On Families and Overturning Prop 8(hate)

Truthandhope.org is working on ads to help in the campaign to overturn prop 8. Here's one about families and grandkids with a great awwww quotient.

help them spread the word.

There's more...

BREAKING: California Supremes uphold h(8), existing marriages

According to the SF Chronicle, the California Supreme Court ruled 6-1 to uphold Proposition 8, but also decided that the 18000 or so gay marriages performed are valid and will remain so.

This is exactly the slicing and dicing predicted by many commentators. The RWAs can remain happy in their ability to remove fundamental rights from an oppressed minority, the progressives can remain happy that nobody had their marriages annulled. A new constitutional amendment will undoubtedly be on the Cali ballot in 2010 and will remain so until it passes and sticks. Time and demographics are on the side of liberalism in this case.

There's more...

California Supreme Court Hears Arguments

On Proposition (h)8 Today

The oral arguments will center upon three questions:

Was this a revision of the state constitution rather than an amendment?

An amendment requires only a simple majority to pass into law. A revision, a substantial change in the language and the application of state law, requires a 2/3's majority in the State Assembly and the State Senate before being put on the ballot. The argument of the defense is that there were two definitions of marriage and civil union as being restricted only to "one man and one woman" already embedded in the constitution, so therefore, prop (h)8 was merely a strengthening of those already in place sections. The plaintiffs argue that because this proposition had the effect of removing rights in place to a segment of the population there was no amendment, but rather a drastic revision.

Does the proposition constitute a violation of the state's separation-of-powers doctrine and did it seek to deprive the state judiciary of their legal, and constitutional function of judicial review?

Last May, in the decision which prompted the proposition, the State Supreme Court ruled that the laws defining and restricting the right to marry raised

"constitutional concerns not only under the state constitutional right to marry, but also under the state constitutional equal protection clause."

In this case the defense is asking the court to abrogate constitutional duty and authority to a simple majority.

If Proposition (h)8 is found to be constitutional and is left to stand what is the effect on the more than 18,000 couples who were legally married during the period between the May decision and the victory in the election?

This is probably the thorniest issue raised by the entire proposition. To remove the legal rights from law abiding citizens who were married under the law at the time is, I hope, the bridge too far in the assault on equal rights. It would require expensive and bitter legal wrangling to untie the knots already in place.

*It's only right to mention that I have a dog in this fight. My cousin, my best friend and steadfast ally for our entire lives was able, over the summer, to marry his companion and lover of nearly 20 years. My cousin's marriage and long term commitment to his partner show more "defense of marriage" and more demonstration of enduring and pure love than my four tawdry debacles of drunken cruelty, faithless and indulgent recklessness which all resulted in hurtful, and messy divorces.

A decision is expected within 90 days. The Sacramento Bee reports nearly 18,000 demonstrators are outside the court, representing both sides of the argument.

Be_Devine writes about the legal issues. Much better than I did.

Jerry Brown writing at Kos argues that the entire thing was poorly written, meanly concieved and should be struck down.

dday at Hullaballoo reports that the issue may be decided already. The prediction is that the proposition will be allowed to stand, as will the marriages which took place before it went into effect. A third possibility is that the term "marriage" may be replaced by another term effectively putting the state in charge of civil union and individual faiths in charge of "marriage."

There's more...

DOMA and Lesbian/Gay Families News Briefs

DOMA and Lesbian/Gay Families News Briefs

Today is the National DOMA Protest organized by Join The Impact, which is hoping to collect one million signatures to present to President-elect Barack Obama asking him to fulfill his promise to repeat DOMA which he made in his Open Letter to the LGBTQ Community in early 2008.

If you have not yet signed this letter and/or want to participate in a DOMA protest in your area, here's a quick link to states and cities with planned action.

Join The Impact has this summary of DOMA:

"On September 21st, 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was signed into federal law. DOMA, wrote discrimination into the Constitution with two strict regulations:

"No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.

"The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.

"To drive the point even further, 37 states slowly but surely adopted DOMA as a state-wide regulation further amending state Constitutions. This appalling law tells the American people that it is OK to discriminate. That it is OK to recognize the LGBTQ community as less than equal. This same law, that the California Supreme Court deemed unconstitutional set the precedence for Proposition 8. This same law has nullified many rights that come with Domestic Partnerships. This law has nullified the heterosexual rights that come with Common Law Marriage. This law blurred the lines of separation of church and state even further."

Yesterday, President-elect Obama recommitted to repealing the ridiculous "Don't Ask Don't Tell", according to John Avarosis. Let's send DOMA to the outhouse at the same time.

