Box Turtle Bulletin

CA Gay Marriage Provided by Republican Judges

One of the favorite arguments of anti-gays used to discredit judicial decisions in favor of equality is to dismiss the judges as “liberal activists”. This is why you must vote Republican, they declare.

But history shows that judges are often quite good at setting aside partisan positioning when they are entrusted with the task of measuring whether the law applies equally to all citizens. Often judges appointed by Democrats have ruled conservatively and judges appointed by Republicans have been liberal in their interpretation of the application of law.

Already anti-gays are whining and seeing this as motivation for conservative presidential votes

“It’s hard to see how this will end up helping Democrats,” Amar said before the ruling. “It feeds into a kind of perception that this is what liberal activist judges do.”

But just who are those liberal activist judges that voted for marriage equality in California?

Ronald M. George, (since 1991), Chief Justice (elevated in 1996)
Republican, appointed by Gov. Pete Wilson (R)
First judicial appointment by Gov. Ronald Reagan (R)

Joyce L. Kennard, (since 1989), Associate Justice
Republican, appointed by Gov. George Deukmejian (R)

Carlos R. Moreno, (since 2001), Associate Justice
Democrat, appointed by Gov. Gray Davis (D)
First judicial appointment by Gov. George Deukmejian (R)

Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, (since 1994), Associate Justice
Republican, appointed by Gov. Pete Wilson (R)

Say what they will about this court decision, no one can claim that this was the result of liberal activist Democratic appointments.

Governator Supports Gay Marriage

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger issued a statement on the Supreme Court’s decision. From the San Jose Mercury News.

“I respect the court’s decision and as governor, I will uphold its ruling,” Schwarzenegger said within minutes of the ruling. “Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling.”

California Gets Gay Marriage

UPDATED: See language from the ruling here

By a 4 – 3 vote, the Supreme Court of the State of California has legalized marriage equality.

The court ruled the state’s one man-one woman marriage laws violate the civil rights of same-sex couples.

More information will be provided as details come in. I still don’t know if the out of state restriction was overturned or whether the court’s declared the change immediately effective or is requiring the legislature to do so.

And this is not the final word. We are not yet sure whether a ballot initiative to ban gay marriage in the California Constitution received enough signatures to make it on the ballot in November.

But whatever you are doing right now, stop for a moment to celebrate an important change. Now one of ten Americans live in a state in which gay people are accorded full equality under the law.

It’s A Win! California Supreme Court Rules In Favor of Same Sex Marriage!

Marriage equality has arrived in California (PDF: 469KB/172 pages):

…[W]e conclude that the purpose underlying differential treatment of opposite-sex and same-sex couples embodied in California’s current marriage statutes — the interest in retaining the traditional and well-established definition of marriage — cannot properly be viewed as a compelling state interest for purposes of the equal protection clause, or as necessary to serve such an interest.

A number of factors lead us to this conclusion. First, the exclusion of same-sex couples from the designation of marriage clearly is not necessary in order to afford full protection to all of the rights and benefits that currently are enjoyed by married opposite-sex couples; permitting same-sex couples access to the designation of marriage will not deprive opposite-sex couples of any rights and will not alter the legal framework of the institution of marriage, because same-sex couples who choose to marry will be subject to the same obligations and duties that currently are imposed on married opposite-sex couples. Second, retaining the traditional definition of marriage and affording same-sex couples only a separate and differently named family relationship will, as a realistic matter, impose appreciable harm on same-sex couples and their children, because denying such couples access to the familiar and highly favored designation of marriage is likely to cast doubt on whether the official family relationship of same-sex couples enjoys dignity equal to that of opposite-sex couples. Third, because of the widespread disparagement that gay individuals historically have faced, it is all the more probable that excluding same-sex couples from the legal institution of marriage is likely to be viewed as reflecting an official view that their committed relationships are of lesser stature than the comparable relationships of opposite-sex couples. Finally, retaining the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite-sex couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise — now emphatically rejected by this state — that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects “second-class citizens” who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples. Under these circumstances, we cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest. Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional.

…

Accordingly, in light of the conclusions we reach concerning the constitutional questions brought to us for resolution, we determine that the language of section 300 limiting the designation of marriage to a union “between a man and a woman” is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute, and that the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available both to opposite-sex and same-sex couples. In addition, because the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples imposed by section 308.5 can have no constitutionally permissible effect in light of the constitutional conclusions set forth in this opinion, that provision cannot stand.

