Yesterday, President Obama announced a step in the right direction:
President Barack Obama ordered hospitals to grant visitation rights to gay and lesbians, including for non-family visitors.
Obama’s memorandum to the Department of Health and Human Services banned discrimination in visits to any hospital receiving federal funding for Medicare and Medicaid social insurance programs for the elderly and the poor. …
It enables patients to confer medical power of attorney to their gay partners, authorizing them to act and make decisions about the patient.
The memo issued new rules to ensure that hospitals “respect the rights of patients to designate visitors.”
“Every day, all across America, patients are denied the kindnesses and caring of a loved one at their sides — whether in a sudden medical emergency or a prolonged hospital stay,” Obama wrote in his memo to Health Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.
“Uniquely affected are gay and lesbian Americans who are often barred from the bedsides of the partners with whom they may have spent decades of their lives — unable to be there for the person they love, and unable to act as a legal surrogate if their partner is incapacitated.” (AFP)
Now, under California law, hospitals honor both the 18,000 marriages from 2008 as well as registered domestic partnerships. So, it won’t make a huge difference here. But, this is a step, a very small step, in the right direction.
That being said, this is just one of the over 1,000 rights and responsibilities granted by federal law to married couples. We need full marriage equality and the repeal of DOMA. This decision will make a very real difference in the lives of many gays and lesbians, but it is just one step.
President Obama must continue to work to follow-up on his campaign promises to pass ENDA and repeal DOMA.
Equality California and ACLU, as I discussed yesterday, were appealing Judge Walker’s order to turn over a slew of documents. Well, they lost. Sort of.
The 9th Circuit said it lacks jurisdiction to overturn a federal judge’s order forcing gay marriage advocacy groups to turn over their Proposition 8 campaign materials. … The organizations argued that their materials are protected by a First Amendment privilege shielding internal campaign communications.
But the three-judge panel said the organizations can’t appeal Walker’s order until they have been held in contempt for failing to comply with it. (Courthouse News Service)
I’ve noticed a couple other blogs discussing the decision, some even suggesting that this would speed up the process. That is a possible outcome, if the groups choose to turn over the documents. However, they can also wait to be held in contempt and then go back to the real meat of the question as I outlined yesterday.
Jurisdiction, which basically answers the question of whether the court has authority over the case, is a threshold question. That is, if there is no jurisdiction, then your substantive arguments are simply not heard. That’s what happened in this case, the 9th Circuit basically said you’ll have to wait on this. The next move is up to EQCA and ACLU.
Before I delve into this, I’d like to say that while I’m an attorney, I am by no means an expert in discovery. However, I’ll try to explain it as best I can.
To start, discovery runs on good faith backed by a big old stick. The normal process is for each side to ask questions (“interrogatories”) and respond to the opposing counsel’s questions with responses, and eventually documents. Document review is typically the domain of first year lawyers, who get to spend hours upon hours hunting for the smoking gun amidst heaps and heaps of meaningless paper. In fact, one discovery strategy is to bury the opposing counsel in so much paper that the good stuff remains hidden. A judge can control this sort of gamesmanship if it gets out of hand.
Now, in this particular case, the defendant-intervenors asked for a bunch of documents from the No on 8 Coalition. It was a similar request as the Yes on 8, protectmarriage.com, organization had received. Eventually, Judge Walker’s order was slightly limited to exclude completely internal documents within a “core group” of campaign insiders. But, they ended up turning over a bunch of useful documents, which I won’t go through now. But, go back over the old posts from the trial, and you’ll stumble across them.
In return, the Yes on 8 asked for similar documents. Now, at first blush, you’d think, well, fair’s fair. But, not really though. The only actions in question here are the actions of the Yes on 8 team and whether the campaign was seeking to deny equal protection of the law. On the flip side, the No on 8 coalition clearly had no such motives, and the constitutionality was never in question.
The relevant rules here are the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, particularly Rule 26, which states, in part:
Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense — including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any documents or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons who know of any discoverable matter. For good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
The key part of this is relevancy. There are a number of different standards for relevancy, but they are all generally lenient, or at least far more lenient that standards for evidence at trial. That being said, even by these more lenient standards, this is a big reach. And frankly, all of the parties know that, but the Yes on 8 team is trying its best to get as much information as possible for future campaigns. Sure, they won’t say that, but that’s what is going on here. But, to the issue at trial, I’ll let Judge Walker sum it up:
This objection has three parts: first, that the magistrate applied the FRCP 26 relevance standard when a more searching standard was appropriate; second, that the subpoenas do not seek relevant documents under any standard of relevance; and third, that the magistrate failed to weigh the marginal relevance of the documents against the heavy burden production of the documents would impose.
