad Griffin, the force behind the Los Angeles-based group which is shepherding the original Perry v Schwarzenegger federal legal challenge to Proposition 8 (American Foundation for Equal Rights or AFER) has been named the new head of the Human Rights Campaign, the most prominent LGBT advocacy position in the United States:

A major fundraiser for the Obama campaign who began his career in the early days of the Clinton White House, Griffin will replace current president Joe Solmonese at the helm of the $40 million organization on June 11, HRC announced Friday following a board of directors vote. Solmonese, who joined HRC as president in 2005 and said in August that he would leave after his contract expires at the end of this month, will continue in his role until June. Solmonese was named a national co-chair for the Obama campaign last month. 

In its pick of Griffin as president, HRC has chosen someone who was shaped from an early age by Washington political culture yet who is not defined by it, having spent the vast majority of his career outside the Beltway. Griffin, 38, is a fervent supporter of President Obama with personal ties to White House officials, but has pushed the bipartisan case for marriage equality, notably hiring former George W. Bush solicitor general Theodore Olson to co-lead the Prop. 8 suit and aligning with conservatives including gay former Republican National Committee chair Ken Mehlman, who has raised money for the legal effort. Griffin has been openly critical of the president’s evolving position on marriage equality, calling Obama’s indicated support for states' rights on deciding who can marry “a step backwards.” And, central to the job, Griffin has a proven ability to be a formidable fundraiser.

“While there’s no doubt that we’ve made tremendous progress on the road to equality, we must not forget that millions of LGBT Americans still lack basic legal protections and suffer the consequences of discrimination every day,” Griffin said in a statement. “Today's generation of young people, and each generation hereafter, must grow up with the full and equal protection of our laws, and finally be free to participate in the American dream. As HRC president, I’ll approach our work with a great sense of urgency because there are real life consequences to inaction.”

This is very big news and should raise the profile of marriage equality even higher in the nexus of LGBT issues that enter into the mainstream political consciousness of the 2012 political campaigns.

It will be interesting to see what impact Griffin's selection will have on the other issues which America's largest LGBT advocacy organization is also responsible for advancing, such as trans-inclusive national employment non-discrimination legislation, repealing the Defense of Marriage Act, passing the Uniting All Families Act, and the multiple statewide pro-gay and anti-gay ballot measures around the country (just to name a few).

In larger terms, the question of how the movement for LGBT equality will interface with other progressive movements like comprehensive immigration reform, the pro-choice movement, the labor movement and people of color civil rights organizations when the players involved are becoming more bipartisan in nature will be important to watch. Griffin is known for defying "Gay, Inc." orthodoxy in the past and is clearly comfortable working across party lines, having personally recruited David Boies and Ted Olson to be the superlawyers leading the Perry lawsuit to strike down California's same-sex marriage ban.

BREAKING: 9th Circuit Keeps Prop 8 Trial Tapes Sealed

Breaking News! The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed trial judge James Ware and issued a ruling which says that the videotapes of the Proposition 8 trial (a.k.a. Perry v. Schwarzenegger) should NOT be released.

A ruling on the merits of the appeal of the openly gay federal judge Vaughn Walker's ruling in the Perry v. Brown which struck down California's voter-passed ban on same-sex marriage can be released by the 9th Circuit at any time.

BREAKING: Prop 8 Trial Tape Ruling Tomorrow

The question of whether the videotapes of the court testimony during the Perry v Schwarzenegger case will be released tomorrow by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Hat/tip to Metro Wekly

Goodwin Liu Likely To Join CA Sup Ct For Perry

2008's Proposition 8 is in court twice in the next two weeks. Last Monday, oral arguments were heard about whether the extant video tapes of testimony in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case should be released to the public. The judge, federal district court judge James Ware announced afterwards that he would not "delay very long" in issuing a ruling. Which the heterosexual supremacists will almost certainly appeal anyway.

Next Tuesday, September 6 oral arguments will be held before the California Supreme Court in a very important case which will determine who exactly has "judicial standing" under California law to defend a voter-approved initiative (like Proposition 8) when the executive branch officers (Governor and Attorney General) have declined to do so.

