tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38089992617276615812024-03-13T03:37:34.424-07:00Proposition 8 and the Right to MarryArticles and Comments By Attorneys and Legal Scholars, and Related Legal NewsMichael Ginsborghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05142968737430032147noreply@blogger.comBlogger894125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3808999261727661581.post-15569289392984203462010-10-28T09:32:00.000-07:002010-10-28T11:09:45.894-07:00FarewellIn May, I decided that I would need a hiatus to prepare an article on a subject unrelated to this site. I have just completed my forthcoming article for law librarians, "Ending Our Conflicts of Interest to Protect Consumers of Legal Publication." (Attorneys represent the largest share of consumers who need protection. I advance my arguments on their behalf, even if I can only wish that the arguments would engage them also.)<br /><br />I can no longer commit the time required to maintain this site, although I will leave it intact for future use. The pace of legal news and commentary exceeds the capacity of even the most conscientious blogger to widely cover developments and maintain research resources. I had sought to fill a unique niche in the blogosphere, with support from my collaborator, attorney Rick Xiao, and others. I now realize that even with their generous assistance, I overreached. I have also been unable to engage enough law students and attorneys as volunteers. However, I do not count my experiment a failure. Among my joys of discovery, I have had the joy of sharing insights from such perceptive, lively writers as John Culhane, Arthur Leonard, and Nan Hunter. And I have had the privilege of learning from your comments.<br /><br />To Rick Xiao, John Culhane, and other supporters, I owe more gratitude than a hearty, and heartfelt, "Thank you!" can express for your contributions and encouragement.Michael Ginsborghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05142968737430032147noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3808999261727661581.post-56483970759634819952010-05-22T12:37:00.000-07:002010-05-22T18:36:25.310-07:00Hiatus from my usual schedule of bloggingI regret that, for at least several weeks, I will lack time to update this site on a regular basis. I face two challenges. First, I expect to publish an article on a subject I have been thinking about for 20 years. (I can't say more about the article than that it concerns the professional shortcomings of law librarians - and that it takes inordinate time to prepare.) Second, site collaborator Rick Xiao and I are trying to decide on the appropriate scope of the enterprise that maintaining this site represents, as I lack enough time to achieve ambitious goals identified <a href="http://prop8legalcommentary.blogspot.com/2009/08/please-respond-if-you-want-me-to.html">here</a> and <a href="http://prop8legalcommentary.blogspot.com/2009/08/renewed-resolve-to-continue-this-blog.html">here</a>. I am, of course, grateful to Rick; to a kind supporter, Kathleen Perrin; and to a wonderful contributor, law professor John Culhane. I am also grateful to everyone who has commented on posts.Michael Ginsborghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05142968737430032147noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3808999261727661581.post-35709243022727353512010-05-15T10:05:00.000-07:002010-05-15T12:56:59.626-07:00Legal news this month<span style="font-weight: bold;">Domestic partnerships</span><br /><br />On May 13th, "the Minnesota Senate overwhelmingly passed a bill amending the state’s end of life statutes to add domestic partners to the list of individuals who may purse a wrongful death claim and who may make decisions about the disposition of remains."(<a href="http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2010/05/minnesota-governor-vows-to-veto-domestic-partner-funeral-rights-bill/">HRC Back Story</a>) Governor Tim Pawlenty has said that he would veto the legislation. (<a href="http://www.twincities.com/politics/ci_15065396?nclick_check=1&forced=true">TwinCities.com</a>) <a href="http://www.project515.org/">Project 515</a> has advocated for the legislation. The group takes its name from the number of state laws that discriminate against same-sex couples and their families.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Religious liberty exemption</span><br /><br />May marriage commissioners in Canada's province of Saskatchewan claim a religious liberty exemption from performing marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples? The Court of Appeal heard oral arguments this week on the constitutionality of legislation that would confer this exemption, either for all marriage commissioners, or for just those who were commissioners in 2004 (or rather <a href="http://outlooks.ca/magazine/Entries/2010/5/1_Same_Sex_Marriage.html">2005</a>?), when the country's marriage-equality was adopted. (<a href="http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2010/05/canadian-court-hearing-arguments-on.html">Religion Clause</a> / <a href="http://www.leaderpost.com/life/Sask+Court+Appeal+ponders+marriage+commissioners+right+refuse+marry+same+couples/3025145/story.html">Regina Leader-Post</a> / <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/canada/saskatchewan/story/2010/05/12/sk-same-sex-reference-case-sask-10512.html">CBC News</a>) Law professor <a href="http://law.widener.edu/Academics/Faculty/ProfilesDe/CulhaneJohnG.aspx">John Culhane</a> is among many who object to letting public officials use their offices to carve out exceptions to marriage equality. Culhane has recommended one means of accommodating American marriage license officials who say it violates their religious faith to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. (<a href="http://prop8legalcommentary.blogspot.com/2009/08/part-iii-in-professor-john-culhanes.html">Prop. 8 and the Right to Marry</a>)<br /><br />The Court's heard a suggestion of a different form of accommodation, suited to the circumstances of the province's marriage commissioners, who perform marriage ceremonies. It involves a "system where couples would submit