Prop 8 Repeal Initiative Can Begin Signature Gathering

The organization Love Honor Cherish announced this week that it has been given the go-ahead by the Attorney General of California to begin circulating ballot petitions to repeal Proposition 8, the constitutional amendment which purports to ban people of the same sex from marrying in California.

The text of the amendment is:

This amendment would amend an existing section of the California Constitution.  Existing language proposed to be deleted is printed in strikeout type.  Language proposed to be added is printed in underlined type.

Section 1.  To protect religious freedom, no court shall interpret this measure to require any priest, minister, pastor, rabbi, or other person authorized to perform marriages by any religious denomination, church, or other non-profit religious institution to perform any marriage in violation of his or her religious beliefs. The refusal to perform a marriage under this provision shall not be the basis for lawsuit or liability, and shall not affect the tax-exempt status of any religious denomination, church or other religious institution.

Section 2.  To provide for fairness in the government’s issuance of marriage licenses, Section 7.5 of Article I of the California Constitution is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 7.5.  Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Marriage is between only two persons and shall not be restricted on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, gender, sexual orientation, or religion.

The ballot summary is:

Reinstates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

Summary Date: 12/15/11 | Circulation Deadline: 05/14/12 | Signatures Required: 807,615

Proponent: Thomas B. Watson

Repeals the current provision in California's Constitution that states only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Provides that marriage is between only two persons and shall not be restricted on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, gender, sexual orientation, or religion. Clarifies that the initiative shall not be interpreted to require any priest, minister, pastor, rabbi, or other person to perform a marriage in violation of his or her religious beliefs. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Over the long run, this measure would likely have little fiscal impact on state and local governments. (11-0058) (Full Text)

Of course, Love Honor Cherish also went forward with a signature-gathering campaign in two years ago in Winter 2009-Spring 2010 to repeal Proposition 8 which failed miserably. Gathering enough signatures to get a measure on the ballot in California is a resource-intensive task, not one that has been achieved by a mainly volunteer or unpaid effort in years.

This effort does not have the backing of any of the state's major LGBT organizations (like Equality California and the L.A. Gay and Lesbian Center). The proponents have until May 14, 2012 to gather well over a million signatures, in the hopes that 807, 615 will be valid.

I agree that Propsition 8 should be repealed but I do not think that the LGBT community of California has had a discussion about what it would take to repeal Proposition 8 and I think it is incredibly naive and presumptious of one organization to think that they can make the decision for all LGBT Californians to put our rights up for a public vote.

I will not be signing the petition and I urge you not to as well.

POLL: Californians Favor Marriage Equality (Barely)

A new poll again shows that Californians strongly support legal protections and state recognition of same-sex couples but are also closely divided on the question of whether to allow such unions to be given the legal name "marriages."

Public Policy Polling did a statewide poll of 500 California voters between November 10-13 which had the following questions:

Q11 Do you think same-sex marriage should be
legal or illegal?
Legal............................................................... 48%
Illegal .............................................................. 43%
Not sure .......................................................... 9%

Q12 Which of the following best describes your
opinion on gay marriage: gay couples should
be allowed to legally marry, or gay couples
should be allowed to form civil unions but not
legally marry, or there should be no legal
recognition of a gay couple's relationship?
Gay couples should be allowed to legally
marry ..............................................................43%
Gay couples should be allowed to form civil
unions but not marry .......................................35%
There should be no legal recognition of a gay
couple's relationship .......................................21%
Not sure .......................................................... 1%

The margin of error is +/- 4.4 percentage points. This is more evidence that people who think that 2012 is the right time to attempt to repeal Proposition 8 are fooling themselves. I do think that there are more Californians who support marriage equality than not, but the polling shows that the difference is well within the margin of error.

One of my pre-conditions for attempting a Proposition 8 repeal by ballot measure is multiple polls of likely voters which indicate majority support for marriage equality outside of the margin of error. That polling result is yet to occur in California, though I do believe it will happen soon. (By the way, the other pre-conditions are: A 7-figure amount in the bank at the beginning of a ballot measure campaign AND a public, published plan with a representational organizational structure for the entity which will manage the ballot measure campaign.)

