Letter from GLAAD President on California Supreme Court Decision

 

 

Above: GLAAD Media-Trained Couple Ángeles Domínguez & Yamileth Escobar See their story from People en Español (PDF)

Dear Friends, Today’s decision by the California Supreme Court is a painful but temporary setback. We know in time we will achieve full marriage equality in California and across the country, but that doesn’t make today’s news hurt any less. GLAAD knows that strong and effective media advocacy – elevating our voices and stories and those of our allies, friends and families -- is what will continue to change the hearts and minds of the Americans we must reach. Today’s setback provides us with the need and the opportunity – as an organization, as a movement, and as a community – to renew our dedication to this important work and to our pursuit of full equality. In the past several months, Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, and Vermont have shown that our culture and our nation are moving toward equality. At the same time, anti-gay activists are trying harder than ever to deny our families the security and legal protections they need. If we do not amplify our voices, we will not achieve the real and lasting change we seek. The visibility our movement has achieved has changed hearts and minds, but today’s decision shows we need to work even harder to raise our voices and our visibility in the media. As our community continues to pursue fair and equal treatment under the law, GLAAD needs your support to ensure that media share even more stories of loving, committed same-sex couples in California and across the country. We are sharing the stories of couples like Ángeles Domínguez & Yamileth Escobar, who received media training from GLAAD after marrying in June. GLAAD worked with People en Español to place the story of how Ángeles’ family embraced and accepted her marriage, ensuring that the magazine’s coverage was fair and accurate for its millions of readers. Through our media trainings and advocacy, millions nationwide are experiencing the stories of same-sex couples and the common ground we share. Because when people get to know loving, committed couples like Ángeles & Yamileth, understanding and support can lead to real and lasting change. It is worth noting that the California Supreme Court has ruled that the marriages of same-sex couples who married before Nov. 5, 2008 “remain valid in all respects.” Media now have a unique opportunity to turn a spotlight on these more than 18,000 couples, and GLAAD needs your support to help elevate and share their stories – as well as the stories of the countless same-sex couples who are unfairly denied that same most basic right. Please consider a gift of $20, $40, or as much as you can give to help GLAAD’s media advocacy and anti-defamation work, to raise our visibility and continue these vital conversations that change hearts and minds. Only with your support, visibility and involvement, will we achieve the cultural change that leads to full equality. In Service, Neil Giuliano

Ken Starr Spouts the Same, Tired BULLSHIT

SOURCE:

CHANGE.ORG

by Michael A. Jones

Published February 10, 2009 @ 06:44PM PST

Ken Starr, who will argue in favor of Proposition 8 on behalf of protectmarriage.com next month at the California Supreme Court, may have given a preview of his arguments today with a presentation at the National Religious Broadcasters Convention in Nashville, Tennessee. Starr was on a panel with Nadine Strossen of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

Starr, who has been a little media shy since joining the legal team of protectmarriage.com, told those gathered that marriage is regulated in society in many ways, according to the Associated Baptist Press.

"Plural marriage, which is lawful in 28 countries that are members of the United Nations, would not be recognized [in the U.S.]," said Starr. "There are many, many regulations [on marriage] -- age regulations and so forth."

Barf. That's the same, tired talking point that anti-LGBT crusaders have been peddling for years when it comes to the issue of same-sex marriage. Starr also went on to tell the Nashville audience that the original California Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage was "very cultural," and countered the history and tradition of marriage in the U.S.

Sure enough, the original California Supreme Court decision may have countered Starr's and protectmarriage.com's warped view of what constitutes a marriage, but it certainly did nothing to uproot society's culture. It has long been a part of our culture to combat inequality and violations of civil rights whenever and wherever they are seen. That was the intent of the original decision to legalize same-sex marriage in California. As Chief Justice Ron George wrote for the majority, "An individual's sexual orientation -- like a person's race or gender -- does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights."

Starr is arguing the same tired bullshit and using the same tired legal argument that gay marriage is tantamount to plural marriage. Thankfully, as people increasingly realize that same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue, they are buying less and less into Starr's version of the truth.

We're still a few weeks away from the start of arguments before the California Supreme Court on Proposition 8. But from where we stand, Ken Starr's defense of Prop 8 puts him squarely in the company of people who supported the Board of Education in Topeka, Kansas in 1954, or those that supported Virginia's anti-miscegenation laws in 1967.

The 50 Spot: Anti-LGBT Donors Can't Hide Behind the Law

SOURCE:

CHANGE.ORG

by Michael A. Jones

Published January 30, 2009 @ 05:46AM PST

The big news out last night was that a California federal judge ruled that donors who gave money to the Yes on 8 campaign could not violate campaign finance laws and keep their donations secret. That's a huge victory for LGBT rights supporters, and a huge smackdown for donors looking to hide their donations to fund discrimination. Elsewhere in the country we're stopping by Florida, New York, and New Hampshire in today's 50 spot.

