Iowa’s state Supreme Court upheld a lower court’s ruling in favor of same sex marriage on Friday, April 3, 2009. This makes Iowa the first state in the Mid-West to move towards equality in the marriage realm. Iowa’s state law banning same sex marriage was unanimously shot down by the court on grounds that it “excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification” and violated the equal protection clause of the state constitution.
Same sex marriage is expected to begin in Iowa on April 24th, making it one of three states that does so. Vermont is on the verge of gaining enough votes to overpower a governor veto, which will make same sex marriage legal in that state. Iowa, surprisingly, has historically been a leader in equality being among initial states to legalize interracial marriage, desegregating schools and providing the right of married women to own property.
California’s legalization of same sex marriage lasted all of six months before a constitutional amendment quickly outlawed it. Iowa will not suffer the same fate, as citizens are unable to quickly amend the constitution. The state legislature must begin the process and due to the timeline within the legislature and elections, the earliest an amendment could come to the ballot would be 2014.
Vermont’s legislative approval of same sex marriage and Iowa’s court ruling all point in the right direction for equality. Even though California approved a ban on same sex marriage through the amendment process, the state Supreme Court ruled in favor of equality, as Iowa and Massachusette state courts did. As state supreme courts continually rule in this manner, it really is a matter of time before the case is brought before the Supreme Court and they too will rule for equality. The state by state strategy is seen as more effective in ensuring a federal Supreme Court ruling in favor of same sex marriage, which is the ultimate goal.
The Matthew Shepard Act is scheduled to hit the floor of Congress for a vote in the upcoming month. This vital piece of legislation, if passed and signed by President Obama, would finally include sexual orientation and gender identity under federal hate crime legislation. Currently, inclusion of sexual orientation within hate crime laws is a state by state fixture. The Matthew Shepard Act would bring this to a federal level. President Bush vetoed the first attempt by Congress to pass the bill, but President Obama has promised to sign it into law should it hit his desk.
The Matthew Shepard Act is named after Matthew Shepard, a young gay man whose life was taken in Laramie, Wyoming over ten years ago because he was gay. The two men convicted of the vicious torturing and murder of Shepard could not be prosecuted under federal hate crime laws that, as it stands, only coves crimes committed based on someones religion, race, creed or ethnicity. Crimes prosecuted under hate crime laws carry heavier sentencing and increased resources for investigation. The importance of passing this act goes beyond the actual punishment it would carry for those criminals convicted for acts of violence against a gay individual based on their sexual orientation.
Local resources for prosecuting crime are often limited with prioritization and crimes prosecuted varying state to state, district to district. If a hate crime based on religion takes place in a local district, local authorities can tap into federal investigative resources in bringing about justice. If a hate crime based on sexual orientation is committed without a state hate crime laws including sexual orientation, local authorities can decide not to investigate thoroughly or may not have resources to do so. Victims then are unable to go to the federal level for justice. Gay individuals who have fallen victim to hate crimes based on their sexual orientation deserve equal justice under the law. It again comes down to equal treatment under the law.
Those who oppose the inclusion of sexual orientation in federal hate crime laws have viciously lied to the public and Congressional members, telling them that such laws would remove people’s religious freedoms and speech because their anti-gay stance would fall under prosecution of hate crime laws. The American Family Association went so far as to broadcast an hour long program on TV attempting to persuade viewers that people of faith would be silenced and pastors would be jailed. These are ridiculous lies that need to be combated. These blatant lies take pure advantage of people’s lack of knowledge in First Amendment law, as well as the details behind hate crime legislation and the Mathew Shepard Act. Hateful speech, both symbolic and spoken, has consistently been protected by the Supreme Court under the First Amendment. There are limitations, such as if that speech is meant to incite immediate physical violence. However, the protections provided to speech are broad, strong and well protected in this country.
The KKK has been freely allowed to speak hatefully against African Americans without being subject to federal hate crime legislation. Individuals whose racist commentary against Muslims following 9/11 were not prosecuted under hate crime legislation. Individuals whose speak against gays will not be prosecuted under the Mathew Shepard Act. Acts of physical violence against a gay person where the evidence shows that the crime was committed solely based on the individual’s orientation fall under this act. The American Family Association has once again shown a pure lack of knowledge in our Constitution, and our laws. The fear based tactics used to fight same sex marriage are being utilized here. The outlook appears to be dim for them, as the Mathew Shepard Act gains more support in Congress.
