High-stakes gay marriage trial to begin in Calif.
 

From Yahoo News:

High-stakes gay marriage trial to begin in Calif.

By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer Lisa Leff, Associated Press Writer – Thu Jan 7, 2010

SAN FRANCISCO – The national debate over same-sex marriage will take center stage in a California courtroom next week at a closely watched federal trial that could ultimately become the landmark case that determines whether gay Americans have a right to marry.

The case will decide a challenge to California's gay marriage ban that was approved by voters in 2008, and the ruling will likely be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. How the high court rules in the case could set the precedent for whether gay marriage becomes legal nationwide.

"This could be our Brown vs. Board of Education," said former Clinton White House adviser Richard Socarides, referring to the 1954 Supreme Court decision that outlawed racial segregation in schools and other public facilities. "Certainly the plaintiffs will tell you they are hoping for a broad ruling that says that any law that treats someone differently because of sexual orientation violates the U.S. Constitution."


click here for rest of article:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100107/...marriage_trial




Rick

I will be following this trial with some trepidation
 

There are high stakes. And considering that both the NY and NJ legislatures voted down gay rights measures (I live in NYC), I wonder about the timing of this case. That said, I am aware that there is no right time in the advancement of civil rights.

What's interesting is that in both states (NY & NJ), the reason given for not instituting gay marriage was blamed on the economic climate. It is as if those voting had the crack-pot idea that just because times are hard there isn't enough to go around. Not enough marriage? Of course it doesn't make rational sense, but it does tell those of us who are fighting for our rights and many are thinking only of themselves.

If we win this case we win big.

Yes. But what if we lose? Won't that be a huge setback for LGBT equality?


Rick

You bet your Bippie! Win or lose, it's a big one. I don't want to think about the setback. Really. It would be awful. Can't see any silver lining, can you?

I don't think so. I think we win either way, just like we won when Prop 8's passage became a wake up call for many, myself included. If anything, losing would get more straight people who think they're allies to become real allies and straight people who aren't allies to understand that these are real people, not caricatures from Sunday service.

Prop 8 changed the game. It wasn't a pre-emptive strike against the recognition of rights, it was the removal of already recognized rights. I don't know of any other case of recognized rights being stripped, let alone one that was considered constitutional.

And I can tell you this: If the Supreme Court gets the case and decides that stripping us of rights is constitutional, enough people will arrive that night to protest in DC to make October look like a county fair.

I agree with Rick. Until recently, the main tactic in the gay marriage battle was to win in as many states as possible, then approach the Supreme Court and/or the Congress to spread the right to marry to the whole country. Now, if we lose in the Supreme Court, it could be a loooonnnng time before we get another shot at equal rights nationally.

This lawsuit certainly has two sharp edges to it.

The Supremes
 

Have ruled (so I read in the NYTimes this morning) that trial proceedings will not be broadcast. Is is a harbinger of things to come from our nation's highest court?

The Supremes don't allow their own court proceedings to be broadcast. Is it about that? Or something else? And if it is, well....

The ruling was based on an administrative technicality and specifically didn't include the delayed youtube broadcasts, just the live broadcasts to other courthouses around the country. Judge Walker pulled the youtube plan on his own.

Is anyone clear about this case? The specifics about what is being tried? What the risks are of a negative decision, etc.?

BTW, they're still taping this trial. Hopefully someday soon there will be a decision to release them. That or somebody will accidentally leave them out where someone can find them.

Here's my primer post on Perry v Schwarzenegger. (None of the below comes from the post.)

Plaintiffs (a lesbian couple and gay couple both denied marriage licenses) argue that Prop 8 is unconstitutional, citing the 14th amendment and making the case that gays are both a suspect classification and a protected class, a finding that the Court has heretofore not made. Proof of this is being shown now with emphasis on the effects of homophobia to the homosexual and to society. Religious oppression is being given as a main reason for this oppression.

Prop 8 was especially vulnerable because it established four distinct classes of California citizens.

1. Straight and permitted to marry and divorce at will.
2. Gay and not permitted to marry.
3. Gay and married, permitted to divorce but not remarry.
4. Gay and married in another state, not permitted to divorce or remarry.

(I personally know people in each group.)

Some are suggesting that if/when Perry gets to the Supreme Court, their decision may be narrow enough to only effect California. I tend to think they're probably right (cynic that I am), but that if they go our way (optimist that I am) Perry could be used as precedent in future challenges to marriage restrictions. I also think it could be used as precedent for DOMA, DADT, ENDA, and challenges to other oppressive laws.

In other words, this could be our Brown v Board of Education.

If we lose at the Supreme Court, there are two possibilities which are not mutually exclusive.

