Here Comes the Federal Lawsuit!

Well, we all knew it would come to this... the Supreme Court will eventually have to weigh in on this issue.

As of Wednesday, May 27th, two legal eagles from the brand new Equal Rights Foundation are making a federal challenge of today's CA S Court ruling, targeted initially at the U.S. District Court with the hopes of making it up to the S Court.

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS19423+27-May-2009+PRN20090527

The Foundation's founders are two famous attorneys who battled each other in the Gore vs. Bush case in 2000. Thus far, refreshingly, the Foundation is not billed as liberal or conservative but simply "equal rights."

Should be interesting to see how this one develops...since it's not coming from "homosexual activists..." or "activist judges". Yet another stereotype in the growing coalition for equality -- including judges in Iowa and legislators in Vermont - are shattered.

Lack of Moral Leadership

Today we saw two examples of a lack of moral leadership, first on the part of the California Supreme Court, which backtracked on its bold and affirming equal rights ruling in May 2008, and then by Obama, who was noticeably quiet about this issue when he promised to fight for equal rights on the campaign trail.

1) In May, the CA Supreme Court said that discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation falls is subject to "strict scrutiny," where

...to demonstrate the constitutional validity of a challenged statutory
classification the state must establish (1) that the state interest intended to be served by the differential treatment not only is a constitutionally legitimate interest, but is a compelling state interest, and (2) that the differential treatment not only is reasonably related to but is necessary to serve that compelling state interest.

Prop 8 reversed the word "marriage" for gays, who get the same domestic partnership rights in CA, but did not remove the Court's job to apply the equal protection of the law to all its citizens. And it violated the Court's fundamental job -- to provide all citizens with equal protection. Was the Court afraid of a political backlash? Would they support all amendments that were similarly targeted at taking away a minority group's rights? Would it be okay if Californians voted to raise the taxes on Mormans in the state? Or deny driver's licenses to left-handed red-heads?

2) Obama had no press release prepared on this decision, which was anticipated today and which was expected to be ruled exactly as it was. Note that the timing of the announcement about Sotomayor was scheduled around the same time as Prop 8 came out. Coincidence?

Watch these two videos -- one of a lack of statement and the other of his promises on the campaign trail to fight hard for LGBT equality.

http://www.examiner.com/x-1916-Sex--Relationships-Examiner~y2009m5d26-Obama-reaction-to-California-Supreme-Court-ruling-on-Prop-8-Nada
I'd like to see Obama repay his debt for the LGBT Americans, including myself, who worked for his campaign and stand with a Constitution and American flags behind him (as he did last week when he made his unpopular case about Guantanamo Bay) and make all the arguments that we need to put our prejudices aside and support the equal treatment of all Americans.

But I'm just dreaming.... with fanciful ideas of hope and change I can believe in...

Gotta love this one!

Not Buying Steele's Fiscal Argument against Marriage Equality

It's fascinating to watch how opponents of marriage equality are changing their arguments to find new, “politically acceptable” arguments to justify discrimination. Michael Steele, the new GOP chairman, is now asserting that allowing gay couples to marry would cost too much for small businesses which offer spousal benefits.

Consider this. People probably waste more money opposing marriage equality than would be required to fund all businesses' spousal benefits for their gay partners!

Steele's argument only draws attention to the fact that gay employees of such small businesses have been paying taxes to support the 1,100 Federal and 400 state spousal benefits of their straight colleagues. These are all benefits that gay partners are denied at the Federal level and in most states. At their own expense, gay employees have been saving their businesses money, while straight employees incur the lion’s share of costs.

Steele’s cost argument is as ludicrous as another new argument, that allowing same-sex marriage would “victimize” religious people who choose to serve the public and lose their right to discriminate. See the parody videos of the National Organization for Marriage's commercial in an earlier blog below.

Watch the silly arguments rise and fall as more Americans see same-sex marriage for what it is: a non-threat and simple issue of justice and equality.