This is long overdue for the United States. 15% of hate crimes in the nation are reported to be against the LGBT community, and yet, 15% of hate crimes in the nation are refused equal justice under current federal hate crime laws. It is time for equal protection under the law for all citizens of the United States.
Here are some avenues in which you can show your support for equality under hate crime laws:
* Visit http://www.hrc.org/endthelies/ and see who is spreading ridiculous lies about this topic and others affecting the LGBT community.
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.
The fate of California’s Prop 8 lies in the hands of the state Supreme Court as of noon, Thursday, March 5th. After three hours of debate, both sides of the proposition brought to the court their arguments as to whether Prop 8 is an amendment or a revision to the state constitution. The Office of the Attorney General argued that Prop 8 removes inalienable rights without providing strong enough reason that same sex marriage causes such a threat that this right can be removed.
With $18,000 in donations, Equality California, Marriage Equality USA and other gay rights organizations provided a jumbotron in San Francisco’s Civic Center outside the California Supreme Court. Hundreds of people,both proponents and opponents of Prop 8, gathered to demonstrate. The two sides intermixed outside the grounds of the Supreme Court in peaceful demonstrations. Supporters of both sides appeared to be equally represented in the crowd. A Northern Californian church, with a strong immigrant-Eastern European congregation, bussed in proponents of Prop 8, sporting red shirts and immense signs stating “Traditional Marriage” and a check mark.
These vast signs dominated the landscape outside the courthouse, often blocking views of the jumbotron. As I viewed these signs, I thought to myself, “Traditional marriage, check mark? What side are they really on ?” The founders of JointheImpact.com spoke and mentioned how their same-sex marriage is traditional and listed the stereotypical characteristics of a traditional marriage they participate in everyday, i.e. both spouses coming home from work, watching TV, going to bed at 10pm and doing it all again the next day. Traditional marriage is what same-sex couples want for themselves. On a bright side of this dismal issue, proponents of Prop 8 were unable to clearly display their opinion on a billboard sized sign. The sign’s design was not thought through and was easily discounted.
The happenings inside the courtroom seemed rather dim for those of us looking for Prop 8 to be overturned. The justices asked pointed questions and appeared to be skeptical of the idea of revision versus amendment. The idea arose that by striking down Prop 8 because of its removal of the inalienable right to marry, by default the court would be striking down the inalienable right of Californians to change the Constitution. This argument is weakened by the idea that opponents of Prop 8 were not arguing the initiative process, per se, but arguing that in this instance, the state legislature needed to bring about the issue and send it to the voters. I have trouble seeing how striking down Prop 8 threatens the inalienable rights of Californians to continue the initiative process. The initiative process should never be used to take away inalienable rights, and thus, if the process needs to be changed, then this is the perfect time for it happen. This type of precedent needs to be set and there is no better time than now to do so.
The fate of Prop 8 actually looks bright for its proponents after today’s arguments. As disheartening as it is to say so, the justices, overall, did not seem to take well on the idea of amendment versus revision. A glimmer of hope lies in that the justices did seem to support the idea that those same sex marriages signed during the “Summer of Love” should remain valid. In the end, despite the direction the justices decide to take, proponents of Prop 8 and discrimination against same-sex marriage have an expiration date in our society. It will be a dreadfully long wait for those of us who believe in equality, but the dawn of equality is on the horizon. It does not look like it will be within the next ninety days, but I have faith that we will see it in a decade’s time.
The slide show below are pictures from San Francisco’s Civic Center, home of the California Supreme Court and today’s arguments on Prop 8. Since the Prop 8 demonstrations began last November, the images seem to all look fairly similar. Today’s events were the first I’ve seen an even mixture of both sides represented. The peaceful characteristic of these demonstrations is a commendable aspect and one that refreshes my faith in the American system of liberty and justice.
The countdown to California’s Supreme Court hearing the case against Prop 8 is well underway. With not only faith and hope in our hands, but also liberty and justice, March 5th shall bring to Prop 8 what the Ides of March brought to Julius Caesar, death.
Events are planned around the state of California to further our presence in the minds of our fellow Californians, and Americans. Wednesday, March 4th, is being called the “Eve of Justice” with marches and candlelight vigils planned to utilize the media momentum leading up to Thursday. Visit www.eveofjustice.com to find local information.