1. It might be a few years before the Court would be willing to accept a case challenging marriage restriction. It was almost 20 years between the failed 1980s challenge to sodomy laws and the successful challenge in 2003.
2. It might galvanize our people and our supporters as Prop 8's passage did and lead more into more public action.

I know many people (including myself) who were fairly disconnected before November 2008 but who have awakened. Most in that group, in my experience, are under 40. I think that age is significant; these are people who didn't experience Stonewall or the White Night Riot. They (probably) hadn't experienced the government specifically and openly targeting them. They also hadn't experienced the height of the HIV/AIDS panic in the 1980s.

So Prop 8, which was unique among marriage amendments in that it didn't preemptively refuse rights but actively stripped them, was a big shock. The Supreme Court ruling that it is constitutionally permissible so to do would be an exponentially bigger shock.

As I said in a previous post, I think that if Perry gets to the Supreme Court, it's a win no matter what. I prefer a direct win, but if we lose, you'll see a mobilization that will shock the nation.

Hopefully it'll even include some straight people. (But that's another thread.)

Thanks, Matt! You should be a consultant/advisor or something. Very cool.

Newsweek article on gay marriage
 

I highly recommend everyone read this outstanding article in Newsweek written by the conservative lawyer who is part of the legal staff hoping to declare Prop 8 unconstitutional. Read it and share it with everyone.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/229957

kara

Kara. Thanks so much for sharing that great opinion piece.

Rick

The Advocate has been doing daily updates on the trial:

www.advocate.com

A maybe a little more male centric:

http://rodonline.typepad.com

And yes, I affirm my own bias.

The Prop 8 trial is exciting and nerve wracking all at once. I think if we lose, it could definitely lead to more obstacles in the future. But in the long run, I agree with Matt. It's a win either way. Besides, from some of the things I've been reading, the pro-Prop 8 arguments are the same old, silly, tired things we've heard all along.

However, given the dynamics in the vote ultimately against televising the trial, I think we would give a good guess as to how a SCOTUS decision would go, at least right now. Of course, it's just as likely they would reject the case too, just to avoid having to deal with it. Hard to say.

The local rag, though professing to be liberal, gives way more time to the anti-marriage equality side. So far they have been fairly silent on the trial. Thank goodness there are quite a few bloggers, but sometimes it gets mind boggling to read the back and forth.

January 2010
Volunteers needed in California now!!


click here to sign up:

http://www.eqca.org/site/pp.asp?c=ku...9&auid=5827354



.

Eq ca
 

tdogg,

All the points you've made about why sometimes small numbers of people show up to volunteer for action seems true. Back in the seventies when I was living in Minneapolis, the Minnesota Committee for Gay Rights would have monthly meetings and most of the time only a dozen or so people would attend.

Then, in the summer of 1979, a gay man was brutality murdered in a Minneapolis park and within just a couple of hours over 1,000 people came together for a march and vigil.

High emotion is what gets most people moving and active. Example: anger, fear, sympathy, or elation. If the emotion isn't there, neither is the turn-out.

That's why Rush Limbaugh has been so successful for so many years. He keeps his audience all stirred up and angry. If somebody at one of the door-knocking organizing meetings could get in front of a podium and get the people stirred up like Rush does then I bet your next meeting would be better attended.

But unfortunately, that's not how most of these organizing meetings go. They usually begin with someone walking to the front of the room and pleasantly saying, "Excuse me folks, but can everyone please take a seat so that we can get the meeting started? We only have the room reserved for an hour. My name is Mary Smith and I'm going to be passing out some information on some things I think we need to discuss tonight and then later if we have time I'll ask for input from the group. But first I want to go around the room and have everybody introduce themselves and say a little bit about why they're here and what they want to accomplish ........."

OMG!!! YAWN!! Seriously. Who wants to miss American Idol for that? Not me.

Now imagine if someone at a door-knocking organizing meeting marched to the front of the room, stood on a chair and shouted, "How much longer are we going to be treated like second class citizens? How much longer are we going to allow others to tell us how we should live our lives? How much longer are we going to sit back and listen to all the lies and bigotry and hate talk that brings so much violence against us and forces our friends and loved ones to lie about who they are? How much longer are we going to wait for our freedom and equality that is guaranteed by the constitution and Declaration of Independence? I'm not waiting any longer! I'm taking my freedom now!"

And with that, everyone in the room rises to their feet and shouts, "FREEDOM NOW! FREEDOM NOW! FREEDOM NOW!"



Maybe at the next meeting somebody needs to stand on a chair.




Rick

A Denver police officer's account of "ex-gay therapy."

http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?...sc3=&id=101377