Plaintiffs are entitled to the issuance of a writ of mandate directing the appropriate state officials to take all actions necessary to effectuate our ruling in this case so as to ensure that county clerks and other local officials throughout the state, in performing their duty to enforce the marriage statutes in their jurisdictions, apply those provisions in a manner consistent with the decision of this court. Further, as the prevailing parties, plaintiffs are entitled to their costs.

The judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed, and the matter is remanded to that court for further action consistent with this opinion.

Update: The court’s decision was a 4-3 split. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has released the following statement:

I respect the Court’s decision and as Governor, I will uphold its ruling.  Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling.

CA Supreme Court To Issue SSM Decision Tomorrow

That’s the word on the street anyway. Their long-awaited decision is expected to be released tomorrow at 10:00 am PDT. There has been some speculation on what that decision might be, but that was a month ago. We’ll find out soon.

District Attorney on King Case Dismisses Quest’s “Blame the Victim” Defense

Karen Ocamb, writing for the Advocate, interviewed Senior Deputy District Attorney Maeve Fox about the murder of Lawrence King, a 15 boy shot by a classmate because he was gay. Although William Quest, the defense attorney for King’s killer, Brandon McInerney, has been telling the press that the blame should lie with King or with the school district, Fox isn’t buying it.

Fox declined to say if she thought Quest would mount a “gay panic defense” – saying that McInerney murdered King because the gay boy came on to him. However, Fox scoffed at any “blame the victim” defense as an “absolute failure to acknowledge personal responsibility.” Any “heat of passion” defense,” Fox said, requires an immediate, unforeseen reaction to an objectively overwhelming provocation and the absence of malice of forethought – the exact opposite of premeditation, which is what McInerney is charged with.

Fox further explained her thinking and why the DA wants to charge McInerney as an adult with premeditated murder with a special allegation of a hate crime.

“When you kill someone, to me you need to be incarcerated away from the public for a long time. Because to me, you’ve demonstrated that you’re dangerous. That’s why we have such lengthy sentences for murderers because you don’t want to just say, ‘Now don’t ever do that again!’ They’re dangerous people in most cases – unless it’s some extreme case where the person was under duress – in those cases we generally work out some kind of plea or arrangement. What I’m thinking of is battered women, people who kill under extreme circumstances.

“But if it’s a situation where it’s unprovoked and premeditated,” Fox continued, “then I would say in pretty much all of those cases, that public safety is a tremendous concern for me. And punishment is very high on my list of priorities. I’m very big on personal responsibility. And unless you can show me that you had a really, really, really good reason for doing what you did, I think you should stand up and be accountable for it. And you should be punished because otherwise we would live in pure chaos. These are the rules we’ve set up for each other and to me, it’s a very important part of this job.”

Lawyer Blames School for King’s Shooting

Deputy Public Defender William Quest is something else. Quest is the lawyer for 14-year-old Brandon McInerney, the teen accused of shooting Lawrence King point blank in the head at E.O. Green Junior High School in Oxnard, California February 12. Last April, Quest blamed King’s death on King himself. Today, he’s decided that it’s the school system’s fault:

Educators should have moved aggressively to quell rising tensions between the two boys, which began when King openly flirted with McInerney, said Deputy Public Defender William Quest. Instead, administrators were so intent on nurturing King as he explored his sexuality, allowing him to come to school wearing feminine makeup and accessories, that they downplayed the turmoil that his behavior was causing on campus, Quest said.

Visiting San Diego?

San Diego is worth a visit. The city is charming and friendly with a world famous zoo, beautiful parks, perfect weather, and a thriving gay community. And although it is a military city that leans Republican, they are often of the pro-gay variety and the city is very supportive of its gay residents.

However, not everyone will make you welcome. For example, much of the funding for the anti-gay marriage amendment in California came from San Diego.

Among the major donors to Protect Marriage are a group of San Diego County businessmen. Developer Doug Manchester alone has contributed $125,000 prompting gays to urge a boycott of his properties. Manchester owns the Manchester Grand Hyatt and the San Diego Marriott Hotel and Marina.

