Congrats NY, you are the 6th and Largest state supporting Marriage Equality!

Governor Cuomo has signed the bill passing marriage equality in New York. After the Assembly had voted in favor, it was up to the senate. Here at New York Times you can read the 4 page article on this historic event.

You hear that nation? 6 States. That's 6 down, 44 more to go. With California's legalization of marriage equality just around the corner... we will have only 43 left... (I know I'm an amazing mathematician).

So when California follows in the footsteps of New York, (maybe wearing different shoes) the influence that we have on the western states will be apparent. They will follow, one after another. We will slowly take down this structure of hate and replace it with love... for EVERYONE.

Everyone who wants to get involved in the road to marriage equality can do so by contacting your state officials and demanding it. You can also visit American Foundation for Equal Rights, The Human Rights Campaign, and NOH8 to name a few places you can go. Also you will find a list of all these links at the top right corner of the blog. These pages will offer for you to sign up, sign petitions, etc., when you first join. I strongly urge that you do, you will receive emails updating you any time a new break through occurs and will keep you informed on the road to equality. Also you can follow all three organizations on twitter for live updates from inside the court rooms!

Get involved and place your stamp on full equality in this nation of freedom.

ATTORNEY GENERAL KAMALA HARRIS AMICUS BRIEF

Attorney General Kamala D. Harris submits this brief as amicus curiae pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.520(f)(8). Although the Attorney General, in her official capacity, was a defendant in the underlying case in the United States District Court, she did not appeal the judgment, so she is not a party to the underlying appeal or to these proceedings. But the question certified to this Court by the Ninth Circuit, if answered affirmatively, threatens to intrude on the exercise of discretionary powers that the California Constitution and the Government Code entrust to state officials exercising executive power. Therefore, the Attorney General, whom the Constitution appoints the chief law officer of the state (Cal. Const. art. V, § 13), submits that the correct answer to the certified question is “no.” Standing alone, the role of official proponents in the exercise of the initiative power does not confer on the proponents of a successful initiative a substantive right either to defend that measure or to appeal a judgment invalidating it.
The question certified reveals two basic misunderstandings about the initiative power. First, it confuses the authority and role of “proponents” under California law with the authority and role of “the electors.” The initiative is the power of the electors, as a whole, to propose and adopt or reject laws. (Cal. Const., art. II, § 8.) The initiative power does not belong
1
to the individual, or individuals, who propose a particular initiative. Second, the initiative power is a legislative power of government. As a legislative power, the power of initiative is fully executed on adoption of the measure. And, as a legislative power, the adoption of an initiative measure does not authorize its proponents to exercise any part of the executive power of government, either to enforce the measure, to defend the measure’s validity, or to appeal a decision enjoining its enforcement. The constitutional and statutory authority to act on behalf of the state remains vested in public officials acting in an executive capacity.
Proponents of an initiative measure surely remain interested in its validity once it becomes law. And state courts recognize that interest by liberally granting proponents permissive leave to intervene (and to participate as amicus curiae) in cases challenging the validity of a successful initiative measure. In other cases, the validity of a measure may affect the lives of initiative proponents (or other members of the public) in a personal way that would permit them to sue or to defend their own legal interests in court. But once an initiative measure has become the law of the state – just as with laws passed by the Legislature – only public officials exercising the executive power of government have the legal authority to represent the state’s interest and to decide whether to defend or to appeal an adverse judgment in the name of the state. California law affords an initiative’s proponents no right to defend the validity of a successful initiative measure based only on their role in launching an initiative process.

If you would like to read Kamala Harris' Amicus Brief in full download the pdf file here.

AFER's Release on US District Court Hearing on Prop 8 Case.

US District Court Hears “Offensive” Motion by Prop. 8 Anti-Marriage Forces

June 13, 2011

Judge Ware: You can’t simply assume that a judge who takes an oath to uphold the law and judge fairly is incapable of doing so.

**Ruling Expected Within 24 Hours**

San Francisco, CA – Forty-four years and a day after the United States Supreme Court declared marriage “one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival” (Loving v. Virginia), opponents of marriage equality today again argued that the rights of marriage should not extend to gay and lesbian couples.

Proponents of Prop. 8 argued that because retired US District Court Judge Vaughn Walker – who ruled Prop. 8 unconstitutional in August 2010 – was (and still is) in a relationship with a man during trial, he could not have been impartial and therefore his ruling should be thrown out.

The American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER), the sole sponsors of Perry v Brown, called the move to disqualify Judge Walker “frivolous,” “offensive” and “deeply unfortunate.”

“The Proponents of Prop. 8 today advocated for a sweeping and completely unsupported standard for disqualification that would preclude hundreds of qualified, fair-minded judges from deciding some of the most important issues facing our country,” said Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., counsel for AFER. “Their standard is intended to, and would, prevent gay, lesbian or bisexual judges from impartially presiding over cases involving the rights of same-sex individuals and couples – an offensive suggestion that has been consistently rejected by the courts in similar cases involving race and sex discrimination.”

US District Court Chief Judge James Ware, who presided over today’s hearing, said that he would issue a decision within the next 24 hours.

Proponents argued that because Judge Walker was in a long-term relationship, then the issue of his intent to marry was applicable. Judge Ware said that there were no facts showing that Judge Walker wanted to get married, other than being in a long-term relationship. After lengthy questioning by Judge Ware, Proponents’ attorney Charles Cooper admitted that if Judge Walker didn’t want to get married, then there would be no bias.

Judge Ware said, “You can’t simply assume that a judge who takes an oath to uphold the law and judge fairly is incapable of doing so.”

Experts, judges and editorial boards have called Proponents’ motion to vacate judgment “preposterous,” a “non-issue,” “desperate,” “unthinkable,” and “the worst legal argument of the year.” Richard Painter, Chief White House Ethics lawyer under President George W. Bush, went so far as to call the motion leading to today’s hearing “frivolous” and “unfortunate.”

A second issue discussed at today’s hearing was in regards to the video recordings of the August 2010 trial. Judge Ware said he would rule on the issue of the release of the videotapes at a later date, but denied Proponent’s request to have Plaintiffs’ return their copy of the trial videotape.

Today, AFER released the names of more than 20,000 individuals who signed a petition advocating for the tapes’ release, noting that Proponents’ fierce determination to shield access to the trial videotapes directly conflicts with this nation’s constitutional commitment to a public and open judicial process.

AFER attorney Boutrous argued that releasing the trial videotapes would demonstrate that Proponents received a very fair trial from Judge Walker.

Responding to today’s hearing, Chad Griffin, AFER Board President noted, “Today’s hearing demonstrated yet again that the Proponents of Prop. 8 are extremists who will stop at nothing to keep committed American couples from marrying. They led a campaign that was homophobic and filled with animus. Just as those who opposed inter-racial marriage forty-four years ago, those who oppose the civil rights of gay and lesbian Americans will too find themselves on the wrong side of history.“

Over the past two years, a series of nationwide polls have recorded a strong shift in public opinion, with recent polls demonstrating that a majority of Americans now favor the freedom to marry for gay and lesbian couples. A Washington Post-ABC News poll in March 2011 revealed that 53% of Americans favor marriage for gay and lesbian couples, while Gallup’s recent annual Values and Beliefs poll showed that more Americans support marriage equality than oppose it.

(article source AFER)