a form requesting a marriage commissioner and one would be sent to perform their ceremony ... Egale Canada, which advocates for gays and lesbians, said same-sex couples wouldn't face rejection in such a system and marriage commissioners could also be accommodated." (<a href="http://www.canadaeast.com/news/article/1053049">CanadaEast.com</a>) Apparently the proposal would not apply to <span style="font-style: italic;">all</span> couples seeking to marry. If limited to same-sex couples, doesn't the separate method still give state sanction to an administrative quarantine for these couples, and to associated stigma? "Nathan Seckinger of the GBLUR Centre for Sexuality and Gender Diversity [said that] 'in the end, it doesn't address the deeper concern for us, which is why these people want the right to discriminate against us in the first place.'" (<a href="http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Sask+Court+Appeal+reserves+decision+marriage+commissioners+right+refuse+marry+same+couples/3030101/story.html">Vancouver Sun</a>)<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">Perry v. Schwarzenneger</span><br /><br />"The Courage Campaign has launched <a href="http://www.equalityontrial.org/">Testimony: Equality On Trial</a>, in which stars reenact the testimony given by the plaintiffs in California's Prop 8 trial ... The Courage Campaign invites supporters of marriage equality to <a href="http://www.equalityontrial.org/">download trial scripts</a> and <a href="http://www.equalityontrial.org/node/add/reenactment">upload their own reenactments</a> to the Equality On Trial site." (CourageCampaign.org, cross-posted by <a href="http://www.freedomtomarry.org/blog/entry/stars-reenact-prop-8-trial-testimony/">Freedom to Marry</a>. See also the <a href="http://prop8trialtracker.com/2010/05/13/we-are-live/">Prop. 8 Trial Tracker</a> and <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/05/13/prop-8-trial-testimony-gets-a-marisa-tomei-makeover/">Wall Street Journal law blog</a>.) "Academy Award-winning actor Marisa Tomei helped the Courage Campaign kick off '<a href="http://www.equalityontrial.org/">Testimony: Equality on Trial</a>'." (<a href="http://prop8trialtracker.com/2010/05/13/wall-st-journal-on-testimony-a-marisa-tomei-makeover-for-the-prop-8-trial/">Prop. 8 Trial Tracker</a>)<br /><br />"ADF attorney <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/03/01/about-jordan-lorence/">Jordan Lorence</a> appeared on <a href="http://churchstate.org/index.php?id=49" class="external">Freedom’s Ring</a> with <a href="http://churchstate.org/index.php?id=221" class="external">Alan J. Reinach</a> to discuss the Cal. marriage trial in <em>Perry v. Schwarzenegger</em>. | <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/20100511.mp3">MP3 Audio -13:32 mins</a>" (<a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/05/11/jordan-lorence-on-freedoms-ring-revisiting-the-cal-marriage-trial/">ADF Alliance Alert</a>)<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Marriage equality - Iowa</span> - <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">Gartner v. Newton</span><br /><br />"A lesbian couple married in Des Moines last year has filed a lawsuit against two state health department officials, after the department refused to name both women on their daughter’s birth certificate. Heather Lynn Martin Gartner, 38, and Melissa McCoy Gartner, 39, filed the Polk County claim on behalf of their second child, who was born in September ... The Iowa Department of Public Health rejected the couple’s request in March, according to the lawsuit filed in Polk County District Court, on grounds that Melissa had not legally adopted Mackenzie and was not biologically related." (<a href="http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20100513/NEWS/100513026/Same-sex-couple-sues-Iowa-health-department-officials-">Des Moines Register</a>) "Camilla B. Taylor, an attorney with <a href="http://iowaindependent.com/tag/lambda-legal">Lambda Legal</a> ... who was one of three attorneys to file the lawsuit on behalf of the Gartners and their daughter. [She said,] 'I think this is just an error that will be cleared up shortly. Every other state that has allowed same-sex couples to marry or enter into civil unions has applied the spousal presumption of parentage equally to the children of same-sex couples. So, to my knowledge, this has never happened before'... '<span style="font-style: italic;">Varnum</span> makes it clear that children of same-sex couples are entitled to birth certificates naming both spouses as their parents — just as children of different-sex couples are entitled to those birth certificates,' Taylor said in reference to the <a href="http://iowaindependent.com/13495/iowa-supreme-court-same-sex-couples-can-marry-in-iowa">landmark Iowa Supreme Court decision from April 2009</a>." (<a href="http://iowaindependent.com/33946/same-sex-couple-sues-state-for-right-to-appear-on-daughters-birth-certificate">Iowa Independent</a>. See also <a href="http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/may/10051410.html">LifeSiteNews.com</a> for press statements by a Department of Public Health official.)<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Divorce - Rhode Island</span><br /><br />On May 4th, the Rhode Island <span class="vitstorybody"><span class="vitstorybody">House Judiciary Committee</span></span> heard testimony on <a href="http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/BillText10/HouseText10/H7990.pdf" class="external">HB 7990</a>, which would allow the state to divorce same-sex couples, even though it bars them from marrying. (<a href="http://www.projo.com/news/politics/content/SAME_SEX_DIVORCE_05-05-10_IHIBQO5_v37.42920c1.html">The Provost Journal</a>)<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Divorce</span><br /><br />On May 5th, CNN.com <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/05/03/texas.gay.divorce/index.html">reported</a> on the legal obstacles same-sex couples may face if they seek divorce in a state that does not recognize marriage equality.