California Supremes May Announce Prop 8 Decision Tomorrow?

A number of news outlets are reporting that an opinion has already been written for the Prop 8 cases. No one knows which justice wrote the opinion, but three other justices are reportedly ready to sign onto it. If none of the judges' minds is changed tomorrow, when the Court hears oral argument in the cases, it is possible (though unlikely) that the court could announce its decision that same day. For More, check out The L.A. Times Article.

In related news, an editorial by attorney general Jerry Brown was published in the Huffington Post yesterday, which explains why it is imperative that the Court overrule Prop 8.

Whatever happens, tomorrow will be a wild ride. If you have the stomach for it (and the time), the Court's arguments will be streamed live at www.calchannel.com beginning at 9:00 a.m. Pacific Time and are expected to last until at least noon. The site's servers are predicted to reach their maximum capacity during the arguments, so try to watch the them on local television if you live in California.

GLAD Challenges DOMA in Federal Court

It sounds like the lawsuit has been brewing for a while, but this is exciting and unexpected news for me. Apparently Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) has filed a lawsuit challenging the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in federal court. The case is known as Gill v. Office of Personnel Management.

The DOMA is a federal law that has several provisions:

• Section 2 allows each state in the Union to refuse to recognize, acknowledge, or give effect to a same-sex marriage performed in another state.

• Section 3 defines marriage, for the purposes of federal law, as a union between one man and one woman. This essentially prohibits the federal government from recognizing, acknowledging, or giving effect to any same-sex marriage, even if the marriage was legally performed in a U.S. state, such as Massachusetts, Connecticut, or California. In other words, Section 3 denies married same-sex couples the federal benefits extended to married opposite-sex couples.

GLAD's suit challenges only Section 3. GLAD alleges that DOMA § 3 is constitutional based on its text, but that it is unconstitutional as it has been applied to the specific plaintiffs in this case. In short, the argument is: The federal government can define marriage any way it wants, but it must give the same benefits to all married couples, whether heterosexual or homosexual.

Some of the benefits GLAD mentions specifically, which are denied to same-sex married couples, are:

• The ability of federal employees to obtain health care benefits for their spouses.
• The ability to transfer federal employee retirement benefits to one's spouse after death.
• The ability to transfer social security payments to one's spouse after death.
• Certain tax benefits.
• The ability to change the name on one's passport after marriage without going through additional court proceedings.

GLAD says that, since their clients have been denied these benefits, they are being denied equal protection, as required by the U.S. Constitution.

This lawsuit should have gay families across the country on the edge of their seats. Until now, most gay-rights organizations have been reluctant to file federal challenges to the DOMA, since the majority of Supreme Court Justices at the moment to appear to be anti-gay or indifferent to the plight of LGBT Americans.

For those readers who are a bit lawyerly, GLAD's brief can be found here.

Updates as they come!

Sources:
[Wikipedia]
[CruzLines]
[GLAD]

NOTE: This has been cross-posted to FamilyFairness.org, which I also contribute to.

Temporary Winter Hiatus

Hey Folks,

I know the posts have been slim lately, but it's the end of the semester and finals are hitting this blogger hard. Additionally, I'm still coping with what could be termed a "Prop 8 induced mental breakdown."

In short, I've been dealing with a lot of stress lately, and blogging about this country's lack of civil liberties doesn't help that. However, CivLib is still very much alive, and posts about liberty-related topics will resume soon.

Be Well,

JRH

California Supremes Don't Stay Prop 8

Today, the California Supreme Court rejected requests by The City of San Francisco and the ACLU for the Court to issue a stay which would temporarily prohibit the State of California from implementing Proposition 8. Proposition 8 will go into effect for now.

However, the court has accepted the cases, and has asked the parties to brief the following issues:

• Is Proposition 8 invalid because it is a a constitutional revision rather than an amendment?
• Does Proposition 8 violate the separation of powers doctrine under the California Constitution?
  
• If Proposition 8 is constitutional, what effect, if any, does it have on the marriages of same-sex couples who were married before Proposition 8 was adopted?

