We had a server outage, and we're rebuilding the site. Some of the site features won't work. Thank you for your patience.
imc indymedia

Los Angeles Indymedia : Activist News

white themeblack themered themetheme help
About Us Contact Us Calendar Publish RSS
latest news
best of news




A-Infos Radio

Indymedia On Air

Dope-X-Resistance-LA List


IMC Network:

Original Cities

www.indymedia.org africa: ambazonia canarias estrecho / madiaq kenya nigeria south africa canada: hamilton london, ontario maritimes montreal ontario ottawa quebec thunder bay vancouver victoria windsor winnipeg east asia: burma jakarta japan korea manila qc europe: abruzzo alacant andorra antwerpen armenia athens austria barcelona belarus belgium belgrade bristol brussels bulgaria calabria croatia cyprus emilia-romagna estrecho / madiaq euskal herria galiza germany grenoble hungary ireland istanbul italy la plana liege liguria lille linksunten lombardia london madrid malta marseille nantes napoli netherlands nice northern england norway oost-vlaanderen paris/Île-de-france patras piemonte poland portugal roma romania russia saint-petersburg scotland sverige switzerland thessaloniki torun toscana toulouse ukraine united kingdom valencia latin america: argentina bolivia chiapas chile chile sur cmi brasil colombia ecuador mexico peru puerto rico qollasuyu rosario santiago tijuana uruguay valparaiso venezuela venezuela oceania: adelaide aotearoa brisbane burma darwin jakarta manila melbourne perth qc sydney south asia: india mumbai united states: arizona arkansas asheville atlanta austin baltimore big muddy binghamton boston buffalo charlottesville chicago cleveland colorado columbus dc hawaii houston hudson mohawk kansas city la madison maine miami michigan milwaukee minneapolis/st. paul new hampshire new jersey new mexico new orleans north carolina north texas nyc oklahoma philadelphia pittsburgh portland richmond rochester rogue valley saint louis san diego san francisco san francisco bay area santa barbara santa cruz, ca sarasota seattle tampa bay tennessee urbana-champaign vermont western mass worcester west asia: armenia beirut israel palestine process: fbi/legal updates mailing lists process & imc docs tech volunteer projects: print radio satellite tv video regions: oceania united states topics: biotech

Surviving Cities

www.indymedia.org africa: canada: quebec east asia: japan europe: athens barcelona belgium bristol brussels cyprus germany grenoble ireland istanbul lille linksunten nantes netherlands norway portugal united kingdom latin america: argentina cmi brasil rosario oceania: aotearoa united states: austin big muddy binghamton boston chicago columbus la michigan nyc portland rochester saint louis san diego san francisco bay area santa cruz, ca tennessee urbana-champaign worcester west asia: palestine process: fbi/legal updates process & imc docs projects: radio satellite tv
printable version - js reader version - view hidden posts - tags and related articles

The Long and Winding Road of Marriage Equality Litigation

by Mark Gabrish Conlan/Zenger's Newsmagazine Saturday, Aug. 06, 2011 at 10:00 PM
mgconlan@earthlink.net (619) 688-1886 P. O. Box 50134, San Diego, CA 92165

Seeking social change through litigation is not for the faint-hearted ? or the impatient. At the July 28 meeting of the predominantly Queer San Diego Democratic Club, attorney Jason Molnar of the Southern Poverty Law Center talked about the history of marriage equality litigation and brought two flow charts showing the twisted route it's already taken through the courts ? and it's likely to get even more twisted before the U.S. Supreme Court rules one way or the other.

The Long and Winding...
molnar.a.jpg, image/jpeg, 600x845

The Long and Winding Road of Marriage Equality Litigation

Attorney Molnar Explains the Progress of the Prop. 8 Cases


Copyright 2011 by Mark Gabrish Conlan for Zengers Newsmagazine All rights reserved

Seeking social change through litigation is not for the faint-hearted or for the impatient. At the June 25 meeting of the predominantly Queer San Diego Democratic Club, attorney Matt Stephens made that point when he began his presentation on anti-choice litigation by mentioning that the case challenging the Boy Scouts sweetheart lease deals on San Diego land was filed in 1999, has sat in the Court of Appeals since 2006, and was now at risk of being thrown out because a hostile Appeals Court judge wants to rule it moot because the original plaintiffs are now too old to be Boy Scouts. Likewise, at the clubs next meeting on July 28, attorney Jason Molnar, who got involved in Californias marriage equality cases as a staff lawyer for the Southern Poverty Law Center, brought along two hand-drawn flow charts, each over 20 feet long, detailing the convoluted history of California law on same-sex marriage since 2004.

