After a challenge to the Proposition 8 gay marriage ban was struck down by California's Supreme Court in May, there was debate among gay rights groups on what to do next. A federal court challenge? A ballot initiative to overturn it in 2010? The same in 2012?
With a federal court case already gaining momentum, and with field efforts already underway for a ballot initiative, it looks like we'll see both.
A federal lawsuit is now being argued, on behalf of the American Foundation for Equal Rights by the attorneys for George W. Bush and Al Gore in the 2000 election lawsuit, Ted Olson and David Boies, who signed on the day after California's Supreme Court ruled to uphold Prop. 8.
This week, the ACLU, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, and Lambda Legal, a prominent LGBT legal group, are trying to join on.
Before this latest development, gay rights groups seemed to think a court case wasn't such a good idea, and that a ballot initiative to legalize gay marriage in 2010 or 2012 would be preferable. Now that these groups are looking to join the court fight, that's no longer the consensus.
The case has a better chance than the previous appeal, according to
Lambda Legal National Marriage Director Jennifer Pizer, because it more
closely mirrors the case that won gay marriage rights in 2008,
ultimately leading to Prop. 8's inclusion on the ballot in November.
"The
legal analysis used in the first litigation that won the right to marry
in California--those arguments resonate in federal law," Pizer said.
Lambda,
the ACLU, and NCLR are seeking to join the case over the objections of
American Foundation for Equal Rights, which has led the challenge since
its inception.
After a motion to intervene this week--asking
U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker to join the three groups to the
case--American Foundation for Equal Rights board president Chad Griffin
sent a letter telling them to back off: "You have unrelentingly and
unequivocally acted to undermine this case even before it was filed.
Considering this, it is inconceivable that you would zealously and
effectively litigate this case if you were successful in intervening,"
Griffin was quoted as saying by the Associated Press. "Therefore, we will vigorously oppose any motion to intervene."
The lawsuit has picked up the support of California Attorney General Jerry Brown, who agreed,
in a court filing, that Prop. 8 violates equal protection rights under
the Fourteenth Amendment. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, meanwhile, has
remained neutral, declining to defend Prop. 8's constitutionality in court.
There
is optimism surrounding the federal case--but that's not to say the gay
rights movement has chosen a single path in seeking to overturn Prop. 8.
A ballot initiative is still on the table, and we could see one in 2010 or 2012.
"Any
case that happens at the federal level, by the time it does its hearing
in circuit court and then goes to the appeals court, and then the rare
situation where it goes to the U.S. Supreme Court, we're talking about
a five year deal here," one source in the gay rights movement said. "I
don't think there's any reason to believe the case is going to suddenly
put an end to a ballot initiative in 2010 or 2012."
In fact, field efforts are already underway, with some activists
ramping up their activity to campaign-season levels, on the
assumption that a measure will be on the ballot in 2010.
Equality
California and Courage Campaign, two California-based groups, are
canvassing door to door in multiple counties, while Human Rights
Campaign, a national gay-rights powerhouse,
has a field campaign in place and is focusing on faith communities, a
demographic that backed Prop. 8 in November.
"We are putting in
place everything that we can to mobilize our own members and others,"
said Rick Jacobs, founder and director of Courage Campaign, whose
members voted by 82.5 percent in June to put a measure on the ballot in
2010.
Courage Campaign has 41 teams of volunteer canvassers working in 22 counties, Jacobs said.
Equality
California says it has 18 field staffers organizing canvasses out of
nine field offices around the state--the same number of field offices
John McCain had in Ohio last August--with plans to open five more. The
group has not committed to a 2010 initiative.
"We're still
looking at it very carefully," said Marriage Director Marc Solomon,
noting that his group has agreed to wait for another ballot push until
it thinks the movement can raise enough money to win.
"Nobody is counting on a court win," Solomon said. "We would love it, but nobody is counting on it."
Backers
of a 2010 or 2012 ballot initiative face a problem: how to decide if
and when to put it on the ballot, with the full support of the movement.