Happily, Governor Brown recently nominated marriage-equality supporting University of California, Berkeley law professor Goodwin Liu to the California Supreme Court. It looks very likely that Professor Liu will join the court before Tuesday and participate in the oral arguments in the Perry v Brown case. There is no Republican neanderthal filibuster to prevent Liu from joining this court, unlike his unsuccessful path to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Instead he just needs to get the approval of the 3-member Commission on Judicial Appointments, and then he will be up for election for a 12-year term at the next statewide general election.

Heterosexual Supremacists Appeal Judge Ware Ruling

Good grief! The heterosexual supremacists who believe that they are "defending marriage" by supporting Proposition 8 in federal court have appealed Federal District Court Judge James Ware's decision denying their motion to vacate Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling which struck down the measure.

The San Francisco Examiner says:

Attorneys for Prop. 8 filed their appeal this afternoon before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the same court that is hearing an appeal of Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling last August that the law unconstitutionally violated the civil rights of gays and lesbians.

Earlier this year, Prop. 8 sponsors had asked Ware, Walker’s replacement as chief justice, to throw out Walker’s ruling because of an interview he did with reporters in April, after his retirement, during which he discussed his long-term relationship with a gay man. They argued that Walker should have disclosed the relationship and whether he intended to marry before last year’s trial.

Attorneys for the same-sex couples who sued over Prop. 8 argued at the time that the motion was “frivolous” and “offensive.”

Ware denied the motion, saying there was no federal precedent for disqualifying a judge solely because he shares a characteristic, such as sexual orientation, with a litigant.

It should be interesting to see which case they lose first, the Perry v Schwarzenegger lawsuit (the appeal of Judge Ware's ruling) or the Perry v Brown lawsuit (the appeal of Judge Walker's ruling). I expect they will lose them both.

Federal Judge Denies Motion To Vacate Prop 8 Ruling

In an unsurprising move, Federal Judge James Ware has summarily dismissed the motion to vacate last year's ruling striking down Proposition 8 filed by the heterosexual supremacist supporters of the 2008 ballot measure which ended marriage equality in California.

You can read the full text of the Motion to Vacate here.
Denial of Motion to Vacate 06-14-2011

Judge Ware To Rule On Prop 8 Motion To Vacate Tomorrow

Federal judge James Ware, chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, says he will rule tomorrow on a desperate motion to vacate last year's decision in Perry v. Schwarznegger striking down Proposition 8 as unconstitutional because the federal judge who issued it, Vaughn Walker, is openly gay and should have disclosed that fact at the time. Walker was previously chief judge of the same district but retired at the end of February 2011.

The motion by the heterosexual supremacist proponents of Proposition 8 has been widely ridiculed by the vast majority of legal experts and on the editorial pages of major newspapers.

It should be a delightful to read Judge James Ware's decision tomorrow. In other news, the judge has also said that he will deny the motion of the proponents to attempt to collect all the videos of the trial's witnesses and order them destroyed. Our side is arguing that the testimony is  a public record (the transcripts are available from the court) and that the entire video record should be released. There is some important, powerful testimony from expert witnesses explaining the nature of marriage and demolishing the arguments of the heterosexual supremacists that they would dearly not like to get into public view. I dearly hope the videos of the Prop 8 trial "leak" at some point in the future.

CA-AG Harris Asks Court To Lift Prop 8 Ruling Stay

Attorney General Kamala D. Harris

Wow! Yesterday I blogged about a Los Angeles Times editorial ("Same-sex weddings, now") that called for the 9th Circuit to lift their stay of U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker's August 4, 2010 ruling striking down Proposition 8 from going into effect, effectively legalizing same-sex marriage in California again. I opined that I thought it was unlikely the 9th Circuit would lift the stay, even though they have effectively delayed the case by as much as 11 months by asking the California Supreme Court whether they think that under California law the proponents of Proposition 8 have the right to defend a ballot measure when the elected representatives (Governor and Attorney General) the people have refuse to do so. (This is a bizarre delay because Proposition 8 is now in federal court, and there is also a question of standing under federal law, notwithstanding whether the Proposition 8 heterosexual supremacists have standing under state law.)

Today comes word that our current Attorney General (and the former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger) Kamala Harris agrees with the position that same-sex marriages should be legal in California while the courts wrangle and have filed papers with the 9th Circuit Appellate Court asking them to lift the stay:

Attorney General Harris said it is unlikely that an appeal will succeed in overturning Judge Walker's ruling that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. The appeal's likelihood of success has been substantially diminished, Attorney General Harris said, "both by the United States Attorney General's conclusion that classifications based on sexual orientation cannot survive constitutional scrutiny and by this Court's certification order to the California Supreme Court, which seriously questions the Court's jurisdiction to decide the merits of the case."