Mission Valley developer Terry Caster has donated $162,500, Carlsbad car dealer Robert Hoehn gave $25,000, and La Jolla businessman Roger Benson has given $50,000, according to state records.

Now these businessmen are entitled to their opinions and to seek the advancement of their political goals, even if they are designed to harm gay men and women. And we are entitled to avoid giving them a single cent, if possible.

So if you live in San Diego, or are planning a visit, you may wish to avoid patronizing any of the following businesses.

Manchester:

The Manchester Grand Hyatt San Diego
The San Diego Marriott Hotel and Marina
The Grand Del Mar
Whitetail Club & Resort

Caster:

A1 Self Storage (throughout California)
Caster Center and Stadium Park

Hoehn:

Hoehn Mercedes
Hoehn Porsche
Hoehn Audi
Hoehn Infinity
Hoehn Acura
Hoehn Honda

Roger Benson appears to be retired and I am unable to identify his investment or ownership in any business that might be impacted by my spending decisions.

Some activists in San Diego are considering calling for a boycott of the above listed businesses. Complicating matters is that some of the businesses have a national reputation for working with the community. Hyatt, for example, is proud of their perfect score by HRC.

But some are not waiting for an official boycott. GLAAD has already pulled from an event at Manchester’s hotel.

The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation announced that it has withdrawn from a “Pride Rocks” event scheduled for the summer at the Hyatt owned by Doug Manchester. The event celebrates gay pride.

The president of the gay and lesbian alliance , Neil Giuliano, said in a news release that Manchester’s decision to fund an initiative that would “hurt loving, committed gay couples makes it impossible for us” to take part in an event that promotes his hotel.

So if you are considering a visit to one of the most beautiful cities in California, by all means please come. Just put some thought into where your money goes while you’re there.

California Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment Petitions Submitted

The San Francisco Chronicle is reporting that the anti-gay group, Protect Marriage, has submitted their signatures to the county registrars to place an amendment on the November ballot.

A coalition of religious groups called Protect Marriage collected more than 1.1 million signatures in support of the amendment, said Brian Brown, executive director of the California office of the National Organization for Marriage.

The initiative needs 694,354 signatures, or 8 percent of the votes cast in the last governor’s race, to make it onto the ballot. However, a large percentage of signatures tend to be invalid so petition goals were at 1.1 million.

When I checked their site last week, Protect Marriage was still about 50,000 short. Their website currently is not self-congratulatory, but the Chronicle may be right in their reporting. But even if they are a little short, there is still a good chance that the sample validation may prove that adequate signatures were raised.

If this reaches the ballot for November, there will undoubtedly be an expensive and fierce battle within the state. Fortunately, the Governor has promised to oppose the constitutional amendment, which will be very helpful for appealing to moderates.

UPDATE: the Protect Marriage website now states “We have received over 1.1 million signatures to qualify the California Marriage Protection Act for the ballot!”

Defense Blames Lawrence King for his Own Murder

Deputy Public Defender William Quest, the defense attorney for Brandon McInerney, the 14 year old who shot his 15 year old gay classmate Lawrence King, has made statements intended to fuel blame against the victim.

From the Ventura Star

Quest said he believes school administrators supported one student expressing himself and his sexuality — King — and ignored how it affected other kids, despite complaints. Cross-dressing isn’t a normal thing in adult environments, he said, yet 12-, 13- and 14-year-olds were expected to just accept it and go on.

Mr. Quest is not being accurate. Other than boots and jewelry, King did not cross-dress; he wore the school uniform.

Further, Mr. Quest is not allowed to use gay panic as a defense in his case. California law does not allow it.

A.B. 1160 declares that it is against public policy for a defendant to play upon the bias of the jury, or for a jury to allow bias against the victim to enter into its decision-making.

So, other than efforts to disparage young Mr. King or to taint the jury pool, it isn’t clear what Quest is hoping to achieve by such claims. Sadly, I fear that his statements may just be the result of the common belief that gay people deserve the violence enacted against them.

California Supreme Court to Rule In Favor of Same-Sex Marraige?

