The Ryan Thomas Collection

James Neiley, a 17 year old from Vermont, testifies before the state legislature advocating for equal marriage rights for gays in the state. He draws the connection between marriage inequality and unequal treatment by his peers. His testimony shows that we are on the right track as a society, but we still have walls to break through.

Popularity: 15% [?]

2009 is here and in less than three weeks, we will see President Elect Obama sworn in, replacing the horrid and treacherous President Bush. With the new year, comes a new president and new era for America. As they sing  in Rent, “Time’s are shitty, but I’m pretty sure they can’t get any worse.” 2009 may be economically rough for a lot of Americans, but with new leadership in this new year, Americans should remain inspired and optimistic.

2008 ended with an active social uproar for LGBT equality. 2008 ended with President Elect Obama announcing a push for scientific advancement and stronger focus on scientific research within the nation. His calls are reminiscent of America’s quest to be the first nation on the moon in the late 50s/early 60s. We’ve begun this new year poised for  real change and growth for our nation, similar to the advancements we made in the 1960s. 2009 should be the year where the United States reclaims its position on the global stage.

The new year will start with a continued push for equality, as a nationwide protest is planned January 10th to ask President Elect Obama to quickly work towards the repeal of DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act). Here’s a video that puts together the new civil rights movement that will continue into this new year.

Popularity: 20% [?]

The ongoing drama that is Prop 8 continued to play out this past week, like a well written Shakespearean play, or rather an episode of Desperate Housewives.

In a surprise move by California Attorney General, Jerry Brown, the chief law officer of the state has officially asked the California Supreme Court to overturn Prop 8 – the constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage in the state. Originally, Brown had gone on record in November telling Californians he would defend Prop 8 in court, saying it was his duty as Attorney General, despite his personal disapproval of the amendment.

Brown’s announcement on Friday is a complete 180 for the State Justice Department, as the AG has now filed with the courts that, “Proposition 8 must be invalidated because the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification.” Additionally, Brown argued Prop 8 conflicts with the Declarations of Rights (Article I, Section I), the fundamental rights of Californians. This section was also used by the Court to define marriage as a fundamental right for all Californians. He stated that Prop 8 must be invalidated because it is ”inconsistent with the guarantees of individual liberty.” Typically, the Attorney General’s position carries significant weight with the courts.

Lawyers for Yes on Prop 8 (including Kenneth Starr), who also had to file their arguments with the courts Friday, commented on their disappointment with Brown. Yes on 8 lawyer, Andrew Pugno, stated, “It’s unfortunate that the attorney general would not do his duty to defend the will of the voters.” However, Brown and his legal team researched court precedent, as well as the marriage ruling in May 2008, and found that their office could not legally defend Prop 8, particularly because the May ruling defined marriage as a fundamental right.

Kenneth Starr stated that Prop 8, “does not broadly seek to diminish or eliminate the constitutional or civil rights of gays and lesbians.” He believes the proposition is “about restoring and maintaining the traditional definition of marriage.” He continued about judges, stating that ”judges – as servants of the people – to bow to the will of those whom they serve.” Judges must serve the people, but the people have elected these judges to do the work of interpreting the Constitution. This is their job and this is how they serve the people. If judges always bowed to the will of the people, the state would simply be ruled by the power of the majority.

COMEDY BREAK! Here is a great video for comedic relief. It isn’t Prop 8 related, but I imagine Kenneth Starr to be involved in something such as this:

Starr stated that the job of the judges is to interpret the law, and no rule exists to require judges “to protect minority rights or ensure equality apart from the law.” If the judges use the equal protection clause of the Constitution and define marriage as a fundamental right granted by the Constitution, this appears to be interpretation. As a result of this interpretation, the rights of a minority group are protected and treated equally. It seems as though the highest law of the state favors equality and protection of minority groups as a fundamental building block of the document itself. If judges properly interpret this, by default, there job becomes protecting minority rights and equality. Kenneth Starr destroyed Washington, and he is now in California in an attempt to do the same.

In the latest Prop 8 twist, Yes on Prop 8′s filed arguments ask the courts to invalidate the 18,000 marriages between same sex couples administered over the summer. Originally, the proponents of the proposition said they would leave those marriages alone, but in their latest move, argued to the Court that Prop 8 invalidates all same sex marriages despite the time or place in which they occurred.

Both Brown and Starr agree that Prop 8 does not qualify as a revision to the Constitution, an argument opponents of Prop 8 are making to the courts. Brown’s argument does support the filing by opponents of Prop 8, in that he states that marriage is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution. By his arguing that marriage is a fundamental right that Prop 8 cannot strip away, those arguing that Prop 8 is a revision because it works to change the fundamental rights of Californians may be strengthened.

The California Supreme Court is expected to hear the case in March and will rule within ninety days.

Popularity: 27% [?]

From San Francisco to San Diego. Los Angeles to Texas. Fargo to New York City. Saturday, November 15th, 2008 may become known as the launching pad of a new national movement for gay civil rights not seen since the 1970s. Empowered by new technologies and utilizing traditional means of protest, gays and straights alike hit city halls and streets across the country to say, “Gay, straight, black, white; marriage is a civil right.” The nationwide event was organized in less than two weeks displaying the strength and the will of Americans to stand up for equality, realizing that when the rights of one are taken, the rights of all are threatened.