The official date that California’s Supreme Court will hear the case to repeal Prop 8 is set for March 5th. Prop 8 amended the California Constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman, effectively banning same-sex marriage in the state on November 4, 2008. The justices will hear oral arguments from 9am until noon. The Court will then have ninety days to make a decision. The case will be heard in San Francisco with televised access available on the California Channel (for California residents). The Supreme Court will hear cases both on the validity of Prop 8 and the 18,000 same-sex marriages signed during the Summer of Love, 2008.
In Tuesday’s notice, the California Court set the agenda for the three hour session to look as follows:
30 minutes – California Attorney General, Jerry Brown
2 30 minutes segments – one for each of the groups of same-sex couples who filed
30 minutes – Local governments
60 minutes- Protect Marriage (The initiative’s sponsor)
With the year end a month behind us, final reported numbers on dollars spent on the Prop 8 campaign have been filed. A total of $85 million dollars were spent, in total, by both sides of the cause. Proponents spent $40 million and $45 from opponents. This effectively makes California’s Proposition 8 the most expensive social issue on a ballot in US history. Plans are in motion for demonstrations the morning of March 5th in San Francisco and other cities. Join the Impact is a great resource to find local actions www.jointheimpact.com
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.
Today is “A Day Without Gays” where the grassroots equality movement for same-sex marriage has asked all gays and lesbians to call in sick to work and reduce their economic impact for the day. To show that this group of society can do so much good, they’ve asked those who call in sick to also volunteer their time at a non-profit.
The impact of such a move is highly debatable. However, there is principle in it. The idea is reminiscent of the Day Without a Mexican held a few years back that protested immigration rights. The move by Mexican-Americans and Mexican immigrants did not have the strongest impact, but it makes a point. Day Without A Gay is about full fledged American citizens removing themselves from their productive role in American society in hopes that those they work with everyday say, “Where is Adam?” It gets the conversation going the next day. To continue the discussion on equality is vital in moving forward. Most importantly, it is vital for our fellow American citizens to see that the gay and lesbian community is a group of American citizens that work, pay taxes and participate in the same daily activities that keep this nation moving. In doing so, the rights bestowed upon one citizen need to be afforded to all.
I work in a liberal, advertising tech company in San Francisco. This equation leads to an open environment where most coworkers are in agreeance about the equality issue. The question then is, “Why bother calling in sick if those around you already support you?” This comes down to making them think for one more second of one more day about the issues surrounding others. Additionally, those who may say they support equality for marriage because they wish not to be shunned by others are granted an opportunity to discuss it or think about it once more. It is important to stand in solidarity as a San Franciscan with those in conservative neighborhoods or states, so that the conversation continues from the Golden Gate Bridge to the Brooklyn Bridge.
John Stewart and Mike Huckabee had a healthy debate about the issue of same sex marriage last night. Watch the clip and see how there is a lot of work to be done, as the arguments opponents to same sex marriage continue to make are flawed in logic and fundamentally instilled in their mindset. Huckabee makes comments about “lifestyle” choice and how a privilege of marriage cannot be afforded to a lifestyle. Watch how John Stewart intelligently refutes this argument. Huckabee talks about marriage being about procreation and the combination of sperm to egg to make a child. We all know that marriage does not facilitate or encourage baby production, and historically procreation has forced parents to marry to fit into a social norm. Lastly, take note of Huckabee’s claim that those against same sex marriage are not homophobic. Think about that.
During this Prop 8, same sex marriage debate, the idea of being against equality, but not being a homophobe has risen. H8rs continue their attempt to appear as nice and compassionate, but deny equality at the same time; essentially working to have their cake and eat it too. If one believes gays and lesbians cannot raise children in the same healthy environment as heterosexual couple, then he or she is homophobic. If one does not believe that a same sex couple deserves the equal right to access marriage protection and privilege, then he or she is homophobic. There are different levels of homophobia, but it is time that these opponents realize that when they tell me, as a gay man, and tell my gay friends that we cannot be parents and we cannot access the privilege to marriage, they are saying to us, “There is something wrong with you and you cannot do these things because of it. In essence, I am better than you.” Next time you hear someone say, “Im cool with the whole gay thing, but I just dont think they should raise children or get married,” you may want to suggest that they have some homophobia issues they should examine, because it’s true.
Lady Gaga’s new video for “Telephone” featuring Beyonce. This is 9.5 minutes of fun imagery, great music and dancing. There is blatant product placement to remind us that Gaga is playing into the “pop” ideal unashamed. There is a nod to Cher with some fishnet stockings and Taratino inspired themes dribbled throughout the short film.