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">Greene v. County of Sonoma</span><br /><br /><a href="http://www.nclrights.org/site/PageServer?pagename=issue_caseDocket_Greene_v_County_of_Sonoma_et_al" target="_blank"><em>Greene v. County of Sonoma et al</em></a>., <a href="http://www.nclrights.org/site/DocServer/Greene_v_Sonoma_County.pdf?docID=7461">complaint</a>, No. SPR-81815 (Cal. Sonoma County Super. Ct. filed Mar. 22, 2010)<br /><br />The New York Times <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/07/us/07sfmetro.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss">reports</a> on the horrors the aging plaintiff in this case suffered when a California county agency separated him from his partner following his partner's injury from an accident.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Marriage of transgender partner - Texas</span><br /><br />"Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has been asked to weigh-in on whether or not a marriage license can be issued to a couple when one of the partners is transgendered." (Texas <a href="http://capitolannex.com/2010/05/06/attorney-general-asked-to-weigh-in-on-transgender-marriage/">Capitol Annex</a>) <a href="http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_15019001"><span style="font-style: italic;">The El Paso Times</span></a> links to <a href="http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site525/2010/0504/20100504_063158_bernal_opinion_request.pdf">a request</a> for the opinion by El Paso County Jo Anne Bernal. The Dallas Voice also <a href="http://www.dallasvoice.com/instant-tea/2010/05/05/udpate-texas-allows-a-gay-marriage/">reports</a> on the request.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Immigration</span><br /><br />"The Advocate <a target="_blank" href="http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/04/29/Immigration_Outline_Includes_Gay_Partners/">reports</a> on an immigration reform proposal that is being circulated by the Democratic leadership in Congress. Under the proposal, which could form the basis of an immigration reform bill, U.S. citizens and legal residents would be allowed to sponsor their same-sex partners for residency, ending long-standing discrimination against same-sex couples." (<a href="http://blog.marriageequalityny.org/2010/05/uniting-american-families.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+marriageequalityny%2FlNbv+%28MENY+Marriage+News%29&utm_content=Google+Reader">Marriage Equality New York</a>)<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">super-DOMA - North Carolina</span><br /><br />"Sen. Jim Forrester, R-Gaston, has filed a bill [<a href="http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2009&BillID=S1156">SB 1156</a>] to change the N.C. Constitution to ban same-sex marriages. The bill would provide for a referendum to ratify the constitutional amendment should lawmakers approve it. The bill would recognize 'marriage between a man and a woman' as the only domestic legal union in North Carolina." (<a href="http://www.thetimesnews.com/news/lawmakers-33810-short-expected.html">05/15/10 TheTimesNews.com</a>)<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Developments abroad - Argentina</span> <span style="font-weight: bold;">and England</span><br /><br />Earlier this month, "Argentina’s lower house passed a marriage equality bill, paving the way for the nation to become the first in Latin America to legalize marriage for same-sex couples ... If the bill passes in the Senate, Argentina would become the first nation in Latin America and would join Canada as the second nation in the Americas to legalize marriage." (<a href="http://glaadblog.org/2010/05/06/argentinas-lower-house-passes-marriage-equality-bill/">05/06/10 GLAADBlog.com</a>)<br /><br />A gay couple in England is suing the owner of a bed-and-breakfast inn for refusing service on the basis of their sexual orientation. (<a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1278538/Gay-couple-sue-B-amp-B-snub-Christian-owners.html?ITO=1490">Mail Online</a>)Michael Ginsborghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05142968737430032147noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3808999261727661581.post-52027506718245919162010-05-12T14:56:00.000-07:002010-05-12T16:49:58.048-07:00Minnesota DOMA challenged: Benson v. AlversonBenson v. Alverson, <a href="http://www.marrymeminnesota.org/files/2010-05-07COMPLAINTfinal.pdf">complaint</a>, No. ____ (Minn. Hennepin County Dist. Ct. May 7, 2010)<br /><br />On May 7th, three same-sex couples in Minnesota - and a couple's baby - filed a lawsuit in to invalidate the state DOMA. (Minn. §§ <a href="https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=517.01">517.01</a> & <a href="https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=517.03">517.03</a>, subd. 1(a)(4), as amended by Act of June 2, 1997, <a href="https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/?doctype=Chapter&year=1997&type=0&id=203">No. 203</a>, Art. 10, §§ 2-3) They also seek an injunction requiring the Hennepin County registrar to issue marriage licenses to otherwise qualified, same-sex couple applicants, including the plaintiffs. They allege state constitutional violations of due process, equal protection, freedom of conscience, freedom of association, and the single-subject rule for statutory enactment.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.marrymeminnesota.org/">Marry Me Minnesota</a> sponsors the costs of plaintiff representation. I am not sure why they <a href="http://www.marrymeminnesota.org/thecase.html">claim</a> that the case challenges <em><a href="http://www.domawatch.org/stateissues/minnesota/bakervnelson.html">Baker v. Nelson</a>, </em>191 N.W.2d 185 (Minn. 1971), <em>appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question</em>, 409 U.S. 810 (1972). Unlike <span style="font-style: italic;">Baker</span>, <span style="font-style: italic;">Benson</span> involves only state constitutional questions.