Cal Sup Ct Rules 7-0 Initiative Proponents Have Standing

The long-awaited decision by the California Supreme Court on the question of whether initiative proponents have the right to defend their measures in court when elected officials like the Governor and Attorney General refuse to defend them was released today.

The Court ruled unanimously that initiative proponents do have standing under state law to defend their ballot initiatives.

As usual, Chris Geidner of Metro Weekly has the best analysis:

The California Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, was very clear about its answer: 

[W]e respond to the question posed by the Ninth Circuit in the affirmative. In a postelection challenge to a voter-approved initiative measure, the official proponents of the initiative are authorized under California law to appear and assert the state's interest in the initiative's validity and to appeal a judgment invalidating the measure when the public officials who ordinarily defend the measure or appeal such a judgment decline to do so. 

The decision came about resulting from a request by the Ninth Circuit in the ongoing challenge to Proposition 8 brought by the American Foundation for Equal Rights. The case, in which the trial court judge struck down Proposition 8 as unconstitutional in August 2010, is on appeal before the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit appeals court sought to have the California Supreme Court assist it with the case by answering these questions about state law through the process of asking a certified question. The California Supreme Court accepted the invitation to answer the certified question and heard oral arguments on the question on Sept. 6.

As the California Supreme Court found the proponents to have a "particularized interest" and "the authority to assert the State's interest," the Ninth Circuit now is likely to find that the proponents do have standing under federal law to bring the appeal -- although the court need not do so. At that point, the appeal of the Perry trial court decision -- the "merits" decision from the trial court that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional -- could go forward.

It's unfortunate that the Court opened up the can of worms to allow all initiative proponents to defend their statutes under state law. Considering how many ballot measures we have in California, this is an incredibly important decision.

That being said, it is very exciting that now we basically must get a ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the Perry v. Brown case which will give us a federal appellate court level ruling on the question of marriage equality.

Saturday Politics: Brown Signs Bill Moving All Measures To November Ballots

This is huge news. No longer will conservatives be able to put crazy initiatives (or constitutional amendments) on the California ballot and hope that it appears on an election ballot which is particularly conservative.

Thanks to a bill signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown, all ballot measures will have to appear on the November general election ballot of the next even-numbered year (or special elections called by the legislature), not primary elections.

The Scaramento Bee reports:

Chuck Bell, a GOP attorney, submitted a request for title and summary for a referendum on the bill within hours of Brown's announcement. 

But the political implications of the measure may not have resonated outside Sacramento, even among Republicans. According to a recent Field Poll, registered Republicans support the proposed change by a 15-point margin, and 56 percent of voters overall favor it. 

After the poll was released, Brown said of Republican lawmakers' opposition, "I think they're a little out of touch with their own members, because obviously the Republicans seem to want that."
The bill is also controversial because it would delay until 2014 a "rainy-day fund" measure approved as part of a budget agreement last year. Republicans characterized the legislation as a take-back by Democrats.

The immediate impact on LGBT rights means that 1) the earliest Proposition 8 will be repealed is the 2014 gubernatorial election and 2) if the FAIR Education Act referendum people get enough signatures by their deadline of Wednesday October 12th, it will appear on the November 2012 ballot, not June.

EQCA: No Go On Prop 8 Re-Do In '12

Well! Equality California has finally acknowledged a repeal effort of 2008's Proposition 8 is not going to happen in 2012:

Equality California said that while public opinion on marriage for same-sex couples has increased since Proposition 8 passed in 2008, support continues to hover near 50 percent—indicating more work must be done before asking voters to overturn Proposition 8 through what would inevitably be  a very expensive and difficult campaign. In addition, the Perry v. Brown legal challenge to Proposition 8 has provided hope that the freedom to marry can be restored in California and create a legal precedent to protect marriage without the potential risks and expense of a multi-million dollar campaign in these very trying economic times. 

"With a challenge to Prop 8’s discrimination now before the courts, Freedom to Marry supports Equality California’s decision to forego a ballot campaign in 2012,” said Evan Wolfson, founder and President of Freedom to Marry. ”Freedom to Marry will continue to work with Equality California and our many other partners to engage Californians in the crucial conversations necessary to grow the pro-marriage majority and permanently restore the freedom to marry in California as soon as possible."