That, Molnar explained, was the year Gavin Newsom, then mayor of San Francisco and now Californias lieutenant governor, took advantage of San Franciscos unique status as both a city and county and unilaterally ordered his city clerk to grant marriage licenses to same-sex and opposite-sex couples equally. This directly contradicted Proposition 22, passed by California voters in March 2000 with 61 percent of the vote, which limited marriage to one man and one woman. Proposition 22, passed in reaction to the possibility that Hawaii or some other state might allow same-sex couples to marry (Hawaiis supreme court made such a decision in 1996 but the states voters overruled it in 1999 before it could take effect), was the predecessor to 2008s Proposition 8 but was merely an initiative statute, not an amendment to the state constitution.

Within a month of the start of same-sex marriages in San Francisco in February 2004, the California Supreme Court ruled that Newsom had exceeded his authority and the marriages were null and void. However, Molnar explained, the court also held that the city and county of San Francisco was free to bring a suit challenging [the constitutionality of] the marriage laws. That suit won at the trial level, lost at the state appeals court and won at the California Supreme Court by a 4-3 vote in May 2008. Anti-marriage groups, largely funded by the Mormon church and the Roman Catholic organization Knights of Columbus, responded by putting Proposition 8 on the November 2008 ballot, which was identical to Proposition 22 except that it amended the state constitution. GAME OVER! read Molnars flow chart on the state level though in fact there was one more state supreme court hearing the next year, after which the court found that nothing in the California constitution blocked Proposition 8 but also ruled that it didnt affect the validity of the estimated 18,000 same-sex marriages (including Molnars to his partner) performed in California before it passed.

The California Supreme Courts ruling on same-sex marriage also said something else of great importance to the Queer community, Molnar explained. It found that Gays were a suspect class, he said, and thereby laws discriminating against them must be subject to strict scrutiny, the highest standard of civil-rights review and one the federal courts have so far only extended to laws that discriminate on race. The passage of Proposition 8 eliminated the state constitutional basis for recognizing same-sex marriage but did not affect the strict scrutiny standard for all other laws discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.

With Proposition 8 in place, Molnar said, the only way for Californians to seek marriage equality through litigation was to file a lawsuit in federal court and challenge it as a violation of the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. There was a big debate in the Gay community on whether we should fight this at the federal level, Molnar recalled. In the end, the decision didnt rest with the Queer community leadership; attorneys Ted Olson and David Boies, who had been on opposite sides of the infamous 2000 case of Bush v. Gore that decided that years Presidential election, decided to recruit plaintiffs from San Francisco and Los Angeles for a federal suit. As they had done during the state level, the Southern Poverty Law Center had Molnar draft an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief in the federal case, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, which argued that Proposition 8 subjected the minority to the tyranny of the majority.

The case was assigned randomly, Molnar insisted to federal judge Vaughn Walker, who happened to be a Gay man in a long-term relationship. But that doesnt matter, Molnar said. What did matter was the way Walker ran the actual trial. Unlike most constitutional cases, which turn on matters of law and interpretation, Walker set out to build a record based on facts. He made both sides put on evidence and witnesses, Molnar recalled. The other side ended up with just two witnesses [as opposed to the 17 called in favor of marriage equality], and one was better for us than them. It took five months, and Walker firmly rejected Prop. 8. Walker found that Prop. 8 didnt even meet the rational-basis test the weakest standard for a civil-rights case and he also said, Plaintiffs do not seek a new right. They want Californians to recognize their relationships for what they are.

Walker, Molnar stated, also said Prop. 8 places the force of law behind stigmas about Gays and Lesbians, including that Gays and Lesbians are not as good and they dont form relationships comparable to those of heterosexuals. Walkers opinion included 80 Findings of Fact which was significant because in a non-jury trial the judge is the finder of fact as well as the arbiter of law, and appeals courts are not supposed to question the finder of facts findings, only whether the law was correctly applied and, if the original judge made a mistake in his or her application of the law, whether that would have affected the outcome (what the law calls reversible error). Walkers decision, Molnar said, was a smashing victory for marriage equality and Queer rights in general.

Instead, Molnar said, its been portrayed as a defeat because almost as soon as he made the decision, Walker issued a stay a delay in making it effective which the Court of Appeals later confirmed. This is procedural, not substantive, Molnar explained, but it confuses a lot of people in our community and makes them think were losing when were actually winning. Molnar also pointed to two other important things that happened before the case got to the Ninth Circuit of the federal appeals-court system, its next legal stop. One was that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the trial could not be televised live as Walker had wanted to do; he had the trial videotaped but so far only a handful of law students have actually seen any of the footage.

The other development was the decision of California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and his successor, Jerry Brown, not to appeal the case. Schwarzenegger and Brown, his attorney general, had both chosen not to defend Prop. 8 in the trial before Judge Walker and had allowed the initiatives sponsors, Protect Marriage, to represent it in Walkers courtroom. But the appeals court questioned whether the sponsors had standing that is, a right to appeal because they hadnt established that they would personally be harmed by allowing same-sex marriages to occur in California. Then the staff of the Imperial County clerk stepped and argued that they had standing because if Walkers decision stood, theyd have to perform same-sex marriages.