<br /><br />For news about the case, see <a href="http://www.wdio.com/article/stories/S1555672.shtml?cat=10349">WDIO.com</a>, <a href="http://minnesotaindependent.com/58811/if-not-now-then-when-same-sex-couples-speak-out-about-lawsuit">The Minnesota Independent</a>, <a href="http://www.startribune.com/local/93410259.html?elr=KArks7PYDiaK7DUqyE5D7UiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU">The Star-Tribune</a>, and <a href="http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/161045/group/homepage/">AP</a>.Michael Ginsborghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05142968737430032147noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3808999261727661581.post-57092249698101990702010-05-10T19:44:00.000-07:002010-05-10T20:59:34.992-07:00Recent legal news and commentary<span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">Lewis v. Harris II</span><br /><br />Garden State Equality and five other organizations have filed an <a href="http://www.gardenstateequality.org/pdfs/GSE%20brief%20in%20Lewis%20v%20Harris%20filed%20May%2010%202010.pdf">amicus brief</a> in <span style="font-style: italic;">Lewis v. Harris II</span> to document the nature and extent of harm children suffer because their same-sex parents cannot marry. They also maintain that "no legitimate state purpose" for continued marriage inequality under New Jersey's civil union law can justify such pervasive and profound harm to children. (<a href="http://www.gardenstateequality.org/court2.html">Garden State Equality press release</a> / <a href="http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/05/10/NJ_Court_Brief_on_Civil_Unions_and_Children/">Advocate.com</a>)<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Religious liberty exemption - Canada</span><br /><br />On May 13th, "the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal in Regina will consider whether marriage commissioners are within their Charter rights to refuse to conduct ceremonies that offend their religious beliefs. While some other provinces have allowed for exemptions since same-sex marriage became legal, this will be the first time that a court will evaluate if that refusal meets the standards of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, so it could have ramifications for the rest of the country." (<a href="http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/holy-post/archive/2010/05/09/court-to-rule-if-marriage-commissioners-have-right-to-refuse-same-sex-ceremonies.aspx">National Post</a> / cross-posted by <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/05/10/canada-court-to-rule-if-marriage-commissioners-have-right-to-refuse-same-sex-ceremonies/">ADF Alliance Alert</a>)<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">Perry v. Schwarzenneger</span><br /><br />Equality Forum gave law professor <a href="http://law.widener.edu/Academics/Faculty/ProfilesDe/CulhaneJohnG.aspx">John Culhane</a> five minutes for an interview last week with David Boies, one of the attorneys representing the <span style="font-style: italic;">Perry</span> plaintiffs. Boies told Culhane that he expects to "win under rational basis." That is, he expects the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that no legitimate state interest provides a reason for same-sex marriage bans. In Boies' view, the Court can find no legitimate state interest for bans that significantly harm same-sex couples and their children, when lifting them would not in any way harm married, opposite-sex couples and their children. (<a href="http://www.365gay.com/opinion/prop-8-lawyer-david-boies-scotus-wont-give-a-gay-bashing-opinion/">365Gay.com</a>) LGBT advocacy groups, if allowed to intervene, would have limited the "rational basis" test to the unique circumstances of Prop. 8's adoption - increasing odds that the 9th Circuit could issue a narrow ruling on just Prop. 8. (<a href="http://prop8legalcommentary.blogspot.com/2009/08/different-arguments-reflect-different.html">Prop. 8 and the Right to Marry</a>)<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">Gill v. OPM</span><br /><br />"According to two sources who covered the <a href="http://hunterforjustice.typepad.com/hunter_of_justice/2010/05/gill-case-heads-to-oral-argument-focused-on-standard-of-review.html">argument</a> in <em>Gill v. OPM</em>, GLAD's challenge to Section 3 of DoMA (the section barring federal government recognition of same-sex marriages), Judge Joseph Tauro seemed from his questions to be applying a rational basis standard for evaluating DoMA's constitutionality." (<a href="http://hunterforjustice.typepad.com/hunter_of_justice/2010/05/reports-on-motions-hearing-gill.html">hunter of justice</a>)<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Out-of-state recognition / adoption</span><br /><br />[T]he federal government doesn't recognize same-sex marriage, nor do the vast majority of states, including Pennsylvania. Even with a valid out-of-state marriage license, gay and lesbian couples in those states face uncertainty, extra legal bills and inevitable rebuffs that straight couples avoid ... For some couples, among the most galling problems is trying ensure that both are legally recognized as parents of their children. Many states allow second-parent adoption for same-sex couples, which addresses this situation, but many other states do not." (<a href="http://www.sddt.com/News/article.cfm?SourceCode=20100507crj">The Daily Transcript</a>)Michael Ginsborghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05142968737430032147noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3808999261727661581.post-65870838948551917002010-05-09T10:08:00.000-07:002010-05-09T14:12:36.565-07:00Prop. 8 proponents alleged to use latest discovery dispute in Perry case to try to distance themselves from anti-gay prejudice<a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/31000114/Doc-659">Plaintiffs' opposition to Prop. 8 proponents' and Dr. "William" Tam's motions for reconsideration to strike</a>, <span style="font-style: italic;">Perry v. Schwarzenneger</span>, No. 09-cv-2292 (N.D.Cal. May 6, 2010)<br /><a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/31000242/Doc-660"><br />Plaintiff-intervenor City and County of San Francisco's opposition to Prop. 8 proponents' and Dr. Tam's motion to strike / reconsider</a>, <span style="font-style: italic;">Perry v. Schwarzenneger</span>, No. 09-cv-2292 (N.D.Cal. May 6, 2010)<br /><br /><a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/31000321/Doc-661">Declaration of Therese M. Stewart in support of plaintiff-intervenor City and County of San Francisco's opposition to Prop. 8 proponents' and Dr. Tam's motion to strike / reconsider</a>, <span style="font-style: italic;">Perry v. Schwarzenneger</span>, No. 09-cv-2292 (N.D.Cal. May 6, 2010)<br /><br />(Thanks to Kathleen Perrin for alerting me to these filings and posting the links.)