Subscribe to Breaking News
Loading ...Cathcart: Never give up
In the spirit of the season, here are Lambda Legal’s New Year’s resolutions:
2. Stand up against antigay legal attacks; and
3. Never give up.
In the final weeks of 2008, Lambda Legal won four legal victories that may not have made a lot of headlines, but make a difference in the lives of the people we represent and the laws that affect all of us. As people packed airports and highways on the way to celebrate holidays with family and friends, courts in Louisiana, New York and two courts in Ohio said “no” to antigay challenges and “yes” to laws that protect same-sex couples and the children of LGBT parents.
We are building a sturdy house, brick by brick and state by state. In some states, like Louisiana and Ohio, we are building protections for the children of same-sex parents even though the constitutions in those states have been amended to include discriminatory language that prohibits marriage for same–sex couples.
And in New York, we continue to work with state officials and in the courts to make clear that state law requires recognition of out-of-state marriages of same–sex couples.
Our opponents — the people and organizations who promote prejudice and try to roll back laws that promote equality — are well-funded and relentless.
In New York, for example, we have repeatedly defeated the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), which has gone to court in four cases to try to stop the state from recognizing legal out-of-state marriages of same-sex couples. ADF has an annual budget of over $30 million — more than twice our budget — but we have tireless, passionate attorneys and the law on our side.
And we all know the story in California: Tens of millions of dollars were spent by our opponents on scare tactics and misrepresentations to take away our right to marry. We and our partners are standing up against this attack because we believe that Prop 8 is invalid under the California Constitution. In a stunning turn of events, California Attorney General Jerry Brown also concluded that Prop 8 is invalid and argued that it should not be allowed to stand. This week, Lambda Legal, NCLR and the ACLU filed our brief to the California Supreme Court.
In this historic battle for marriage equality, we are not giving in or giving up. In battles all across the country — not only for marriage equality and family protection, but also for employment rights, the rights of LGBTQ youth, health care fairness, HIV rights and the rights of transgender people — we are in it for the long haul.
Making headlines is nice, but making change is the most important goal. We are beginning 2009 with the same spirit and resolve with which we ended 2008 — making strategic choices so that our work will have the greatest impact, defending equality against attacks and backlash, and standing firm. I promise that these are resolutions we will keep.
Kevin Cathcart is Lambda Legal Executive Director.
I have an idea…..If the only way we are going to get our rights is through the courts then why don’t we flood the system? My partner and I live and pay substantial taxes in DuPage county of Illinois. We can go to Mass. or Conn. to get married but that will mean nothing when we get back home as would be the case for most couples. What if we all go to our respective state agencies that issue marriage licenses and politely ask for one and then when denied, Lambda Legal comes up with a Class Action Lawsuit naming us all as plantiffs? Just a thought..
I do not understand. I thought the equal protection (or related) clauses of state constitutions formed the basis for several of the court rulings requiring same-sex marriage. For those states where marriage is now defined constitutionally as between one man and one woman, why are we not seeking injunctions to prohibit the state from participation in marriage alltogether since marriage is now, by definition, a violation of those equal protection clauses. In other words, enjoin the state from issuing marriage licenses and from recognizing marriage in all of its statutes??
Not a lawyer, but as far as I know, California was the ONLY state to promulgate that SSM is a CIVIL RIGHT. In other states it is based on other facets of their Constitutions.
Dan Costello is on to something. We must legally challenge each of the states that have ALTERED their Constitutions to TAKE INALIENABLE, FUNDAMENTAL GUARANTEED RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS AWAY FROM ONE GROUP OF PEOPLE. These propositions and amendments are all unconstitutional and must be challenged in the courts. We can’t just sit around and let them take our rights away. We must organize, get good legal representation and demand our rights NOT TO BE TAKEN AWAY. The Constitution has given,and guaranteed , us irrevocable rights rights. They can’t be taken away by popular vote, THEY ARE FUNDAMENTAL, THEY ARE THE CONSTITUTION AND THE REPUBLIC which protects us all. We must protect the constitution and our freedoms. We must legally organize. We are not asking for rights, we already have them. We must fight to keep them.