Instead of deciding the case, either on standing or on the merits, the appeals court punted, sending it back to the California Supreme Court for a ruling on whether state law allows initiative sponsors to appeal a decision invalidating their initiative if the government officials refuse to do so. Molnars chart was originally open-ended on when the California Supreme Court would actually hear that case, but before the meeting the Court scheduled a date September 6, 2011 and he revised his chart to insert the date. Kamala Harris, who replaced Brown as state attorney general when Brown replaced Schwarzenegger as governor, is on the same page as her predecessor and will argue before the state supreme court that the proponents dont have standing. If the California Supreme Court says they have standing, the 9th Circuit [federal appeals court] hears it on the merits, Molnar said. If not, [the proponents] can appeal.

According to Molnar, Boies and Olson dont want their case decided on the standing issue. They want to win on the merits, he explained. Itll probably be 90 days after the [September 6] hearing that the standing issue will be resolved. Its possible the court will rule there is no one with standing, and unless the U.S. Supreme Court intervenes, Walker is upheld. It would be a victory, but a narrow one; it would probably allow marriages in California but would not address it in the rest of the country. Other legal scholars have suggested that a ruling on standing might not even allow same-sex marriage throughout California; the anti-marriage groups are expected to argue that if they dont have standing to appeal, Judge Walkers ruling should be confined just to San Francisco and Los Angeles counties because thats where the plaintiffs in the case were from.

The goal of Olson and Boies throughout the litigation has been the United States Supreme Court and one Supreme Court justice, Anthony Kennedy, in particular. They, and most Court watchers, expect the other Republican justices John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas to oppose marriage equality, and the Democratic justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan to support it. They pinned their hopes on Kennedy not only because hes the swing vote but because he wrote the majority opinions in the two most important decisions for Queer rights the U.S. Supreme Court has ever made: Romer v. Evans (1996), which declared an anti-Queer initiative in Colorado unconstitutional; and Lawrence v. Texas (2003), which threw out all state laws against sodomy.

Kennedy, Molnar noted, also wrote a more recent pro-Queer opinion in Christian Legal Society v. Hastings (2010), in which a Christian student group at Hastings College of the Law, a University of California-affiliated school in San Francisco, sought official recognition from the school administration even though they discriminated against Queers. By a 5-4 vote, with Kennedy again writing for the Court, they ruled the school didnt have to recognize an openly discriminatory group like the Christian Legal Society. On the other hand, Kennedy provided the swing vote in the case that allowed the Boy Scouts of America to continue to discriminate against Queers and atheists on the ground that theyre a private religious organization, and it was he who wrote the opinion forbidding Judge Walker from telecasting the Prop. 8 trial.

Audience members asked whether Californias domestic partnership law is an adequate substitute for marriage. Its marriage apartheid, Molnar answered. Im domestically partnered does not have the same meaning as Im married. He also briefly discussed the ongoing court challenges to the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DoMA), passed in 1996, which denied federal recognition and benefits to any same-sex couple married in a state that allowed it. And he fielded a question about whether polygamists or polyamorists could take advantage of a pro-marriage equality ruling at the U.S. Supreme Court by calling it a slippery slope and saying his position is that marriage is between two consenting adults. He did not discuss the likelihood that a U.S. Supreme Court decision invalidating Prop. 8 and declaring marriage equality nationwide would energize the campaign for a Federal Marriage Amendment banning same-sex marriages nationwide.

Molnar had spoken in San Diego at least once before, at a town-hall meeting June 3 sponsored by Equality California (EQCA) to discuss whether to put our own initiative on the November 2012 ballot to repeal Proposition 8 and restore marriage equality in California. Then hed kept on his poker face and hadnt revealed whether he thought that was a good idea. At the San Diego Democratic Club July 28 he made it clear he was against it because theres really nothing to gain. If we win [at the court level], its moot. If theres no issue to be decided, theres no case. The other alternative is if we lose, it doesnt look good and we have to go through all the [anti-Queer] commercials again.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments

Jason Molnar and his flow charts

by Mark Gabrish Conlan/Zenger's Newsmagazine Saturday, Aug. 06, 2011 at 10:00 PM
mgconlan@earthlink.net (619) 688-1886 P. O. Box 50134, San Diego, CA 92165

Jason Molnar and his...
molnar_and_charts.a.jpg, image/jpeg, 600x346

Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments

© 2000-2018 Los Angeles Independent Media Center. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by the Los Angeles Independent Media Center. Running sf-active v0.9.4 Disclaimer | Privacy