“We share the pain, frustration and discrimination that California same-sex couples and their families experience every day because they are denied the freedom to marry,” Palencia said. “Today, we are recommitting ourselves to doing the hard work of changing hearts and minds to be ready to change that reality should the courts fail to do their job.” 

Although I only live part-time in California, I am still registered to vote there, and I support the decision not to move forward with a ballot measure, especially since there will almost definitely be marriage equality fights in Maine, Minnesota, North Carolina and Oregon next year.

Text of Anti-Gay North Carolina Ballot Measure

Below is the text of a constitutional amendment passed by the North Carolina legislature this week which purports to "protect marriage" by declaring that only  "marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized" in the State of North Carolina. The intent is similar to the odious (and unconstitutional) Proposition 8 in California and the still-to-be-voted on Minnesota amendment but the legislative language "domestic legal union" is novel. It will definitely ban any state recognition of marriage between same-sex couples and civil unions but it's not clear if it would ban the enactment of a limited statewide domestic partnership statute.NC Anti-Gay Constitutional Amendment

WATCH: Prop 8 Oral Arguments in CA Sup Ct

There is also excellent analysis of yesterday's California Supreme Court oral arguments (featuring newly minted Justice Goodwin Liu) available at TowleRoad.

Goodwin Liu Likely To Join CA Sup Ct For Perry

2008's Proposition 8 is in court twice in the next two weeks. Last Monday, oral arguments were heard about whether the extant video tapes of testimony in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case should be released to the public. The judge, federal district court judge James Ware announced afterwards that he would not "delay very long" in issuing a ruling. Which the heterosexual supremacists will almost certainly appeal anyway.

Next Tuesday, September 6 oral arguments will be held before the California Supreme Court in a very important case which will determine who exactly has "judicial standing" under California law to defend a voter-approved initiative (like Proposition 8) when the executive branch officers (Governor and Attorney General) have declined to do so.

Happily, Governor Brown recently nominated marriage-equality supporting University of California, Berkeley law professor Goodwin Liu to the California Supreme Court. It looks very likely that Professor Liu will join the court before Tuesday and participate in the oral arguments in the Perry v Brown case. There is no Republican neanderthal filibuster to prevent Liu from joining this court, unlike his unsuccessful path to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Instead he just needs to get the approval of the 3-member Commission on Judicial Appointments, and then he will be up for election for a 12-year term at the next statewide general election.

Cal Sup Ct Prop 8 Arguments To Be Televised Live

Last week I told you that the California Supreme Court had set oral arguments in "the Prop 8 case" (Perry v. Brown) for September 6, 2011 at 10am. This week comes news that those oral arguments will be televised live!

Online newspaper SF Appeal has the deets:

In January, a panel of the appeals court said that federal law, as defined in a 1997 Supreme Court decision, doesn't seem to allow sponsors to defend an initiative when state officials refuse to do so.

But the appeals panel said there might be a right under state law, and asked the California Supreme Court to step in and decide that issue.

The seven-member state high court will hear one hour of arguments in its State Building courtroom on Sept. 6 and then will have 90 days to issue a written ruling.

Court spokeswoman Lynn Holton said that because of public interest in the case, the court has approved a live statewide television broadcast of the arguments on the California Channel, a public affairs network.

If the state court eventually rules that the sponsors have standing, or the right to appeal, the case will then go back to the 9th Circuit for review of Walker's decision, a process that might take several more months.

But the federal appeals court said earlier this year that if the sponsors lack legal standing, the federal court would be required to dismiss the appeal.

Hat/tip to Wonder Man

CA Sup Ct Sets Prop 8 Case Oral Arguments Date: 9/6/2011

Good news! The California Supreme Court has finally set a date of September 6 at 10:00am for the oral arguments in the Perry v. Brown lawsuit (informally known as "The Proposition 8 case") in which the question at hand is a very limited one. Namely,

Whether under Article II, Section 8 of the California Constitution, or otherwise under California law, the official proponents of an initiative measure possess either a particularized interest in the initiative's validity or the authority to assert the State's interest in the initiative's validity, which would enable them to defend the constitutionality of the initiative upon its adoption or appeal a judgment invalidating the initiative, when the public officials charged with that duty refuse to do so.