Considering the thousands of years of oppression against homosexuals, we definitely have made great strides in the last 40 to 50 years. It is however, no need to become complacent about our achievements. There is so very much more work to be done while we celebrate the small steps towards full equality and recognition by society as a whole. Who amongst any of us born in the 1950’s and 1960’s ever dreamed that in some jurisdictions we would have the right to legal protections and even the joy of marriage to the person we want to spend the rest of our days with. No, we must never ever give up, for the moment we do, is the moment we will lose everything not only for ourselves but for those future generations who will follow.
The problem is, and this is a big problem Mr. Cathart, that many states have judicial elections rather than appointments. And that could affect the outcomes of your endeavors.
For those who don’t understand: Many judges are subject to campaigning with the general public, which have no idea about the law or rules of court or basically anything. This means they are politicians. As politicians they want to be reelected.
The far right has a very active campaign to elect and reelect conservative justices. Look up the Federalist Society if you don’t believe me. One of their goals is to prevent Gay marriage. Lesbian too. Alright, bisexual and transgendered as well.
These were appointments, but you will get a sense of the movement by the last two US Supreme Court Justices part of the Federalist Society: Chief Roberts and Associate Alito.
I think Dan Costello’s suggestion is worth considering. Basically, the constitutions of several states have equal protection clauses and the like, which guarantee equal marriage rights to everyone. Now, the same constitutions define marriage so that it is a violation of those equal protection clauses. In consequence, those states cannot perform marriages without violating their own constitutions. If they comply with the new definition, they violate the equal protection clause, and vice versa.
Therefore, Dan suggests seeking an injunction that would prohibit states from performing marriages and from recognizing marriage in any of its statutes. For example, suppose a state allows married spouses to receive insurance benefits. Now, if it allows this for same-sex and opposite-sex couples, it violates the new definition of marriage. If it allows it for opposite-sex couples only, it violates the equal protection clause – or possibly the ruling that same-sex marriage must be allowed because of that clause. Therefore, the only option is not to allow any spouses to receive insurance benefits.
It’s troubling, because it seems wrong to deny married couples insurance benefits – yet, same-sex couples have been denied those benefits all along. Our hope would be that the state ends up allowing benefits for all couples, not just opposite-sex married couples. The state might also get out of the marriage business entirely and allow benefits on the basis of a civil partnership.
Another possible concern is that this puts the focus on marriage itself – exactly where the religious right wants it, because most people oppose same-sex marriage. I think it’s important to carefully chose one’s states. What may be doable in New Jersey could cause a harsh backlash in Ohio.
i wont give up im fighting for equality
http://queersunited.blogspot.com
I can not tell you how often I am attacked on YouTube when I say how it is.People are so afraid still to stand up.It’s really sad.
StephStance@youtube
How about a repeal of the Federal level of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)? Such an event has the far radical right wetting themselve. They are desperate for no repeal of the federal level DOMA as its repeal would make a whole range of gay rights come about at a much faster rate. A lot of things are a problem right now because the federal DOMA is the legal rationale for denying recognition of legal foreign and domestic gay marriages at US entry points, denial of social security benefits and veteran’s benefits to surviving spouse in a gay marriage, not respecting the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution that says what is legal (say a particular marriage) in one state means it should be recognized in another state, denial of 1300 or so federal level marriage incidents, benefits, responsibilities to married gay couples, lack of federal recognition in tax law of gay couples, etc even if say their marriages are legal on the state level in Massachusetts or Connecticut and hopefully again in Calfornia if the California Supreme Court overthrows Prop 8.
The repeal of the federal DOMA that is used at the rationale for preventing federal recognition would ease up a lot of things in fairly rapid succession for marriage equality from the US entry points to more equal taxation, to an even more rapid spread of gay marriage through the blue and more moderate of the state that don’t have individual state level DOMAS. And might make the state DOMAS a bit more fulnerable to legal defeat from the courts and from the legislatures. With repeal of the federal level DOMA gay marriage spread would much more rapid and less of a piecemeal process than it is now.