<br /><br />Parties in <span style="font-style: italic;">Perry v. Schwarzenneger</span> continue to dispute the scope of First Amendment protection from compelled disclosure of private communications to develop campaign strategy and messaging. The latest version of the dispute concerns whether Prop. 8 proponents, and their recalcitrant witness, Dr. Hak Shing "William" Tam, can now claim a First Amendment privilege as reason to strike from the trial record campaign communications by Tam and other Prop. 8 supporters, and testimony about the communications.<br /><br />Here's the context. In December, a 9th Circuit panel ruled that Prop. 8 proponents - the "defendant-intervenors" in the case - are entitled to a limited First Amendment privilege for internal campaign communications. "<a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16974514884687625142"><span style="font-style: italic;">Perry I</span></a>," 91 F.3d 1147, 1165 n.12 (9th Cir. 2010) In that case, Prop. 8 proponents appealed discovery orders requiring them to give plaintiffs internal campaign communications between proponents and any third parties, including political consultants. Judge Walker had limited the privilege to just the "the identities of rank-and-file volunteers and similarly situated individuals." Proponents appealed the orders, claiming a First Amendment privilege for all of their confidential communications with third parties. They argued that participants in initiative campaigns would otherwise experience a "chilling effect" on their political speech and association if they know that their campaign communications may be discoverable in lawsuits. A 9th Circuit panel limited the First Amendment privilege to "<span style="font-style: italic;">private, internal</span> ... communications among the core group of <span style="font-style: italic;">persons</span> engaged in the formulation of campaign strategy and messages."<br /><br />To comply with this ruling, Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero applied proponents' First Amendment privilege to "an extremely broad core group that listed 25 individuals and their assistants, employees from ten consulting firms, and any and all 'volunteers who had significant roles in formulating strategy and messaging.'" (Plaintiffs' opposition, at 4) Proponents did not present evidence that Dr. Tam, or other agents of obvious anti-gay bigotry, belonged to the core group of persons eligible for the privilege. In fact, they abdicated any ties to Dr. Tam and other Prop. 8 supporters whose hostile, anti-gay messages could support plaintiffs' claim that proponents used or abetted prejudice to influence Californians to vote for Prop. 8.<br /><br />After the trial, No-on-8 nonparties appealed discovery orders compelling them to give Prop. 8 proponents their internal campaign communications with Equality For All coalition partners. The same 9th Circuit panel denied review of the appeal, but clarified its earlier holding: a core group of persons subject to the First Amendment privilege can include persons who belong to more than one organization. <span style="font-style: italic;">Perry II</span>, <span style="font-style: italic;">Perry v. Schwarzenegger</span>, No. 10-15649, <a href="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/04/12/10-15649_WritDenyOrder_Filed.pdf">slip op</a>. (9th Cir. Apr. 12, 2010) (<a href="http://hunterforjustice.typepad.com/hunter_of_justice/2010/04/appeals-aplenty-in-the-perry-case.html#more">hunter of justice</a>)<br /><br />The No-on-8 groups, facing the risk of a contempt citation, decided to turn over the campaign communications they had been ordered to provide proponents. But Dr. Tam and proponents recently filed motions to exclude from the trial record campaign communications, and related testimony, that they had not, until now, objected to as privileged under the First Amendment. The communications reveal the nature of the relationship between the proponents and Prop. 8 allies who perpetrated the most hateful messages about gays. Proponents and Dr. Tam do not want Walker to consider evidence about the ways in which proponents and anti-gay groups worked together.<br /><br />Proponents and Dr. Tam now argue that Judge Walker must reconsider the discovery orders by Spero and him that required them to produce the communications. They claim that, in light of <span style="font-style: italic;">Perry I</span> and <span style="font-style: italic;">Perry II</span>, these orders have "clear errors." Walker and Spero allegedly mistook the <span style="font-style: italic;">Perry I</span> holding to mean that the First Amendment protects communications internal to just one organization - ProtectMarrige.com / Yes on 8, and not also private communications between ProtectMarriage.com and members of allied organizations. But the 9th Circuit rulings, they say, extend the First Amendment privilege "to those persons who come together 'to advance one's shared political beliefs,' including "myraid social, economic, religious and political organizations." <span style="font-style: italic;">Perry I</span>, 591 F.3d at 1158, 1162 (<a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/30417676/Doc-640#fullscreen:on">Defendant-intervenors' motion for leave to strike, at 2, and motion to strike</a>)<br /><br />Prop. 8 proponents have already appealed <span style="font-style: italic;">Perry I</span> to the U.S. Supreme Court, alleging that it unconstitutionally limits First Amendment privilege to a "core group" of persons who developed campaign strategy and messaging. (<a href="http://hunterforjustice.typepad.com/hunter_of_justice/2010/04/appeals-aplenty-in-the-perry-case.html#more">hunter of justice</a>) Law professor