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: ...

[feyandstrange.livejournal.com]

It's not possible to do a state referendum that will create an equal civil union when there are two dozen Federal marriage rights.

Re: ...

[lilchiva.livejournal.com]

You are right. I guess that means that we have no choice but to hope and pray that public opinion sides with the homos. We shouldn't even bother trying to get things codified, in any way, on the State level. After all, what would be the point of that?

Oh how silly I have been. You have shown me the error of my ways. It's back to the clubs for me.

Re: ...

[feyandstrange.livejournal.com]

Apparently I haven't shown you the error of your mathematics. Polling data shows that queers have a better chance of doing this state-by-state than by attacking a Federal law, especially with a conservative SCOTUS.

Uh Hello?

[lilchiva.livejournal.com]

I actually am an advocate of attacking things on a state level. I have actually campaigned for various state laws in the past. Further, I have noted that conservative groups are fond of and have effectively used this tactic. You must be thinking I am someone else.

Perhaps I misunderstood your comment but, other than as an apparent non sequiter, it appeared to be an attempt to negate my previous statements by suggesting that since federal law wasn't going to be directly attacked, then there was no purpose in state tactics. I responded with sarcasm. Now you're mentioning my questionable mathematics - giant wtf? there too. So, uh could you kindly be a little more clear about what exactly you are saying? Maybe you could start by rephrasing what you think I am actually saying. I'm guessing you think I am doing something different than what I am.trying to get across.