The court didn't give much time for the parties to respond. The defendants in the cases, Mark Horton, Registrar of Vital Statistics, and Linette Scott, Deputy Director of Health Information & Strategic Planning of the California Department of Public Health, must file their responses on or before December 19. Both are represented by the state attorney general's office. After that, the plaintiffs have until January 5th to respond. Applications to file an amicus curiae brief (a brief by someone who is not a party to the suit) will be accepted until January 15th, and responses to amicus briefs will be accepted until January 21. We don't yet know when oral arguments will scheduled.

The court allowed the Official Proponents of Proposition 8 to intervene as parties to the case, but rejected a similar request by the Campaign for California Families.

Interestingly, Justice Moreno joined the court order, except that he says Proposition 8 should be stayed while case is heard. Hopefully, this means he's on our side.

Justice Kennard also joined the order, except she said that the court should not consider what effect Prop 8 will have on pre-Prop 8 same-sex marriages. She says that issue should be remanded for trial in a lower court. Since that issue will most likely require fact finding, she's probably right to take this position. Appellate courts do not normally try issues of fact.

So there it is folks: Prop 8 will go into effect for now, and we have to wait several excruciating months before we know whether it will be overturned. Hopefully the court makes this quick (and hopefully justice prevails).

UPDATE: Kip Esquire is saying that the court will hear the case sometime in March.

Source:
[California Appellate Courts Official Site]

Open Letter to Cinemark

[Editor's Note: Wow, how many of these things am I going to post?]

To Whom it Concerns,

I am aware that Cinemark has a policy against discrimination that is based on sexual orientation, among other characteristics. I appreciate that, and applaud your commitment to equality. Please note that sexual orientation is not a "preference;" it is an immutable characteristic, and you insult the gay and lesbian community when you imply otherwise.

Your CEO, Alan Stock, contributed a large amount of money to the Proposition 8 campaign. Proposition 8 stripped fundamental legal protections from gay and lesbian Americans and their families. Since your CEO will benefit directly (and lucratively) from your ticket sales, I cannot, in good conscience, continue to patronize your business.

I am especially repulsed by the fact that your Mr. Stock will be receiving money from screenings of the movie "Milk," which expresses the ideals of equality, justice, and activism. I have taken those ideals to heart, and I will act against my aggressor, your CEO, by seeing the "Milk," and other movies, at a competitor's theater. Others have joined me in this commitment; see http://www.nomilkforcinemark.com for details.

Please note that there is still time to avert this boycott, since "Milk" does not open until December 5th. I recommend you take one or more of the following actions: (1) Fire Mr. Stock, (2) Convince Mr. Stock to issue a public apology, and convince him to make a donation to an LGBT rights group like the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) or a charity that benefits LGBT people, (3) Publicly apologize for Mr. Stock's behavior and make a donation to an LGBT rights group like the HRC or a charity that benefits gay and lesbian people.

I look forward to your response,

Jackson R. Howa-Morrow

An Open Letter to Time Magazine

To the Editor:

I've had enough of Time Magazine. For two months in a row now, your magazine has printed articles that portray the gay community a shadowy underworld of hitmen and bullies. The article entitled "The Gay Mafia" puts an ominous spin on the story of a small group of wealthy gay Americans who coordinate their political donations in a completely legal manner so as to most effectively ensure that gay people will actually get equal rights in this country someday.

"What Happens if You're on Gay Rights' 'Enemies List'" puts a sensationalist headline on a story about the simple and nonviolent plan, formed by gay people and their friends in the wake of Proposition 8's passage, to boycott business who advocated stripping fundamental legal rights away from California same-sex couples and their families. There's nothing sinister about refusing to give money to the people who have worked to ensure that you remain second-class citizen.

This unfair demonizing of gay and lesbian Americans has got to stop, Time, and you won't see singe red cent from me until it does.

Sincerely,

Jackson Howa

An Open Letter to NPR

Dear NPR,

I was disappointed to discover that no NPR program covered the November 15th gay rights rallies.

Despite the fact that the rallies were completely grass-roots, with no organization or assistance by national or local LGBT organizations, tens of thousands of people turned out in over 300 cities in the US, with some rallies appearing as far away as Australia.

These rallies were amazing and inspiring events. I can think of no other instance in history where so many people have taken to the streets, simultaneously across the country, to ask for justice. It is a shame that the media has given so little attention to such a huge and historic event.

Sincerely,

Jackson Howa-Morrow