Box Turtle Bulletin
News and commentary about the anti-gay lobby“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
News and commentary about the anti-gay lobbyJuly 8th, 2009
The American Foundation for Equal Rights has released a letter they wrote to the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal, and the ACLU of Southern California, asking the three groups not to intervene in the Boies and Olson challenge to California’s Prop 8 in federal court. They recounted the many ways in which the three groups had previously opposed the lawsuit and raise a very legitimate concern now that those groups want to enter the lawsuit on the side of the plaintiffs:
In public and private, you have made it unmistakably clear that you strongly disagree with our legal strategy to challenge Prop. 8 as a violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution…. Having gone to such great lengths to dissuade us from filing suit and to tar this case in the press, it seems likely that your misgivings about our strategy will be reflected—either subtly or overtly—in your actions in court.
The letter provides an interesting detail surrounding the amicus briefs filed in the case calling for Prop 8 to be declared unconstitutional. According to the letter:
Even after you filed an amicus curiae brief urging the district court to grant our motion for a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of Prop. 8, you refused to characterize your position as one of “support.” Indeed, Jennifer Pizer of Lambda Legal went so far as to insist that we alter a press release that described your amicus curiae brief as “supporting” our suit. In response, we issued a second release addressing her concerns.
The letter also details several instances in which the Boies and Olsen team and AFER reached out to the three groups. After all that, AFER says that they “remain willing to work closely” with them, but not as co-council:
Your intervention would create a complex, multi-party proceeding that would inevitably be hampered by procedural inefficiencies that are directly at odds with our goal—and the goal of Chief Judge Walker—of securing an expeditious, efficient, and inexpensive resolution to the district court proceedings. As a result of your intervention, we could be mired in procedurally convoluted pre-trial maneuvering for years—while gay and lesbian individuals in California continue to suffer the daily indignity of being denied their federal constitutional right to marry the person of their choosing. … Delaying equal marriage rights in California serves none of our interests.
[Hat tip: Rex Wockner]
The Letter from AFER to NCLR, Lambda Legal, and the ACLU
July 8, 2009
Kate Kendell
National Center for Lesbian Rights
870 Market Street, Suite 370
San Francisco, CA 94102
Jennifer Pizer
Lambda Legal
Western Regional Office
3325 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1300
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Mark Rosenbaum
ACLU of Southern California
1313 W. 8th Street
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Dear Kate, Jennifer and Mark:
On behalf of the plaintiffs and our board, donors and supporters, I am writing to ask that you not intervene in Perry v. Schwarzenegger.
Given our willingness to collaborate with you, and your efforts to undercut this case, we were surprised and disappointed when we became aware of your desire to intervene.
You have unrelentingly and unequivocally acted to undermine this case even before it was filed. In light of this, it is inconceivable that you would zealously and effectively litigate this case if you were successful in intervening. Therefore, we will vigorously oppose any motion to intervene.
In public and private, you have made it unmistakably clear that you strongly disagree with our legal strategy to challenge Prop. 8 as a violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution. Your strident criticism of our suit has been constant:
Even after you filed an amicus curiae brief urging the district court to grant our motion for a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of Prop. 8, you refused to characterize your position as one of “support.” Indeed, Jennifer Pizer of Lambda Legal went so far as to insist that we alter a press release that described your amicus curiae brief as “supporting” our suit. In response, we issued a second release addressing her concerns.
Having gone to such great lengths to dissuade us from filing suit and to tar this case in the press, it seems likely that your misgivings about our strategy will be reflected—either subtly or overtly—in your actions in court.
Despite your well-publicized hostility toward filing suit in federal court, we actively sought out your advice and counsel, and have incorporated it on many occasions. We value your leadership, experience and expertise on the issue of marriage equality. Thus, from the outset, we have sought to stand together with you, shoulder to shoulder, in this battle. Some examples:
Regrettably, you embarked on a public and private campaign to undermine our efforts to vindicate the federal constitutional rights of California\’s gay and lesbian residents. We nevertheless remain willing to work closely with you at all stages of this case and welcome your continued participation in the district court proceedings as an amicus curiae.
But we cannot and will not support your motion to intervene. Your intervention would create a complex, multi-party proceeding that would inevitably be hampered by procedural inefficiencies that are directly at odds with our goal—and the goal of Chief Judge Walker—of securing an expeditious, efficient, and inexpensive resolution to the district court proceedings. As a result of your intervention, we could be mired in procedurally convoluted pre-trial maneuvering for years—while gay and lesbian individuals in California continue to suffer the daily indignity of being denied their federal constitutional right to marry the person of their choosing. Such potentially interminable delay is antithetical to the values on which your organization was founded and for which you and your supporters have fought so tirelessly.