That’s the rumor anyway:

Sources wishing to remain anonymous in the California Court System indicate that the court, which has until June 2, 2008 to issue it’s marriage ruling, is considering issuing it on Friday, May 23, 2008, with the decision being written by Chief Justice Ronald George. The Court is readying itself for a backlash that may follow the rumored and bold decision. There is talk that the Court will not simply strike down Proposition 22, but will move the State of California toward full marriage, if not even granting full marriage rights for gays and lesbians outright.

I wonder, did this rumor embolden Gov. Schwarzenegger to fire the first shot?

Gay Groups Ask for Leniency in Lawrence King Murder

A coalition of 27 LGBT activist organizations is urging the Ventura County, California District Attorney to charge 14-year old Brandon McInerney, Lawrence King’s murderer, as a juvenile. McInerney shot King, 15, point blank in the head on February 12th at E.O. Green Junior High School in Oxnard, California. With hate crime enhancements, McInerney faces up to 27 years in prison if he is charged as an adult. But citing an overall “climate of intolerance and fear about sexual orientation and expression,” the coalition feels that prosecuting McInerney as an adult would “compound this tragedy with another wrong.”

The press release, which is not yet available online, reads:

A coalition of 27 groups fighting for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights today is urging Ventura County prosecutors to try 14-year-old Brandon McInerney in juvenile court, and not as an adult. McInerney has been charged as an adult in the February 12 murder of his E.O. Green Middle School classmate, 15-year-old Lawrence King. Students say McInerney targeted King because the victim was openly gay and because he wore women’s jewellery and makeup.

LGBT civil rights organizations, including Lambda Legal, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, and the Transgender Law Center, have delivered a short statement to Ventura County District Attorney Gregory D. Totten, calling on him to try McInerney as a juvenile.

“We are saddened and outraged by the murder of junior high school student Lawrence King,” the statement reads. “At the same time, we call on prosecutors not to compound this tragedy with another wrong “we call on them to treat the suspect as a juvenile, not as an adult.

“The facts in this matter seem clear: one boy killed another in a climate of intolerance and fear about sexual orientation and gender expression. The alleged perpetrator, who turned 14 years old less than three weeks before the shooting, should be held accountable for his actions. But we support the principles underlying our juvenile justice system that treat children differently than adults and provide greater hope and opportunity for rehabilitation. In addition, public safety is not served by treating children as adults. According to research released by the Centers for Disease Control in 2006, children transferred to adult court are more likely to re-offend than those committing similar offenses who remain in the juvenile justice system. California law does not require District Attorneys to prosecute 14 year-olds as adults, even in circumstances such as these, and we oppose them doing so. We are issuing this joint statement because we believe so strongly in principles of justice that protect all our young people and know that, even in the face of strong emotions, we should not abandon them. We refuse to let our sense of outrage blind us to the fact that the suspect is only 14 years old.

“Prosecuting the alleged perpetrator as an adult will not bring Lawrence King back nor will it make schools safer for LGBT youth. We must respond to this tragedy by strengthening our resolve to change the climate in schools, eliminate bigotry based on sexual orientation, gender identity or expression and hold schools responsible for protecting students against discrimination and physical harm.”

The list of signatories include: American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California; American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego and Imperial Counties; American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California; Ally Action (CA); Children of Lesbians and Gays Everywhere (COLAGE; national); Community United Against Violence (San Francisco); Different Avenues (DC); Equality California; Gay Straight Alliance Network (CA); Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD); Human Rights Campaign; LAGAI – Queer Insurrection; Lambda Legal; LifeWorks Mentoring (Los Angeles); Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center; National Black Justice Coalition; National Center for Lesbian Rights; National Center for Transgender Equality; National Gay and Lesbian Task Force; Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) National; Safe Schools Coalition; San Francisco LGBT Community Center; Sylvia Rivera Law Project (New York); TGI Justice Project (CA); Transgender Law Center; The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Community Center (NY); TransYouth Family Allies, Inc.

Gov. Schwarzenegger Opposes Gay Marriage Ban

Scott Schmidt is at the Log Cabin Republicans Convention, liveblogging California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s address:

Speaking to the Log Cabin Republicans, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger came out against a ballot measure circulating in California to add a gay marriage ban to the State Constitution. Stating that he “will always be there to fight against that,” Schwarzenegger made one of his first pubic statements about the initiative constitutional amendment in circulation.