Nan Hunter has faulted the Supreme Court petition as "weak." Petitioners asked the Court to place the petition on hold pending its decision in <span style="font-style: italic;">Doe v. Reed</span>. But now Prop. 8 proponents appear to present the argument that the privilege holding in <span style="font-style: italic;">Perry I</span> - as clarified by <span style="font-style: italic;">Perry II</span> - has a much broader scope than what they represent in the Supreme Court petition. They understand the holding to effectively eviscerate the idea of a core campaign group as a subject of First Amendment privilege. They now claim, in their motion to strike, that the First Amendment protects from discovery "communications regarding the exchange of ideas and/or formulation of messaging and strategy among persons who associate during the Proposition 8 campaign for the common purpose of that measure" (<a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/30417676/Doc-640#fullscreen:on">Defendant-intervenors' motion for leave to strike and motion to strike, at 9</a>)<br /><br />Plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenors argue that Walker and Spero did not err in their January orders compelling proponents to produce the now contested campaign communications. Even if they did err, their error was far from clear, because proponents never furnished evidence that these communications were private communications among a core group of persons - persons with decision-making authority to develop campaign strategy and messaging. "[E]ven though (as proponents now finally and belatedly admit but had previously denied) ProtectMarriage.com is linked to the messages disseminated by other groups, including messages designed to promote stereotypes about, and prejudice against, gay and lesbian individuals, and even though the evidence shows ProtectMarriage.com sometimes knew of, encouraged or acquiesced in, and even funded the distribution of such messages, these facts are not enough to establish that its communication with these groups fall within the [First Amendment] privilege exception to disclosure." (Plaintiff-intervenors' opposition, at 10)Michael Ginsborghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05142968737430032147noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3808999261727661581.post-73717449226145333002010-05-08T13:29:00.000-07:002010-05-08T14:10:41.960-07:00Update on DOMA challenge in Bishop v. USA: the Alliance Defense Fund joins the defense<a href="http://prop8legalcommentary.blogspot.com/2010/02/developments-in-doma-case-bishop-v-usa.html"><span style="font-style: italic;">Bishop v. USA</span></a>, No. <a href="http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-okndce/case_no-4:2004cv00848/case_id-7495/">04-cv-00848</a> (N.D.Ok.)<br /><br /><a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/31085165/Opposition-to-Motion-for-Pro-Hac-Vice-Admission-of-ADF-Attorneys-in-Bishop-v-USA-N-D-ok-Mar-23-2010">Plainitffs' objection to motions for <span style="font-style: italic;">pro hac vice</span> admission of ADF attorneys</a>, filed 03/23/10<br /><br /><a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/31085208/Tulsa-County-District-Attorney-s-Reply-to-Opposition-to-Motion-for-Pro-Hac-Vice-Admission-of-ADF-Attorneys-in-Bishop-v-USA-N-D-ok-Mar-23-2010">Reply to plaintiffs' objection to motions for pro hac vice admission of ADF attorneys</a>, filed 03/23/10<br /><br />I could have titled this update, "Round Up The Usual Suspects," because that is what defendant <a href="http://www.tulsacounty.org/TulsaCounty/dynamic.aspx?id=554">Sally Howe Smith</a> has done in a lawsuit challenging sections 2 and 3 of the federal DOMA. Howe is the Tulsa County Clerk who denied a marriage license to plaintiffs Mary Bishop and Sharon Baldwin, on the grounds that <a href="http://www.domawatch.org/stateissues/oklahoma/index.html">Oklahoma's constitution prohibits same-sex marriages</a>. Howe's counsel has been David Iski, Assistant Tulsa County District Attorney. In March, Iski asked the Court to admit, as out-of-state, co-counsel, four attorneys of the Alliance Defense Fund. On April 1st, the Court granted his request. The ADF attorneys are Brian Raum, Dale Schowengerdt, Jim Campbell, and Austin Nimocks. See also the <a href="http://www.free-press-release.com/news-cimarron-alliance-condemns-tulsa-da-s-involvement-with-far-right-lawyers-in-same-gender-marriage-issue-1269998532.html">March 30th press release</a> by the <a href="http://www.cimarronalliance.org/">Cimarron Alliance Foundation</a>.Michael Ginsborghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05142968737430032147noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3808999261727661581.post-62670706295741982782010-05-08T10:39:00.000-07:002010-05-09T10:19:14.080-07:00May 6th hearing on the motion for summary judgment in Gill v. OPM<span style="font-style: italic;">Gill et al. v. Office of Personnel Management</span>, No. <a href="http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-madce/case_no-1:2009cv10309/case_id-120672/">1:09-cv-10309-JLT</a>, (U.S.Dist.Ct., D. Mass.) (<a href="http://www.glad.org/work/cases/gill-vs-office-of-personnel-management/">case documents</a>)<br /><br />On May 6th, Massachusetts District Court Judge Joseph L. Tauro heard oral argument on a motion for summary judgment by plaintiffs seeking to invalidate section 3 of the federal DOMA. Section 3 (codified at <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/1/usc_sec_01_00000007----000-.html">1 U.S.C. § 7</a>) excludes married, same-sex couples from over 1000 benefits and protections of federal law that are available to married, opposite-sex couples. Representing the plaintiffs, <a href="http://www.glad.org/about/staff/">Mary Bonauto</a> advanced three reasons why they are entitled to summary judgment:<br /><blockquote>"1) by singling out only the marriages of same-sex couples, DOMA violates the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution; 2) DOMA represents an unprecedented intrusion of the federal government into marriage law, which for 230 years has been legislated by states; and 3) by denying federal protections to families, DOMA burdens the marriages of same-sex couples and their right to maintain family integrity." (<a href="http://www.glad.org/current/blog-detail/an-argument-for-equality-recapping-doma-hearing-day/">05/07/10 GLAD Blog</a>)</blockquote>Department of Justice attorney W. Scott Simpson defended the law at the hearing, while acknowledging that the Obama administration opposes it as a policy.