In addition, Attorney General Harris said, "there is no injury that the proponents of Proposition 8 will suffer if same-sex couples are permitted to enter into civil marriages in California." But as long as the stay on same-sex marriages remains in effect, Attorney General Harris said, the due process and equal protection rights of same-sex couples will continue to be violated, perpetuating unconstitutional discrimination and making a stay of Judge Walker's ruling legally inappropriate.

"The President and the United States Attorney General have determined that they will not continue to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (‘DOMA')," Harris said, "because it enforces a classification that fails to meet the heightened standard of scrutiny that should apply for equal protection analysis under the Fifth Amendment."

The California Attorney General's long-standing position, Harris told the Ninth Circuit, is that Proposition 8 "violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution."

"For 846 days, Proposition 8 has denied equality under the law to gay and lesbian couples," Attorney General Harris said. "Each and every one of those days, same-sex couples have been denied their right to convene loved ones and friends to celebrate marriages sanctioned and protected by California law. Each one of those days, loved ones have been lost, moments have been missed, and justice has been denied." 

Wow. I guess elections really do have consequences. I can not imagine Republican Steve Cooley issuing such a strong statement in favor of LGBT rights.

Even if the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals does lift the stay, opponents could appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which almost definitely would maintain the stay.

It will be curious to see what "harm" heterosexual supremacists will tell a court that they will undergo if Proposition 8 is allowed to be in limbo pending a future court decision.

L.A. TIMES Op Ed: "Same-sex weddings, now"

Today's Los Angeles Times runs an editorial in favor of ending the stay on Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling declaring Proposition 8 unconstitutional and calls for same-sex marriages to resume immediately while the legal wrangling at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and California Supreme Court get settled.

Although the federal courts expedited their handling of the lawsuit challenging Proposition 8, the issues are far from resolved. And now that the California Supreme Court has been asked to weigh in, the case could be delayed for another year or more.

Enough already. Gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to wed while the case works its way through the system.

The state Supreme Court was asked by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to rule on whether supporters of Proposition 8 have the right — known as "standing" — to continue with their case. It indicated that it would hear arguments late this year, with a ruling likely to follow a few months later. Meanwhile, a stay pending the outcome of the appeal has kept gay weddings from going forward. Now, however, the lawyers challenging Proposition 8 have asked the 9th Circuit to lift the stay and allow the weddings to take place. We agree that it should.

Every day that the case drags on, gay and lesbian couples who would like to marry are being deprived of their civil rights. That's not our wording; the federal trial judge decided that issue, at least for now. The denial of constitutional rights, even temporarily, is a deplorable situation that must meet high legal standards to be allowed to continue. In our view, those conditions have not been met.

First, a stay should be issued only if there is a strong likelihood that the appealing party — in this case, the supporters of Proposition 8 — will prevail in court. Yet there are serious questions about whether they even have the standing to appeal, so the outcome is very uncertain. There are other factors the courts take into account when deciding whether to keep a stay in place. Those filing the appeal must show that they would be irreparably harmed if the stay were lifted; the courts also take into account where the public interest lies. During the trial, the supporters of Proposition 8 were unable to identify any harm that would befall them if same-sex weddings took place.

Certainly it would be messy if California were to resume performing wedding ceremonies for gay and lesbian couples, only to have to stop again when another ruling comes down. But there may be no other option. Right now, same-sex couples are being deprived of their constitutional right to marry, and every indication is that unless the stay is lifted, they'll have to keep waiting for more than a year. That is real harm, and there is no valid reason to allow it to continue.

I think it is unlikely that the Courts will agree to lift the stay, but I do agree that the harm to same-sex couples who would like to get married in California should not be discounted, especially  when it is looking increasingly likely that Proposition 8 will not survive judicial scrutiny.