The
passage of Prop. 8 has given rise to new grassroots activity in
California, with new groups, even, having been formed in its wake. Now,
there are more voices, and it's a more complicated task to reach
consensus on the launch of a political fight. Some are raring to go;
others are more cautious. Many younger activists were shocked by Prop.
8's passage, and there's a good deal of dissatisfaction with how that
campaign went.
The gay rights movement in California includes national-level groups
like Human Rights Campaign and the ACLU, state-wide advocates like
Courage Campaign and Equality California, and local groups, some with
race/ethnic specific focuses.
Those smaller groups could be important to passing a new ballot
measure, given that, according to exit polling, African Americans and
Hispanics voted in favor of Prop. 8, by 70 percent and 53 percent,
respectively. The LGBT minority in California will have to reach out to
other minority groups that opposed them in 2008, and
race/ethnic-specific groups are looking to do some of that legwork.
As a result, no single entity or oligarchy is in charge of the gay
rights movement in California. Conference calls and discussions between
groups now focus on how a decision will eventually be made on whether or not to put gay marriage on the ballot--a framework for making the call.
"It's a process of trying to figure out what a campaign structure would
look like, and how we should decide whether to launch a campaign,"
Pizer said.
To Pizer, the legal and political fights are connected.
"I
think success in the trial court in this litigation would be very
motivating for people, and it probably would spur some of the outreach
and educational work in a positive way, because it buoys people's
spirits," Pizer said.
A good deal of campaigning would focus on Los Angeles County, which, to
the surprise of some activists, voted in favor of Prop. 8 despite being
heavily Democratic. As Solomon said, you can't pass a progressive
ballot initiative in California without LA County.
Gay rights groups seem to have a good handle on the task ahead of them.
They know who voted for Prop. 8 in 2008, and they know where to direct
their field efforts.
The task before them is apparent; it's just a question of whether the
time is right--whether they think they can win, and whether a minority
community that fought for its rights and lost, crushingly, is ready to
take up the hard fight again two years later.
If a gay marriage initiative is put on the ballot, whether in 2010,
2012, or beyond, it will be uncharted territory for gay rights groups
in the state: an initiative supporting gay marriage has never
been put in the ballot in California, and, despite the plethora of gay
marriage bans passed in states across the U.S., no ballot measure
constitutionally legalizing gay marriage has ever passed.
And, though activists may not be holding their breaths, a federal court victory would be a landmark of its own.







Yes, go ahead, do both or all three. Remember this is Stonewall 2.0 ......to 4.0(online) folks!
But we now have significantly more positive momentum. We are now the groups leading
the PRO-Marriage and PRO-Family parties. (e.g.Marriage Equality for All and Family Rights for All)
Opposition groups are all older folks (remember 85% of those under 35 support us!) who want
to continue with their old fashioned bigotry and discrimination. In fact I have remade the logo
of one group to N.O. for Marriage Discrimination. ...much more meaningful and true that way.
Put up billboards showing OUR families, make ADS showing OUR weddings and OUR families.
......and I think it's time we had a song: I would choose: IF I HAD A HAMMER!
Remember? The hammer of Justice, the bell of Freedom, and the Song..
about Love Between my Brothers and my Sisters, all over this Land.!
Gender is a reality.
Some years ago, there was a movement to pass an "Equal Rights Amendment" to the constitution, but it became clear that we weren't ready to deny the reality of gender. The solution has been legislation where gender is irrelevant, as in employment, but accepting that there can be separate bathrooms, the army doesn't send women into combat, etc.
In all cultures, "marriage" has always been the union of opposite genders, in the form we accept (one man, one woman) and forms we don't accept, - polygamy, polyandry, underage, siblings, etc. So far, changes have been done by courts or politicians, not by the public. The Massachusetts Supreme Court, in its narrow decision, admitted it was changing the definition of marriage. Isn't the solution partnership legislation? Maybe just make it become civil union for ALL couples.
Or we could just have the government back out of a religious practice altogether; problem solved