California: Supporters of the Yes on 8 campaign had sought an injunction from California federal courts to hide the names of all donors who gave money to help pass Proposition 8. Critics, including scores of LGBT rights groups and people who generally believe in the rule of law, argued that hiding the names of donors would prevent the public from knowing who exactly was behind a particular campaign. Yesterday, federal Judge Morrison England Jr. ruled in the matter, and he erred on the side of full disclosure. "If there ever needs to be sunshine on a particular issue, it's a ballot measure," said England in his ruling. That strikes us as a pretty funny statement to hear in a court of law ("sunshine"?), but the gist of the sentence is absolutely correct -- people shouldn't be able to hide their support of hateful ballot measures. Geoff Kors from Equality California agreed: "We are thrilled that the Court is requiring the Yes on 8 Campaign to play by the same rules and is preventing them from their attempt to circumvent the law."

Florida: Score another domestic partnership victory this week. The University of Tampa is going to start providing benefits for the partners of gay and lesbian employees. The same-sex domestic partnership plan will start April 1, and is (albeit unintentionally) a rebuff to county legislators in Tampa (technically Hillsborough county) which voted last week against implementing a same-sex domestic partnership plan for county employees.

New York: A New York state appelate court ruled in favor of a lesbian couple, after a lawsuit was brought by a group of nutjob radical rightwing religious people over the fact that the couple received state benefits. The radical religious group, the Alliance Defense Fund (based in Arizona, not even New York), sought to have the state of New York repeal benefits from Peri and Tamela Rainbow-Sloan, residents of Stone Bridge, New York, who were granted benefits from a state-run university after marrying in Canada in 2005. The Alliance Defense Fund argued that since same-sex marriage is not legal in New York, lesbian and gay couples in NY should not be afforded such coverage. But the court turned down their argument saying, "There is no New York court precedent holding that a New York statute… precludes recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages. To the contrary, several courts have recognized such marriages. … Once an out-of-state same-sex marriage is recognized, each party to the marriage is a legal spouse ... entitled to the benefits, rights and obligations of that status." Let's repeat that lesson for anti-LGBT foes who kvetch about same-sex benefits: there is NO court precedent precluding the recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages in New York.

New Hampshire: A host of civil union and same-sex marriage bills have been scheduled for a hearing in the New Hampshire House of Representatives on February 5. Among the bills to be discussed are measures to (1) grant civil unions to straight couples (New Hampshire already has a basic civil union structure for gay and lesbian couples); (2) recognize gay marriages in other states as civil unions in New Hampshire; (3) add civil union partners to all state insurance laws (hey, this one shows how civil unions aren't quite adequate to marriage rights -- civil union partners don't qualify currently for state insurance laws, while married couples do); and (4) recognize full and total marriage equality in the Granite state by legalizing same-sex marriage. These should be some pretty fun hearings.

March 5: The Future of Marriage in California

SOURCE:

CHANGE.ORG

by Michael A. Jones

Published February 03, 2009 @ 04:57PM PST

It's set, folks. Per Equality California:

The California Supreme Court announced today that it will hear oral arguments on Thursday, March 5, 2009 in the Proposition 8 legal challenge. The National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal, and the ACLU—with support from civil rights groups, religious organizations, labor unions, and legal scholars—argue that Proposition 8 is invalid because the people of California have established strict safeguards that prohibit the underlying principles of the California Constitution from being changed by a simple majority vote. By taking away a right only from one group, Proposition 8 violates the most basic principle of our government: that all people are entitled to equal treatment under the law.

So the future of marriage in California starts to unravel in just over a month from now. And everyone from Google to California Attorney General Jerry Brown to scores of civil rights organizations and religious organizations all agree - if justice is to be done in California, then the Court should invalidate Proposition 8 and reinstate full marriage rights for all Californians, regardless of sexual orientation.

Proposition 8 is Invalid

by Michael A. Jones

Published December 20, 2008 @ 06:07AM PST

The California Supreme Court will ultimately have to decide the fate of Proposition 8, but late yesterday, California Attorney General Jerry Brown weighed in with his office's verdict on the matter, and it's a win for supporters of marriage equality. Jerry Brown's thoughts? That Proposition 8 was constitutionally indefensible, and it should be overturned.

Kind of makes you wonder why we had to spend over $70 million fighting this battle in the first place, eh? But it's great to see this ruling come down, especially as anti-marriage equality activists (led by Attorney Ken Starr! WTF?!) are gearing up to urge the nullification of all gay marriages in the State that took place before Election Day.

Per Jerry Brown's filing with the Court:

"Proposition 8 must be invalidated because the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification."

Geoff Kors, Executive Director of Equality California (EQCA), said that EQCA was pleased that Jerry Brown came out in support of overturning Proposition 8, especially after initially saying he would defend the Proposition once it passed.

"We are very pleased that upon review of the law, he has moved from his previous statements that he would defend Prop 8," said Kors. "As the state's highest attorney, Jerry Brown has done his job today to defend the Constitution and protect the rights of minority groups, including the more than 18,000 same-sex couples who married in California."

Later today, thousands of LGBT rights activists will gather for "Light Up the Night," a nationwide vigil organized by Join the Impact. The vigil is meant to remember and commemorate the 18,000 same-sex marriages that took place in California before the vote on Proposition 8, and to call for action that marriage equality be restored in California (and implemented around the rest of the country). How fitting that "Light Up the Night" happens one day after Jerry Brown's ruling.

To find a vigil location near you, go to Join the Impact's Web site. For more information on Jerry Brown's opinion made with the California Supreme Court, go to the Web site for the California Attorney General's Office here.