Although the question is limited, the stakes are not. If the state Supreme Court rules, most likely within 90 days of oral arguments, that the heterosexual supremacists who drafted and promulgated Proposition 8 now have no legal standing to defend its constitutionality, it is very likely a 3-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will follow that decision and rule that the Proposition 8 proponents have no standing to defend the measure in federal court, either.

In that case, the lower court's decision would go into effect and federal Judge Vaughn Walker's brilliant ruling determining that Proposition 8 violates the United States Constitution would go into effect. Of course the bad guys would probably appeal to the Suprem Court but since the case would only be about California (and California law) it is unlikely that SCOTUS would take the case. There is a possibility that SCOTUS would take the appeal to try to clarify once and for all whether proponents of state ballot measures who are not named plaintiffs in lawsuits have a right to continue appeals when the named plaintiffs fail to appeal but there's already a decision called Arizona for Official English vs Arizona in which SCOTUS basically says you need a particularized interest under state law in order to pursue a federal appeal. And it is precisely that question of whether a particularized interest exists under California law that the California Supreme Court will decided, by the end of 2011.

Another wrinkle is that the 7-member Supreme Court has recently lost its most pro-gay member, Carlos Moreno, and Governor Brown only announced his replacement, Goodwin Liu, who is probably as similarly pro-equality as Moreno, this week. If Liu is not on the court by September 6th, the court will probably name a state appellate judge to hear oral arguments and participate in the decision.

Hang on to your hats, folks, it's gonna be a bumpy ride!

Heterosexual Supremacists Appeal Judge Ware Ruling

Good grief! The heterosexual supremacists who believe that they are "defending marriage" by supporting Proposition 8 in federal court have appealed Federal District Court Judge James Ware's decision denying their motion to vacate Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling which struck down the measure.

The San Francisco Examiner says:

Attorneys for Prop. 8 filed their appeal this afternoon before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the same court that is hearing an appeal of Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling last August that the law unconstitutionally violated the civil rights of gays and lesbians.

Earlier this year, Prop. 8 sponsors had asked Ware, Walker’s replacement as chief justice, to throw out Walker’s ruling because of an interview he did with reporters in April, after his retirement, during which he discussed his long-term relationship with a gay man. They argued that Walker should have disclosed the relationship and whether he intended to marry before last year’s trial.

Attorneys for the same-sex couples who sued over Prop. 8 argued at the time that the motion was “frivolous” and “offensive.”

Ware denied the motion, saying there was no federal precedent for disqualifying a judge solely because he shares a characteristic, such as sexual orientation, with a litigant.

It should be interesting to see which case they lose first, the Perry v Schwarzenegger lawsuit (the appeal of Judge Ware's ruling) or the Perry v Brown lawsuit (the appeal of Judge Walker's ruling). I expect they will lose them both.

Judge Ware To Rule On Prop 8 Motion To Vacate Tomorrow

Federal judge James Ware, chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, says he will rule tomorrow on a desperate motion to vacate last year's decision in Perry v. Schwarznegger striking down Proposition 8 as unconstitutional because the federal judge who issued it, Vaughn Walker, is openly gay and should have disclosed that fact at the time. Walker was previously chief judge of the same district but retired at the end of February 2011.

The motion by the heterosexual supremacist proponents of Proposition 8 has been widely ridiculed by the vast majority of legal experts and on the editorial pages of major newspapers.

It should be a delightful to read Judge James Ware's decision tomorrow. In other news, the judge has also said that he will deny the motion of the proponents to attempt to collect all the videos of the trial's witnesses and order them destroyed. Our side is arguing that the testimony is  a public record (the transcripts are available from the court) and that the entire video record should be released. There is some important, powerful testimony from expert witnesses explaining the nature of marriage and demolishing the arguments of the heterosexual supremacists that they would dearly not like to get into public view. I dearly hope the videos of the Prop 8 trial "leak" at some point in the future.

WATCH: Olson/Boies Tribute To Loving v. Virginia

June 12 is the 44th anniversary of the unanimous Loving v. Virginia United States Supreme Court case which overturned all state-enacted bans on interracial marriages. David Boies and Ted Olson are the lead attorneys in the federal lawsuit against Proposition 8, a 2008 California ballot measure which bans same-sex marriage. They have recorded a special video tribute acknowledging the significance of the Loving decision, and its potential impacyt on the Perry v. Brown case.

Hat/tip to TowleRoad.