from Lambda Legal

[rm]

Today, as the ballot counting for Proposition 8 in California continues, Lambda Legal, along with the National Center for Lesbian Rights and the ACLU, filed a petition in the California Supreme Court on behalf of Equality California and six same-sex couples urging the court to invalidate Prop 8 if it passes. The petition charges that Prop 8 is invalid because the initiative process was improperly used in an attempt to undo the constitution's core commitment to equality for everyone by eliminating a fundamental right from just one group — lesbian and gay Californians. Prop 8 also improperly attempts to prevent the courts from exercising their essential constitutional role of protecting the equal protection rights of minorities. Whatever the outcome of the election or the lawsuit, we and the California Attorney General agree that existing California marriages are valid, and Lambda Legal will work in the courts to protect these marriages if they are attacked.

The news from other states with ballot measures affecting LGBT people was extremely disappointing. Florida's Amendment 2, which excludes same-sex couples from a constitutional definition of marriage, was approved by a vote of 62 to 38 percent — a narrow margin because constitutional amendments require a vote of 60 percent for passage in Florida. In Arizona, Prop 102 also was approved and will amend the state constitution to exclude same-sex couples from marriage. In Arkansas, voters approved a ballot measure that prohibits unmarried individuals or couples from fostering or adopting children effectively excluding gay and lesbian individuals and same-sex couples from the pool of adoptive and foster parents. In one state victory, Connecticut voters defeated a call for a constitutional convention that was promoted by groups eager to eliminate the right to marry for same-sex couples.

Last night's results also brought us hope. The election of Barack Obama as president presents exciting new opportunities to advance equality at the national level. Lambda Legal is committed to working with the new administration and the entire civil rights community to enact an inclusive employment nondiscrimination law, as well as fair and inclusive immigration and hate crime laws; to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and the federal Defense of Marriage Act; and to implement better policies for those with HIV. And once these laws and policies take effect, Lambda Legal will have new tools at its disposal to do what we do best: fight in the courts against the discrimination that LGBT people and those with HIV experience all across the nation.

Comments

Re: And More...

[browneyedgirl65.livejournal.com]

I think Pam Spaulding covered it quite well, actually. One thing to remember is that blacks constitute something like 6.2% of the population in california. I'd be looking a lot harder at the OLDER folks, who broke in similar numbers for prop 8 and who constitute a much higher percentage of the state's population. (There are linkies from the main article at my LJ I posted today.)

At this point, I have a notice up on my front door specifically stating that Mormons are NOT welcome (near San Bernardino, we get a fair number of door knockers here) and WHY. I am INFURIATED with the religious groups for this interference in our civil rights. I'm not happy that blacks probably tipped LA County from "no" to "yes" but face it at 6.2% they were not a decisive factor. Mormons gaming the vote were.

The folks organizing the no on 8 really kind of pulled a kerry-edwards on this. They let the yes folks frame the issues and were mostly reactive to everything.

One important point I did see raised (on americablog, I think) was that civil rights *should* be settled in courts, not as popular votes. Black civil rights were never put to the vote -- the Jim Crow laws in the South would *still* be on the fucking books if that were the case. The courts decide and stick it to the rest of us. (Because right now I'd vote to strip certain religious groups of *their* civil rights, so isn't it a good thing that their rights aren't up to a vote at this point?). Anyway. The legal challenges I hope will put a positive and decisive rest to this.

Double Standards

[keith418.livejournal.com]

One important point I did see raised (on americablog, I think) was that civil rights *should* be settled in courts, not as popular votes.

Wow, maybe some all-wise liberal courts should make, you know, ALL our laws - and then we won't have to worry about what the ignorant, racist, and very flawed masses think ever again. To leave it all to the courts is about as anti-democratic as what the neocons want - to leave it all up to a president-dictator. What happened to the idea of a separation or powers? What happened to the idea of organizing to change people's hearts and minds? I guess if you're too busy having fun, you'd rather just let the courts impose your views - rather than work to confront and educate the unwashed masses.

Part of the problem with organizing to change people's minds is that you actually have to confront the origins of homophobia in the communities in question. This might make some people see their own role in sustaining unequal power relations and the kind of class conditions that create "irrational" things like the bitter resentment of rich, educated elites and homophobia. You also cannot effectively organize and interact with people you do not respect.

The same kind of people who resent it when anyone points out problems with their "protected" minority groups are usually the ones who tell us that we can't critique Zionism or what Israel does either. What kind of trend does this reveal?