Days prior to the nationwide protest, groups including the NAACP, the Asian Pacific American League Center and Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund have joined to file a separate suit against Prop 8. This suit is separate from those made be the ACLU and NCLR, and looks to defeat Prop 8 through additional faults of the Prop. These groups worry that the passage of Prop 8 sets dangerous precedent for the civil rights of all minorities. They claim that if the civil rights of gays and lesbians can be stripped by a simple majority vote, what stops this from happening to their civil rights. The California Supreme Court’s ruling in May deemed gays and lesbians a minority of equal status to that of racial, ethnic and religious minorities. With that precedent set, the slippery slope that Prop 8 creates has pushed these groups to stand against it.

Saturday’s rallies reflected a growing united front and with such vast numbers of attendance, including 20-25,000 in San Diego, another 12,000 in Los Angeles and 10,000 in San Francisco, one can only assume that these numbers include people from all walks of life. This doesn’t even include the thousands in Chicago and New York City. Watching news coverage of the events, a straight married women rallied in Austin, Texas for equality. When interviewed she said she has two young children and she doesn’t know whether they will be gay or straight when they get older. She does know that either way she wants the same rights for her children despite their sexual orientation. It is this type of unity that is fueling the movement. For as many people that voted for discrimination in the California Constitution, there are people from all walks of life who understand the issue at hand. When the country discriminates against our friends, our family, coworkers and neighbors, we are all hurt and we are all threatened.

Action is being taken utilizing technology, organizing with cell phones; blasting messages on Facebook. However, the days since Election Day has shown that the most simple tradition of American society still proves to be beneficial. Pounding the streets on foot does more than draw attention to the cause at hand, it builds the coalition more and more. Marching creates the necessary unity to push forward. It is empowering, whilst also a release of tension and frustration at a system gone wrong.

I had faith in the system, in the Constitution and in Californians. That faith was thrown into limbo following Election Day. However, I still maintain faith in the Constitution and Californians. We, as Californians and as Americans, need to maintain faith in the highest law of the land. Watching my fellow Californians and Americans hit the streets in droves, I am proud. No longer willing to be trampled on, people who have never hit the streets before took the battle lines and marched. I am proud of my friends and my family who stood up for equality. They stood up for the Constitution and for each other, supported by the strength of family and friends unable to make the march and rallies.

Yesterday, as I marched through the streets of San Francisco with my fellow Californians, and Americans, I not only felt like I was working towards equality, I felt like we were protectors of the Constitution. With signs in hand, and voices to sound off with, me and those around weren’t just fighting for civil rights, we were and continue to ensure that the core ideals of the Constitution are protected from vicious attacks. When we march for civil rights equality, we aren’t just marching for same-sex marriage, we are valiant guardians defending the precious core of the Constitution.

Sam Adams, considered “Father of the American Revolution” told new Americans citizens:

The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men.

As we continue our battle for equality, we must maintain faith in the Constitution and we must protect it from the evil that is Prop H8. We aren’t doing this just for ourselves, we are doing this for the future. Gays, lesbians and our vital straight allies have suffered under the tyranny of conservative fear for far too long. Hit the streets and show them we are no longer willing to submit to their weapons of fear. We’ve had enough! It is now our duty and our time to protect the Constitution from vicious attacks for everyone; for every straight parent with a gay child; for every straight child with a gay parent and for all of our friends who want the same opportunity to share in the same experiences in life.

(All photos and videos provided by the Ryan Thomas Collection.)

Popularity: 6% [?]

I have had a little back and forth with another blogger on another blog about utilizing the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution to fight anti-gay marriage laws. I want to open the discussion on my blog to broaden its scope because it is obviously not a clear cut issue. We both support equality of marriage among hetero and homosexuals, so the discussion is not whether or not gay marriage should or should not be legal. It is more about using the tools available to fight it in the courts, where the battle belongs, in my opinion.

The discussion is below (courtesy www.thedailydalia.wordpress.com) and lets open it further:

Me:

After reading this posting, I wanted to read a bit more about the Loving v. Virginia case because to me it sounds like the key to overturning discriminatory gay marriage laws using precedent set by this case. It seems that in good time, this case may be the one to give equal rights to all. Virginia commented on the anniversary of the court case:

“Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the “wrong kind of person” for me to marry.

I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.

I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.”

Justin: The reason why loving v Virginia cannot be used for gay marriage is because it was fought using the arguments of due process and equal protections under the 14th Amendment and the 14th does not cover sexual orientation.

Me:

The 14th amendment does not actually specify what it can and cant be used for or against. The Equal Protection Clause of this amendment is left open and has been used in various civil rights fights.

It states:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The language is flexible enough that one can argue that the 14th amendment does in fact nullify anti-gay marriage laws because these laws could be construed as depriving a group of people in committed relationships of equal protection under the law.

The marital communications privelege is one protection marriage law provides (though many states include this protection in civil union). This privelege allows communications between a married couple to be kept confidential by both members. Therefore, my communication with my partner does not necessarily receive the same protection as my heterosexual and married counterparts.

The idea that civil unions or domestic partnership laws may include this right does not nullify the idea that the 14th amendment applies. It only brings further argument that separate, but equal is never equal. Brown v Board successfully removed separate, but equal as a solution to segregation. A main argument of this case was the 14th amendment.

Therefore, I still believe the 14th amendment to be applicable in fighting marriage discrimation laws.

(Photo provided by The Ryan Thomas Collection. All rights reserved.)

Popularity: 8% [?]