Trial Re-enactment: Day 2
By Julia Rosen
The fine folks at the MarriageTrial.com have posted the first clip from Day 2 of the trial re-enactment. Here it is for your viewing pleasure:
37 Comments February 14, 2010
Archives – February, 2010
Being Thankful on St. Valentine’s Day
by Brian Leubitz
In September 0f 2008, I became one of the 18,000. My husband and I were married by Senator Mark Leno, and if I can say so myself, it was THE picnic event of the mid-September time period in all of the western portion of Berkeley’s Tilden Park. And, despite everything that’s happened since, or that will happen, I am thankful for that. And whomever chooses to recognize or ignore my relationship, I know I can live in peace.
That is not true everywhere. In nations across the globe, it can be dangerous to even be a closeted member of the LGBT community, let alone out and proud. This hit home in a New York Times story:
Tiwonge Chimbalanga looked like a man but said he was a woman. He helped with the cooking and dressed in feminine wraparound skirts. Steven Monjeza was a quiet, sullen man often intoxicated on sorghum beer. He said he had never been happy until he finally met the right companion.
The two celebrated their engagement — their chinkhoswe, in the Chichewa language — with a party at a lodge here in Malawi’s commercial capital. It began cheerfully enough. But later, gawkers pushed their way inside, some shouting taunts, others just staring through despising eyes. Then the electricity failed. The band stopped playing, and the bride collapsed in tears.
Someone had tipped off a newspaper, The Nation, for this betrothal was extraordinary in a conservative African nation. The resulting front-page story began with the phrase “gay lovebirds,” adding that the chinkhoswe was “the first recorded public activity for homosexuals in the country.” Readers were reminded that homosexuality carried a sentence of 5 to 14 years in prison.
Two days later, on Dec. 28, the couple was arrested on charges of unnatural acts and gross indecency, and they have been in jail since, denied bail ostensibly to keep them safe.
Of course, Malawi is hardly the only instance of this. There’s the anti-gay law in Uganda, and the stories in Iran. Heck, even in America, the Matthew Shephard story was not that long ago.
In many ways, we here in California are very fortunate. We have a long way to go, but sometimes, it’s worth noting the long way we have come.
164 Comments February 14, 2010
What’s More Likely to Happen?
By Julia Rosen
Here is a question for all of you on this lovely Saturday and a poll to go with it.
What is more likely to happen in 2010: Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) has a date certain for repeal (not just a moratorium) signed into law, the Employment Non-discrimination Act (ENDA) passes both houses of Congress and is signed into law by President Obama, or Judge Walker rules for the plaintiffs in Perry v. Schwarzenegger?
[polldaddy poll=2696734]
110 Comments February 13, 2010
Mooting Perry?
by Brian Leubitz
A while back, one of our trial trackers here at the site asked an important question. My apologies to the original commenter, I wasn’t able to find the link back to the question, but here’s the gist:
“IF the attempt to get the “Restore Marriage 2010″ proposal onto this years ballot succeeds, & IF it gets passed, what effect would that have on Prop 8’s journey through the Federal Courts?
For example, if Judge Walker invalidates Prop 8 & if the 9th Circuit hasn’t yet ruled on the likely appeal, would the passage of the proposal repealing Prop 8 eliminate the possibility that Prop 8 would at some point be declared unconstitutional, &/or LGBTs to be declared a Suspect Class? (Hope this question makes sense.)
If that is a real possibility, it seems like it would be better to wait until after the final ruling on Prop 8, even though that might be risking a loss somewhere along the line. Otherwise, if the “Restore Marriage 2010″ passes, it seems like we only get marriage rights at the CA state level, vs a very real possibility of getting a whole lot more at the Federal level.
This is, generally, question about the legal doctrine of “mootness.” In a general sense, a case is moot if the decision wouldn’t have any legal consequense. Courts have declined to hear such cases because the parties wouldn’t have the vested interested, and wouldn’t be be the best advocates for the arguments. Despite the fact that frequently litigants would like to have a legal decision stemming from a case that has been mooted, courts generally dismiss such cases. This could happen with Prop 8, but let’s pick this apart and try to answer all of the various possibilities of what could happen.
1) The “Restore Equality 2010″ folks are able to get the measure on the ballot, and they succeed in overturning Prop 8.
The federal court would likely dismiss the case. Just being brutally honest here, but the last news I’ve heard from the campaign indicates that they are far behind where they need to be in order to get on the ballot. While a last month miracle could happen, it seems a long shot. That being said, in November 2010, the court will probably have made its decision and the case will be in the hands of the 9th Circuit, probably with a stay pending appeal if Prop 8 is overturned. The electoral defeat of Prop 8 would mean that a legal decision would have no impact on the litigants, in this case Perry and the other plaintiffs.
We need to remember here that the court case is only about Prop 8, and marriage in California, not federal law. While this case does present good facts, and I’ll go into that angle in a later post, there is no facial challenge of DOMA or any other federal law. This case could provide important precedent for a challenge to DOMA, but it is not itself such a challenge.