<br /><br />Media articles address the equal-protection arguments by Bonauto and Simpson (see links to articles at the <a href="http://www.glad.org/current/news-detail/arguing-for-equality-in-federal-court/">05/06/10 GLAD press release</a>), even though the "federal intrusion" question will return to the forefront later this month in <a href="http://prop8legalcommentary.blogspot.com/2010/05/oral-arguments-this-week-in-gill-v-opm.html">a parallel case brought by the state of Massachusetts</a>. <span style="font-style: italic;">Bay Windows</span> may have the most <a href="http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3=&id=105457">detailed report</a> on the equal-protection arguments.<br /><br />Different constitutional tests determine whether a law violates the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection. Under the rational basis test, a law can single out a minority for unequal treatment, if any reasonably conceivable facts provide a reason for the state to do so, and the state has some other reason than moral disapproval of the minority. However, a higher standard determines whether such a law can survive constitutional review under a "strict scrutiny" test. If, among other things, the minority has a history of discrimination, and has been politically powerless to remedy it, then the state must have a compelling reason for treating the minority unequally, and the unequal treatment must be narrowly tailored to its goal.<br /><br />Judge Tauro focused on whether section 3 passes constitutional review under the rational basis test. (<a style="font-style: italic;" href="http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/05/06/Federal_Court_Hears_DOMA_Challenge/">The Advocate</a>) Simpson argued that it does:<br /><blockquote>"He said Congress had a legitimate rationale to pass the federal law 14 years ago, given that some states [such as Hawai'i] were beginning to consider legalizing same-sex marriage. DOMA, he said, maintains the status quo -- marriage reserved exclusively for heterosexuals -- and prevented the federal government from having to keep track of which states had legalized gay marriages and which had not." (<a style="font-style: italic;" href="http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/05/_by_jonathan_sa.html">Boston Globe</a>)</blockquote>Is the federal government challenged over the fiscal and administrative costs of legal bookkeeping it would allegedly need, but for DOMA? "We’re not talking about mom-and-pop operations here," Bonauto replied, "We’re talking about the federal government." (<a style="font-style: italic;" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/07/us/07doma.html">NY Times</a>) Of course, without DOMA, the federal government would not need to tally which states do and do not allow same-sex marriages. It would simply treat all married couples equally. Bonauto also relied on DOMA's legislative history to show that Congress adopted the law to express moral disapproval of homosexuality - an illegitimate reason for the law's unequal treatment of married, same-sex couples. (<a style="font-style: italic;" href="http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/0506/Legal-challenge-of-federal-gay-marriage-ban-begins">Christian Science Monitor</a>)<br /><br />Simpson claimed another reason for restricting benefits and protections to opposite-sex marriages: the restriction allows the federal government to recognize the "status quo" in the 45 states that ban same-sex marriages. Bonauto said that it "upended" the status quo because until DOMA the federal government had always deferred to exclusive state authority over marriage. Tauro demanded that Simpson <span class="body">"point to an incident" when the government assumed such authority. "</span><span class="body">It’s true," conceded, "that, up until DOMA, the federal government has "simply followed the states’ definition of marriage."</span>(<a href="http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3=&id=105457">Bay Windows</a>)<br /><br />(Law professor <a href="http://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/facinfo/tab_faculty.cfm?Status=FullTime&ID=2307&InfoType=Bio">Nan Hunter</a> comments on DoJ's application of the rational basis test <a href="http://hunterforjustice.typepad.com/hunter_of_justice/2010/05/gill-case-heads-to-oral-argument-focused-on-standard-of-review.html">here</a>.)<br /><br />The <span style="font-style: italic;">Perry</span> case has received disproportionate attention in mainstream and social media, a tendency that this site has been captive to. But <span style="font-style: italic;">Gill v. OPM</span> will have an impact no less sweeping if plaintiffs prevail. The National Law Journal <a href="http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202433430922&hbxlogin=1&loginloop=ooo">reports</a> that it is "a carefully planned case" that "could be the gay marriage test with the greatest national impact."Michael Ginsborghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05142968737430032147noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3808999261727661581.post-27140159656889727252010-05-06T20:51:00.000-07:002010-05-06T21:07:04.983-07:00Revisiting what Prop. 8 proponents want to exclude from evidence in the Perry case, and whyI have yet to catch up with today's news about oral argument in <span style="font-style: italic;">Gill v. OPM</span>, a case I consider no less groundbreaking than <span style="font-style: italic;">Perry</span> (and more likely to succeed.) I ask your forbearance as I revisit a question about <span style="font-style: italic;">Perry</span> I raised last week. not just because my initial comments fell far short of the mark, but because <a href="http://prop8legalcommentary.blogspot.com/2010/05/status-of-latest-discovery-dispute-in.html">my corrections</a>, informed by the latest filings,* will help me focus on what's at stake in the latest discovery dispute. In a subsequent post, I will hazard my guess that the dispute still has significant potential to blow up and cause further delay.