And now we seek justice
Don't think for a second that we're done fighting:
Attorney Gloria Allred and her clients, a lesbian couple, who won right to marry in the California Supreme Court will hold a news conference to announce a new lawsuit against Prop. 8
Attorney Gloria Allred and her clients, Robin Tyler and Diane Olson, will hold a news conference today November 5, 2008 at 12:00 noon at 6300 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1500 L.A. to announce a new lawsuit against Prop. 8. Prop. 8 intended to ban same gender marriages in California.
Ms. Allred and her law firm represented the couple in their victory before the California Supreme Court. Her clients became the first to marry in Los Angeles County in June.
Ms. Allred will file the new lawsuit today with the California Supreme Court on behalf of the couple. The new lawsuit will contain a new and controversial legal argument as to why Prop. 8 is unconstitutional. Copies of the lawsuit will be provided to the press at the news conference.
"Activist judges": Please, for the love of fairness, save us from the "regressive judgmentalists"!
*MORE: Lawsuits fly as gays fight California marriage ban [Pink News]
This is the way we win it. Keep fighting, keep pushing...
Remember DOMA? Remember DADT? Those policies were favored by huge margins when they were passed and we thought the battle was lost. Well, 12 years later DADT is overwhelmingly unfavored by the public, and DOMA is on the ropes.
We can win this!
Posted by: Sykler | Nov 5, 2008 1:56:24 PM
I'm hopeful for this lawsuit to succeed.
Just want to point this out though. I posted this on Queerty but this is also my favorite blog too. Even though 52% of the voters approved the ban, if you look back in 2000, 61% approved the ban that was struck down this year. It just shows that we are making progress and that we are changing hearts and minds about equality. We just have to keep fighting and not give up. In the end, we will be victorious.
Posted by: Sam | Nov 5, 2008 2:00:28 PM
I suspect that this is just the first of several challenges. And, I also suspect that the City of San Francisco and/or the Governor will seek an immediate injunction baring the implementation of Prop 8 until the Supreme Court can rule on it's constitutionality.
The amendment is technically in force as soon as it is certified to have been approved. And, that technically could be today but more realistically will not be for at least a couple of days or even weeks. The court would probably wait until the certification is complete before acting on any motions to stay it's implementation, but then they would probably act immediately.
Posted by: Dick Mills | Nov 5, 2008 2:13:44 PM
If prop 22 could be overturned, I'm sure this one can be too, especially with a more liberal president.
Posted by: Nami | Nov 5, 2008 2:17:16 PM
Does anyone find it ironic that they use the phrase 'activist judges' to describe officials who were merely upholding their constitution that afforded equality to everyone? Are they going to want a constitutional amendment to say we're subhuman?
Posted by: Incognito | Nov 5, 2008 2:26:40 PM
Every gay couple should file a law suit against Prop 8.
Posted by: GT | Nov 5, 2008 3:02:23 PM
It's not over until the fat drag queen sings! There are still a lot of absentee ballots to count. Even if it still wins we can try again in two years. Don't forget we still have New England. New York should be able to get it through the legislator
Posted by: Rainbow Phoenix | Nov 5, 2008 3:05:45 PM
with New Jersey and Rhode Island following suit. The court battle in Main looks good and Massachusetts didn't reinstate the residency requirement. We're going to win this.
Sorry for the double post. My computer keeps crapping out on me.
Posted by: Rainbow Phoenix | Nov 5, 2008 3:29:58 PM
Is she the out stand-up comedian? When I was about 15, I heard her comedy album "Always A Bridesmaid, Never A Groom", kinda by accident. I was flipping the dial on my radio and stopped in the middle of one of her bits-it was kinda inspiring to a) Hear an actual, real-life gay person on the radio and b0 discover you could be gay AND still have a sense of humour.
I hope she wins the suit.
Posted by: Bill S | Nov 5, 2008 4:25:11 PM
File suit and also move to strip the LDS Church of its tax exemption status. If the Mormons want to play so directly in politics, that's fine and certainly their right but they should pay taxes like every other political group. Their choice.
Posted by: John | Nov 5, 2008 4:51:01 PM
God, I hope they win. This ban is getting ridiculous.
I mean, we're not hurting anyone! We're not forcing people to do things they don't want to!
Equality for all. Isn't that how it's supposed to be?
Posted by: Trickster's Treat | Nov 5, 2008 5:08:31 PM
a couple more months, a couple more years and a scant few couples able to afford or endure an extended battle may quietly slip through to uphold their own rights for the previous fight is more likely to succeed than becoming public spokespersons for the on-going movement or to provide ammunition for more rights to come.
It would be a little harder to ignore if the majority of couples that were married in previous months were able to form a class-action suit. At least a few thousand willing to *actively* and publically be involved in a media as well as legal campaign than expecting a landmark ruling to be made on one.
Or perhaps for other groups and the larger community to call for a national review of the fourteenth amendment and the argument that it somehow precludes same-sex couples from marriage (elimination of the language which implies separation or special rights by refering to it as "gay marriage") as well as how it can, should and does apply to other rights within the LGBTQI communities or specifically limited to same-sex designations.
On another note... An entertaining distraction can be found through the various personal ad sites, from the more corporate names to the easier target of craigslist.
Just look at the impact it's had on the m4m and w4w sections in metro cities.
With my own midwest exile from the coast and nevermind the rumours of being an expatriate. My current location provides that the best cruising accessory for the area is a wedding band and wallet size pictures of your opposite gender spouse.
A topic which also implies within many asian and other communities with a heavily traditional focus, that it's okay to be queer as long as you save public face.
While likely just a gimmick with the protection of marriage and definitions on the line, perhaps it's more of an excuse to embrace this philosophy as well.
Make a point to show the validity of marriage between a man and a woman by marrying anyone, ask someone on the street of an opposite gender to get married. Just because you can.
There's not much protection for marriage from that. But just make sure you're both citizens of the country, as we're seeing just as many problems arise in determining the validity of marriages where deportation is a threat.
Just as serious and similar to the impact it has on all same sex marriages, including citizen to non-citizen same-sex relationships. Where even in valid relationships and proposed marriages between male and female citizen/non-citizens, may include and there have been increasingly more cases involving prison time should the government rule that the relationship constitutes fraud by some intangible construct that further defines the definition of marriage.
As well as how that also further extends to both adoptions and children from previous relationships, and even extended family towards immigration policies and legalized naturalization.
Posted by: =P | Nov 6, 2008 12:49:01 AM
Oh and an article "Pleading the Fourteenth" by Austin Bramwell from 2005 in The American Conservative, may also be good to have on review.
Which otherwise pleads, that focusing on state legislation to provide same-sex couples the right to marry is far too small... and we should be looking towards and fighting for federal recognition for an obvious constitutional battleground, even with the potential threat of a greater loss.
Posted by: =P | Nov 6, 2008 1:03:50 AMcomments powered by Disqus