-----------------------------------------

When I called the Campbell's Soup Line to give them positive feedback for publishing a magazine ad showing a lesbian-parented family (see my earlier post on this here), I began by saying I was calling to thank them. But once I launched, explaining that I was a lesbian parent myself, I had a grown daughter with children as well as having had a mother who was at one time a lesbian, so I was speaking for four generations of family who knew lesbians were good parents, the woman taking my call interrupted me to say, in a tone of relief, "You're calling to praise us?"

"Indeed I am, ma'am. I grew up on Campbell's soups, and at age 53 it's good to know my consumer choices have gone to a company which understands family is what we choose it be."

"Well, we're really glad to hear it." Her tone was effusive. "I'll be sure to pass this on to everybody else, I can tell you, they'll want to hear it."

So, they're still under siege over there from the organized hate of the (sic) American Family Association.. The phone line (1-800-257-8443) may be on voice mail for the weekend, but an e-mail to Anthony Sanzio, the Group Director for Corporate and Brand Communications for Campbell Soup Company (anthony_sanzio@campbellsoup.com) can be sitting there in his box waiting on him Monday morning.

(Maggie with her daughter, August 1977, Denton, Texas; photo by Mary Austin)

Another action you might find it fulfilling to take, from the Washington Blade:

"Have you experienced harm due to religion-based bigotry?

"Faith In America, an non-profit organization that aims to free members of the LGBT community from bigotry disguised as religious truth, is collecting personal stories from Americans from all walks of life who have in some way experienced the harm caused by religion-based bigotry.

"You can email your story to lovingus@faithinamerica.com. The organization will deliver the personal stories to Pastor Warren prior to the inauguration.

"Learn more at End the Harm."

And if you do send them a story that you'd also like to share in a post here on the topic, shoot me an e-mail with it at redredhands dot sbcglobal dot net. If I get a good selection, I'll be happy to give them a wider audience. Please note, this is NOT limited to LGBT people: Religious bigotry hurts all of us.

(Poster by Austin Cline.)

Speaking of PRick Warren -- Now, for a reality check about how Prop (h)8 came to be passed. An in-depth analysis commissioned by the Evelyn & Walter Haas, Jr. Fund in San Francisco, and released under the auspices of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute states "party affiliation, political ideology, frequency of attending worship services and age were the driving forces behind the measure’s passage on Nov. 4. The study finds that after taking into account the effect of religious service attendance, support for Proposition 8 among African Americans and Latinos was not significantly different than other groups. Through a precinct-by-precinct analysis and review of multiple other sources of data, the study also puts African-American support for Proposition 8 at no more than 59 percent, nowhere close to the 70 percent reported the night of the election. Finally, the study shows how support for marriage equality has grown substantially across almost all California demographic groups — except Republicans."

[You can download the report here -- it's a PDF file.]

"The study found that four factors — party identification, ideology, frequency of religious service attendance and age — drove the “yes” vote for Proposition 8. For example, more than 70 percent of voters who were Republican, identified themselves as conservative, or who attended religious services at least weekly supported Proposition 8. Conversely, 70 percent or more of voters who were Democrat, identified themselves as liberal, or who rarely attended religious services opposed the measure. More than two-thirds (67 percent) of voters 65 or older supported Proposition 8, while majorities under 65 opposed it.

"Since the passage of Proposition 8, much has been said about the supposed dramatic opposition to marriage equality among African Americans, fueled by National Election Pool (NEP) figures based on sampling in only a few precincts that erroneously indicated 70 percent of California ’s African Americans supported Proposition 8. The study found that when religious service attendance was factored out, however, there was no significant difference between African Americans and other groups.

"In other words, people of all races and ethnicities who worship at least once a week overwhelmingly supported Proposition 8, with support among white, Asian and Latino frequent churchgoers actually being greater than among African Americans."

When they're telling us we're being kept down by another group targeted for oppression, count on one thing: They lie, they lie, they lie.

"The study found that overall support for marriage equality has increased by 9 percent since 2000, with support increasing among every age group under age 65, across all racial and ethnic groups and among Protestants, Catholics and Jews. There are three “holdout” groups where voting patterns have not changed: Republicans, conservatives, and those 65 and older. The largest gain — up 16 percent — was among voters 45-64 years of age, followed by a 13 percent increase among voters 18-29."

“For many years, the forces of religious and political intolerance inside the GOP have used the supposed threat of ‘gay marriage’ to divide the country and energize their base. But these figures show virtually everyone else moving in the opposite direction,” said Jim Carroll, managing director of Let California Ring. “The Republican Party is clearly in crisis and the real question is whether it will realize that using the divide-and-conquer tactics of the past is harmful to the country and to the party’s long-term interests.”

There's more...