2) Prop 8 is repealed in 2012.
This seems to be the more likely scenario, with the majority of the funders of a prop 8 repeal pushing for a November 2012 campaign. The question here is speed of the case. It wouldn’t be unheard of either way for the case to have gone all the way to the Supreme Court in the three years since filing, but nor would it be unheard of for the case to be delayed past that date. In this case, the Court would seem to have a vested interest in waiting for a resolution via the ballot box. They have ways of delaying such things, and if they see that at ballot fight is likely, they are likely to use every delay tactic they have to avoid this case until it’s settled at the ballot box.
My take on this is that despite the tremendous value of a legal win, a win at the ballot box would be far more valuable. You would end up giving some good facts to make some good law, however, once California strikes the domino, we would likely set the nation on a path towards equality. We will need a legal victory. As the Court showed in Loving v. Virginia, on the big social issues of the day, the Court likes to have somebody else blaze the trail. In that instance, it was the California Supreme Court in Perez v. Sharp and other state supreme courts that struck down anti-miscegenation laws.
In this case, Perry v Schwarzenegger just might be the case that sets the legal process really moving federally. Even with that as a possible outcome, I think I’d take the electoral win and a mooted case every day. (And twice on Sundays.)
167 Comments February 13, 2010
Words Matter: Homosexual vs. gay/lesbian
By Julia Rosen
A lot of research has been done over the years about the best words or phrases to use when doing advocacy work for LGBT rights, particularly during campaign season. Which words or phrases makes voters more inclined to be supportive and which ones turn them off? For example, is it better to talk about equal rights, or is it better simply to talk about fairness?
One clear difference is using “gays and lesbians” vs. “homosexuals”. It’s something advocates have long known, but it is a lesson the media seems to still be learning.
CBS and the NYT teamed up for a poll which asked the same basic question: “Do you favor or oppose _______ serving in the military.” One half were asked if “homosexuals” should be allow to serve and the other half “gays and lesbians”. Not surprisingly, people were more supportive of letting “gays and lesbians” serve openly, and less so of “homosexuals”.
In the poll, 59 percent say they now support allowing “homosexuals” to serve in the U.S. military, including 34 percent who say they strongly favor that. Ten percent say they somewhat oppose it and 19 percent say they strongly oppose it.
But the numbers differ when the question is changed to whether Americans support “gay men and lesbians” serving in the military. When the question is asked that way, 70 percent of Americans say they support gay men and lesbians serving in the military, including 19 percent who say they somewhat favor it. Seven percent somewhat oppose it, and 12 percent strongly oppose it.
When it comes to whether Americans support allowing gays to serve openly, there is also a difference based on the term used. When referred to as “homosexuals,” 44 percent favor allowing them to serve openly. When referred to as “gay men and lesbians,” the percentage rises to 58 percent.
That is an 11 point swing, way outside of the margin of error.
John Aravosis simplifies this, because the CBS blog post is not very clear:
Serve in the military
Gay men and lesbians 70%
Homosexuals 59%Serve OPENLY in the military
Gay men and lesbians 58%
Homosexuals 44%
The reasons for it are pretty obvious, homosexuality is a clinical term, you don’t hear it an automatically think of your gay cousin Rob or that nice lesbian couple down the street. Plus, it has that little word “SEX” in it and we all know how icky gay sex is to a lot of people in this country.
It’s unlikely that very Ls and Gs who are going around calling themselves homosexuals, but for all of you straight people out there, be sure to use “gays and lesbians” instead if at all possible. And if you have a friend or family member using that clinical term, gently ask them if they can talk about people not something that used to be classified as a mental disease.
Next time you see someone like Maggie Gallagher from NOM using the word “homosexual” you’ll know why they are doing it, besides just irritating you. It’s effective.
306 Comments February 12, 2010
Kitty Lambert’s Wedding
By Andy Kelley
[Note from Julia: Andy is the Courage Campaign's amazing intern, please welcome him for his first blog post.]
It has been just over 2 months since the New York Legislature failed to pass same sex-marriage. Yet Kitty Lambert remains unwavering in her pursuit of full equality. Upon being denied a marriage license for her and her partner on Wednesday, Kitty Lambert, in a bold act of civil not-so-disobedience, turned to a complete stranger and proposed marriage to him.
As YNN Buffalo reports:
In a symbolic measure, a same-sex couple applied for a marriage license at City Hall Wednesday. When they were denied, gay marriage advocate Kitty Lambert found a man she had never met and applied for a marriage license with him. She says she did it to prove a point.
“Our point is, for $40, I can come in and purchase a marriage license with a total stranger. But all these years with the same woman and I still can’t get a marriage license. What is the senate thinking?” asked Lambert.
Kitty’s story is one of dedication to full equality. It is the next step in her lifelong pursuit of basic fairness and protection for her family. Perhaps that’s why it is so moving. It cuts through the clutter of words to the core of what marriage equality is about: dignity, respect, and that every family matters.
131 Comments February 12, 2010