Under the FRCP 26, the court, in this case Magistrate Spero, is to weigh the burden of disclosing the documents against the relevancy of the documents to the case at hand. After all, we don’t want our courts to just be a big fishing pond, be it for corporations, individual litigants, or for campaigns, as we have in this case. These issues are all somewhat subjective, that is the judge has to look at evidence and weigh relative merits. Unlike what Justice Roberts would have you believe, this isn’t about balls and strikes, it’s more like judging a boxing match. Each side has relative merits, and the judge has to use his legal training and experience to end up with the best result.
Now, on the Yes on 8 side, the 9th Circuit ruled that Judge Walker allowed too broad of discovery, a loss for our side. However, the ACLU and EQCA argue that Judge Walker once again allowed for too broad of discovery. This time focusing on relevancy rather than any notion of privilege of free communication within a campaign. The importance of this distinction is critical. There is a bright line for why the Yes on 8 materials were discoverable. However, if the ACLU and EQCA documents are discoverable, any body associated with a campaign that is involved in litigation is discoverable. As Geoff Kors of EQCA points out, that is simply not something that we can allow to go unchallenged:
“Protect Marriage has not subpoenaed Equality for All, the organization that led the No on 8 campaign. Instead, it singled out two allied civil rights organizations that are not parties to the case to intimidate and dissuade all LGBT organizations and our allies from participating in future campaigns to defeat anti-LGBT measures. We want nothing more than for this case to proceed as quickly as possible. But if this ruling is allowed to stand it will set a harmful precedent that will have a chilling effect on all non-profits working in coalitions on social justice issues. They will fear harassment and the threat of being forced to spend precious, limited resources on responding to costly litigation and subpoenas rather than to do the critical work at hand.”
I know people are anxious for some resolution on this case, but folks, it’s going to be a while. There are still a lot of appeals to go; it’s likely to be years before we see a resolution. Even if Judge Walker overturns Prop 8, he’s likely to put a stay pending appeal. That’s why it is critical that we not take our eyes off the ball, which is the ballot box. In my mind, Prop 8 is clearly unconstitutional for several reasons. That being said, sometimes you have to fight when you shouldn’t have to. It’s not right, but it’s the way it is. We’ll win both in the legal arena and the ballot box.
With the news out that the grassroots efforts to get a repeal of Prop 8 on the ballot has failed, it increases the importance of Perry v Schwarzenegger and by extension the media coverage of the trial. Going back to the ballot in 2012 is still very much a potential option, but we will absolutely have a verdict in District Court and who knows where we will be at in the appeals process by November of 2012. There are a lot of unknowns.
But there is a lot of exciting organizing going on in California, including around Perry v Schwarzenegger.
Today we released this statement from Rick Jacobs:
We applaud the dedication of grassroots activists who organized across the state this year to try to bring California law into compliance with the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. No American should have to wait one minute for equality, especially when it comes to love. That’s why the Courage Campaign’s focus is on the Proposition 8 federal trial — and it’s why this trial is so important.
With three recent polls now showing a majority of Californians support marriage equality, it is clear that the court of public opinion is increasingly rejecting the lies and hollow arguments that were used to deceive voters in 2008. That’s why the backers of Proposition 8 are working so hard to keep the ongoing federal trial from public view, and why the Courage Campaign remains committed to ensuring the evidence that’s been presented can be heard and judged by all Americans.
Meanwhile, Media Matter’s Karl Frisch was on PBS’ In The Life to talk about the trial. As usual, California native Karl makes some great points about the role of the media.
Want to know where things stand with the Prop 8 trial?
We've got a continuously updated post with explanation of each phase of the trial, dates, and what's next for laypeople. You can find it here.
We need your feedback!
Prop8TrialTracker.com depends on your feedback to improve our user experience. Whether you're a frequent or infrequent visitor, let us know what you like about the site and what you want to see improved by taking our 5-minute survey. Thanks for your feedback!
Connect With Us
Want to submit a guest piece for publication on Prop8TrialTracker? Submit your piece with your byline, title and any appropriate links (and HTML if possible) to: prop8trial@couragecampaign.org
Get to know your fellow Prop 8 Trial Trackers on Facebook.