Hartline’s Sad Revelation

Ex-gay James Hartline is a favorite of Christian media when they are looking for an extremist to quote. Hartline lives his life as an anti-gay activist, pestering the San Diego City Council, protesting the ballpark, and writing fiery denunciations of anyone anywhere who isn’t as completely and unrelentingly hostile to gay people as he is (and few are).

Hartline is also running for a City Council seat in an effort to defeat what he views as ungodliness.

And it has become painfully obvious that those who trot Hartline out to put an ex-gay on display and those who happily print his thoughts on the evils of homosexuality are only using him and do not respect him.

From Hartline’s blog dated February 18, 2007

I recently asked God about the role of my particular city council campaign in our city. The Lord responded by letting me know that my campaign is a test for the Christians of San Diego. You see, pastor after pastor preaches in the pulpit about the corruption and immorality in our culture. These same pastors now have a chance to do something about the things they have been preaching about. If they do not support my campaign for the city council, than all of their complaining is just empty rhetoric.

My campaign is a test for me and it is a test for the Christian Community of San Diego. For me, it comes down to my obedience to God. God instructed me to run this race.

The candidate complains that as of that date “only 7 of the 2,000+ pastors in San Diego have endorsed my campaign” and “only 34 Christian voters have contributed”.

It is no surprise that few are willing to sign on to Hartline’s campaign. James is a rather tragic example of the consequence of excessive drug use combined with mental illness.

Although quite intelligent, Hartline’s rants display a universe of allegances and associations conspiring with Satan against him and his goals. But in the end he will emerge victorious when God heals him of HIV thus illustrating to all that James Hartline is God’s chosen prophet to lead the world in a marvelous new revival.

God speaks regularly to his prophet and reveals all sorts of amazing things such as the reason for wildfires, the pro-abortion goals of Horton Hears a Who, and how those who oppose Hartlines political extremism are “virulently anti-Christian”. It doesn’t take long for a picture of James’ mental condition to appear.

I cannot fault the conservative community for not wanting to advance his political efforts. Few, even among the most conservative, would want to allow James any influence in public policy decisions.

But I do fault and condemn those who – knowing Hartline to be as he is – are still willing to present him to the public as though he is credible. I fault WorldNetDaily for continuing to rely on him for their source as a “San Diego pro-Christian activist”. I fault Peter LaBarbera for dragging him to Chicago and for encouraging his efforts. I fault those local churches and other anti-gay activists who tell him he’s doing God’s work.

To both champion him publically and shun him privately is self-serving and heartless. What these and other “Christian” voices have done to James Hartline is both sad and cruel.

Anti-Discrimination or Anti-Information?

Living expenses in Southern California can be very expensive. Finding a two bedroom apartment in the West Hollywood area will run you at least $2,000 per month. So often young single men and women have roommates.

One common way to find a roommate is to register with a service that allows you screen for an ideal roommate. This way those needing someone to share the rent could find someone needing a place to stay.

In the past, members could choose various attributes of the person they wanted to room with: smoker or non-smoker, male or female, gay or straight, and within age ranges as well as where they wanted to live and how much they wanted to pay.

However that may all change. One such service, Roommate.com, had been operating happily along when in 2003 they were sued by the Fair Housing Councils of the San Fernando Valley and San Diego. They claimed that allowing member to search and filter by such things as sex or orientation was facilitated them in discrimination.

Today the 9th Circuit decided 8-3 that Federal protections do not shield roommate services from being liable to anti-discrimination laws.

The judges said a site called Roommates.com may be brought to trial for possibly violating anti-discrimination laws because it requires users to provide information about gender, sexual orientation and whether they have children, and then uses the information to screen people for matches.

“A real estate broker may not inquire as to the race of a prospective buyer, and an employer may not inquire as to the religion of a prospective employee,” Chief Judge Alex Kozinski wrote for the majority. “If such questions are unlawful when posed face-to-face by telephone, they don’t magically become lawful when asked electronically online.”

Some will find this to be a fair application of law reasonably determined to shield minorities for discrimination. Others, namely gay persons looking for a roommate that isn’t going to hassle them or straight women who don’t want to live alone with a straight man, may find it to be counterproductive. And others are concerned as to how this decision might impact other online services that allow members to search by attributes.

Roommates.com may appeal to the US Supreme Court.