BREAKING: CA Sup Ct Agrees To Decide Standing Question

The California Supreme Court unanimously agreed to decide whether Proposition 8 proponents have standing to defend the anti-gay marriage initiative in the federal lawsuit of Perry v. Schwarzenegger which is currently pending before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Specifically, the Court will decide the question:

Whether under Article II, Section 8 of the California Constitution, or otherwise under California law, the official proponents of an initiative measure possess either a particularized interest in the initiative's validity or the authority to assert the State's interest in the initiative's validity, which would enable them to defend the constitutionality of the initiative upon its adoption or appeal a judgment invalidating the initiative, when the public officials charged with that duty refuse to do so.

If the State Supreme Court rules they DO NOT have standing, the 9th Circuit panel may dismiss the lawsuit immediately as moot, which would lead to marriage equality being legal in California again. If the State Supreme Court rules that they DO have standing (a more likely result) then the 9th Circuit will have to decide the case, which they could do on the merits of the claim that Proposition 8 violates a federal constitutional right to marry. That decision could be appealed to the US Supreme Court and would have national implications.

According to Chris Geidner, the State High Court issued a relatively brisk briefing schedule:

The opening brief on the merits is to be served and filed on or before Monday, March 14, 2011.  The answer brief on the merits is to be served and filed on or before Monday, April 4.  A reply brief may be served and filed on or before Monday, April 18.

Oral arguments are scheduled for "as early as September 2011" and this is significant because the Court must issue a written ruling within 90 days of an oral argument or else it does not get paid, which would probably mean the 9th Circuit would be getting Perry v. Schwarzenegger back in early 2012. So, basically a year has been added to the time in which marriage equality could be decided by a court ruling in California.

CA Sup Ct Expected To Decide Prop 8 Question Today

On February 3rd I blogged that the Chief Justice of California had given hints that a ruling from the California Supreme Court was imminent on whether it would rule on the question of whether Proposition 8 proponents have standing under California law to defend their initiative before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Well, today comes word that the much awaited decision should be announced as early as today:

The state high court, meeting in closed session, will review a request by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to determine whether Proposition 8’s sponsors have legal authority to defend the ballot measure.

Depending on the court’s ruling, the 9th Circuit could either dismiss the Proposition 8 appeal on procedural grounds -- limiting the case’s effect to California -- or rule on federal constitutional questions that would affect same-sex marriage throughout the country.

A federal judge in San Francisco struck down Proposition 8 in August, ruling after a 12-day trial that the 2008 ballot measure violated equal protection guarantees under the U.S. Constitution. Experts testified during the trial that one’s sexual orientation was largely fixed and that matrimony benefits the families of gays and lesbians.

California state officials refused to appeal the ruling. Now the 9th Circuit must determine whether Proposition 8’s sponsors, ProtectMarriage.com, have legal standing to challenge the trial court's decision.

Hat/tip to Karen Ocamb's LGBTPOV.

CA Sup Ct Rumored To Release Prop 8 Response Next Week

The California Supreme Court will likely let us know next week if they will be deciding whether the Proposition 8 proponents have standing to defend the initiative in federal (or state) court when the government officials tasked with that responsibility (the Governor and Attorney General) decide not to.

From The Los Angeles Times (New chief justice says California Supreme Court will decide soon on entering Proposition 8 fray):

Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye said Wednesday that the California Supreme Court may decide "as soon as next week" whether to weigh in on the federal Proposition 8 appeal and expressed hope that a Southern California Latino would be chosen to succeed departing Justice Carlos R. Moreno.


[...]


The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has asked the California high court to determine whether state law gives sponsors of initiatives the authority to defend them legally when state officials refuse to do so.

The state court has been highly deferential to initiatives in the past. If the court rules that initiative backers have special status under state law, the 9th Circuit would be more likely to rule on the constitutionally of Proposition 8.

Lawyers and law professors who have followed the case suspect that the 9th Circuit was prepared to dismiss the appeal by backers of Proposition 8 on the grounds that only state officials can challenge the trial court's ruling against the measure. Gay rights lawyers say such a ruling would mean Proposition 8's demise, but it would have no direct effect on same-sex marriage outside California.

Keep your fingers crossed! Actually either way the California Supremes is a win-win for us. If they rule that proponents do not have standing, and the 9th Circuit panel rules in our favor we'll regainmarriage in california relatively quickly but it will not affect the rest of the country. If they rule the proponents DO have standing then a more substantive appellate circuit ruling on why Prop 8 is unconstitutional will be forthcoming and it is unlikely the Supreme Court of the Unite States 9and the Pres8dent) will be able to punt on opining on Prop 8's legality.