Delaying equal marriage rights in California serves none of our interests.
Again, we continue to welcome your input and advice as we move forward in this case. We look forward to working with you to resolve this issue and bring the focus back to the constitutional issues at hand.
Sincerely,
Chad H. Griffin
Board President
Latest Posts
Featured Reports
In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.
When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.
In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.
On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.
Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"
At last, the truth can now be told.
Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!
And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.
Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.
Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.
Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.
The FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.
“Google” is a trademark of Google Inc.
© Box Turtle Bulletin. All Rights Reserved.
Posts 
Posts via daily email:
Lindoro Almaviva
July 8th, 2009
Bravo!
As I said in the last post, these organizations are battling the perception that they have become part of the problem by embracing the status quo. Now they are making desperate attempts to jump in the wagon so they get credit if this lawsuit is successful.
I say they had their chance and wasted it, now it is time for fresh blood to take a stab at it.
timothy kincaid
July 8th, 2009
sadly, i suspect that the groups seeking to intervene are well aware that their involvement would delay and drag out the process. in fact i would not be surprised if that is the motivation behind their effort – an attempt to delay the case long enough for either the constituency of the court to change or for prop 8 to be reversed by vote and therefore invalidating the case.
Bill Herrmann
July 9th, 2009
There’s nothing I can add to the two previous comments – I agree wholeheartedly with them; they express my thoughts completely. But I still feel compelled to add a comment, to say something about these groups which have drug their feet too long on important matters while sucking up to the establishment only to get mere crumbs of cocktail parties and relocation reimbursements.
KipEsquire
July 9th, 2009
I’m still quite ambivalent (i.e., not entirely hostile) to the Olson/Boies lawsuit.
Having said that: Every LGBT legal victory of any significance whatsoever has been at the hands of Lambda Legal. Every single one. To call them “part of the problem” is to display a total — TOTAL — ignorance of the issue and of history.
Meanwhile: intervention is a matter of right. You either have a legal right to intervene or you don’t. What the original parties may favor or oppose is totally irrelvent.
By the same token, a merit brief is known as an amicus curiae — “friend of the COURT.” It says nothing about being a “friend of the plaintiff.”
Burr
July 9th, 2009
Agreed. I don’t understand the smearing of LL. While they may be late to the party, they are a valuable resource.
I’m not too concerned about the process as long as we get some passionate and effective advocacy.
tristram
July 9th, 2009
KipEsquire asserted that: “Every LGBT legal victory of any significance whatsoever has been at the hands of Lambda Legal. Every single one.”
That gives GLAD (not to be confused with GLAAD) somewhat short shrift. They have won a few court cases, including one called ‘Goodridge’ that some consider significant. Not to diminish the accomplishments of LL (for which I have great respect).
Mike Airhart
July 10th, 2009
The mess in California is due, in part, to Equality California recklessly pursuing an arrogant campaign without seeking the support of a diverse and experienced corps of peers around the state.
It now seems that Boies and Olsen are doing the same — rejecting the high-caliber experience and smart legal reasoning of the three groups. Faced with conservative federal courts, solid precedents must be established before the arguments made by Boies and Olsen will have sturdy foundation to stand upon.
Mike Airhart
July 10th, 2009
So B&O have hired political consultants to smear the three successful GLBT organizations.
From the Washington Post:
Griffin’s behavior on behalf of B&O is territorial and childish — not at all constructive.
Timothy Kincaid
July 10th, 2009
Griffin is not a “hired political consultant” of Olson and Boies. He is the organizer and originator of the lawsuit and the head of AFER.
He is the one who originally contacted Ted Olson.
BobbiCW
July 10th, 2009
When this lawsuit was first announced I was dumbfounded. Whoever heard of straight lawyers fighting FOR our rights? It was inconceivable! I didn’t trust them and was, in fact, suspicious of them and their motives. And given that one of these lawyers actually fought for Bush I was willing to believe that they waded into the Prop 8 mire with the sole purpose of setting back equal marriage for decades.
Although the groups who had been fighting for us for years never said it specifically, I assumed that they felt the same way I did. I was happy that they were doing everything possible to stop the lawsuit in its tracks.
Zoom ahead to today and the growing suspicion that B&O might, just might, actually be on the level. If that’s really the case then I want the groups who know the most about the subject helping.
I realize that it looks to B&O like we’re jumping on the bandwagon. But it seems to me like they’re ignoring the reality we’ve lived with for centuries — straight lawyers have never had our best interests at heart. They are looked on as the enemy…for good reason. And it takes time for any straight lawyer with a good heart to overcome that perception.
Now they’ve got their back up and are willing to cut off their noses out of spite. They need to walk a mile in our shoes.
Leave A Comment