9th US Circuit Sends Prop 8 Question To CA Sup Ct

Perry v. Schwarzenegger (Prop 8 Case): ORDER CERTIFYING A QUESTION TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

Jesse Jackson Endorses Marriage Equality!

Reverend Jesse Jackson endorse marriage equality for same-sex couples in a fiery speech on Monday morning before the assembled crowd to hear the oral arguments in Perry v Schwarzenegger.

Here is the text of the former presidential candidate's speech:

Many years ago in the late 1970s’, I visited South Africa, then deep in the throes of apartheid.  I was asked by the media what I thought of the situation, and I said,  “I believe in human rights for all human beings.   We must measure human rights by one yardstick.”  That principle – our moral center - still applies.  Everything flows from this perspective.

We stand together today as equal members of the human family…. as consistent principled advocates for human rights for all people.  We stand together today to uphold the principles of due process, of equal protection under the law, of fighting against discrimination against any and all people based on race, religion, gender or sexual orientation.

We stand with you today to support Marriage Equality, and to declare that Proposition 8 must be struck down as unconstitutional.  Peoples’ right to self-expression, self-determination be respected and affirmed.  It’s time to challenge ignorance, a time to break the silence and the chains of hatred, of divisive and discriminatory bigotry.   Marriage is based on love and commitment – not on sexual orientation.  I support the right for any person to marry the person of their choosing.

If Dr. King and our civil rights movement has taught us anything, it’s the fundamental principle of that all people deserve Equal protection under the law.   LGBT people deserve equal rights – including marriage equality – and equal protection under the law. Discrimination against one group of people is discrimination against all of us.   The State – and the Courts - should not sanction discrimination.

To those that believe in and fought for civil rights, that marched to end discrimination and win equality, you must not become that which you hated. It’s past time to exist in hypocrisy and ignorance, and time to come out of the shadows and darkness to support unequivocally, equality for all people. Those that support civil and human rights cannot, must not, become perpetrators of discrimination against others based upon race, religion, culture, sexual orientation.

African Americans know too well the sting of legal, state sanctioned, constitutionally driven “second class” citizenship – from centuries of legal slavery and Jim Crow segregation, to classified as 3/5 of a human being in the U.S. Constitution, to facing anti-miscegenation laws that prevented Blacks from marrying whites. 

We cannot not sit idly by while Prop. 8 seeks to target gays and lesbians for a disfavored legal status, as America’s newest “second-class citizens.”  Our legal scholars have cited fourteen times where the Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals.   That principle must be upheld today – for Blacks and Whites, for straight and gay, for ALL Americans.  No group of people should be denied their fundamental constitutional liberties, like equal protection under the law, simply because of who they are.

So today, we do not stand alone.  It’s time to go forward by hope and not backward by fear, to stand up with courage, hope and strength and send a shout out for equality.  Stiff winds of resistance seek a return to intolerance, bigotry and state sanctioned discrimination – whether against immigrants in New Mexico or against marriage equality in California.   It should only strengthen our resolve to defend equal protection under the law, equality for all Americans, and the forging of a One Big Tent America.

Keep Hope Alive

WATCH: The Prop 8 Oral Arguments Before 9th Circuit

Part 1:




Part 2:

Prop 8 Oral Arguments In Federal Court Today

The oral arguments in Perry v Schwarzenegger occurred this morning in San Francisco.

There is excellent coverage all over the web, by Rex Wocker, Karen Ocamb, Joe Jervis and Chris Geidner, just to name a few.

These Three Men Will Decide Fate Of Proposition 8

Hawkins	Smith	Reinhardt

The 3-member panel for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals who will hear oral arguments on Monday December 6th in the federal Proposition 8 case, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, has been announced. It consists of the most liberal member of the gigantic 26-member 9th Circuit, Hon. Stephen Reinhardt (appointed by Carter in 1980), a moderate jurist named Hon. Michael Daly Hawkins (appointed by Clinton in 1994) and a right-wing ideologue, N. Randy Smith (appointed by George W. Bush in 2007).

Most commenters think that the make-up of the panel indicates a likely 2-1 decision in favor of the good guys (supporters of marriage equality), which will probably get appealed to an 11-member panel of the 9th Circuit called an en banc panel. From there, it's direct to the Supreme Court of the United States, the highest court in the land.