<br /><br />*Thanks to Kathleen Perrin for her timely update on these oppositions to Prop. 8 proponents' motions to strike content from the trial record:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/31000114/Doc-659" target="_blank">http://www.scribd.com/doc/<wbr>31000114/Doc-659</a><br /><a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/31000242/Doc-660" target="_blank">http://www.scribd.com/doc/<wbr>31000242/Doc-660</a><br /><a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/31000321/Doc-661" target="_blank">http://www.scribd.com/doc/<wbr>31000321/Doc-661</a>Michael Ginsborghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05142968737430032147noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3808999261727661581.post-43514723361093619172010-05-05T08:25:00.000-07:002010-05-15T11:56:21.399-07:00Oral argument yesterday in D.C. appellate court case on ballot initiative to overturn marriage equality law<a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/31007521/Procedural-History-of-Jackson-v-Dist-Columbia-Bd-Elections-On-Marriage-Initiative"><span style="font-style: italic;">Jackson v. District of Columbia Bd. of Elections</span></a>, Civ. No. 2009 CA 008613 B, slip.op. (D. C. Super., Jan. 14, 2010), petition for cert., Jan. 15, 2010, No. 10-CV-20 (D.C. Ct. App.)<br /><br />The Alliance Defense Fund offers the public an <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/2010050401.mp3">mp3 file</a> of yesterday's oral argument (<a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/05/04/recording-oral-arguments-at-the-dc-court-of-appeals-in-the-dc-marriage-case/">ADF Alliance Alert</a>). GLAA Forum also has an <a href="http://glaa.org/%7Emtuason/JacksonVBOEE.mp3">mp3 file</a> (<a href="http://www.glaaforum.org/glaa_forum/2010/05/notes-on-marriage-initiative-arguments-at-dc-court-of-appeals.html">GLAA Forum</a>), and links to the<a href="http://www.glaa.org/archive/2010/nicklesmarriageappealsbrief0319.pdf"> brief</a> of the District of Columbia. Perhaps the best summaries can be found at <a href="http://www.glaaforum.org/glaa_forum/2010/05/notes-on-marriage-initiative-arguments-at-dc-court-of-appeals.html">GLAA Forum</a>, <a href="http://www.washingtonblade.com/2010/05/06/d-c-appeals-court-hears-gay-marriage-case/">Washington Blade</a>, and <a href="http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2010/05/full-dc-appeals-court-hears-argument-on-antigay-marriage-initiative.html">The Blog of Legal Times</a>. For other summaries, read the <a href="http://mddailyrecord.com/2010/05/04/dc-court-weighs-gay-marriage-vote/">AP</a>, <a href="http://www.metroweekly.com/news/?ak=5166">Metro Weekly</a>, and <a href="http://jurist.org/paperchase/2010/05/dc-circuit-hears-arguments-in-same-sex-marriage-appeal.php">JURIST</a>. Journalist Karen Ocamb takes notice of a political aspect of the case - that the "political conservatives and Religious Right are increasingly using the theme of “the people’s right to vote.." (<a href="http://www.lgbtpov.com/2010/05/d-c-appeals-court-hears-arguments-in-gay-marriage-case/">LGBT POV</a>)Michael Ginsborghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05142968737430032147noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3808999261727661581.post-23768011544207961942010-05-04T17:04:00.000-07:002010-05-05T17:09:09.856-07:00Law professor Arthur Leonard: "N.Y. Court of Appeals Rules in Two Lesbian Co-Parent Cases"Read law professor <a href="http://www.nyls.edu/pages/378.asp">Arthur Leonard</a>'s summary and assessment of today's rulings (<a href="http://www.courts.state.ny.us/ctapps/decisions/2010/may10/48opn10.pdf">here</a> and<a href="http://www.courts.state.ny.us/ctapps/decisions/2010/may10/47opn10.pdf"> here</a>) by the New York Court of Appeals. (<a href="http://newyorklawschool.typepad.com/leonardlink/2010/05/ny-court-of-appeals-rules-in-two-lesbian-coparent-cases.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LeonardLink+%28Leonard+Link%29">Leonard Link</a>) The New York Times <a href="http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/court-expands-rights-of-gay-parents/">reports</a> on the rulings, with comments by law professor <a href="http://www.wcl.american.edu/faculty/polikoff/">Nancy Polikoff</a>, and The New York Law Journal also has an <a href="http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202457678855&NY_High_Court_Ruling_Affirms_Narrow_Reading_of_Parent_in_SameSex_Case">article</a>.Michael Ginsborghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05142968737430032147noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3808999261727661581.post-49715978191427153042010-05-03T12:46:00.000-07:002010-05-06T16:50:36.585-07:00Oral argument tomorrow in D.C. Marriage Initiative case<a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/31007521/Procedural-History-of-Jackson-v-Dist-Columbia-Bd-Elections-On-Marriage-Initiative"><span style="font-style: italic;">Jackson v. District of Columbia Bd. of Elections</span></a>, Civ. No. 2009 CA 008613 B, slip.op. (D. C. Super., Jan. 14, 2010), petition for cert., Jan. 15, 2010, No. 10-CV-20 (D.C. Ct. App.)<br /><br />Oral argument will occur tomorrow at 10 a.m. in a D.C. appellate case involving the disqualified <span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/27893510/D-C-Marriage-Initiative-of-2009" id="os9g" title="D.C. Marriage Initiative">Marriage Initiative of 2009</a></span></span>. (<a href="http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/3659">ADF press release</a> / <a href="http://www.dcappeals.gov/dccourts/appeals/calendar/docs/MAY_2010_REGULAR.pdf">D.C. Court of Appeals calendar</a>) It appears likely to reach the U.S. Supreme Court. Plaintiff-proponents of the initiative were also Supreme Court petitioners who, in March, tried to keep D.C.'s marriage equality law from taking effect, pending the Court's review of decisions to disqualify a referendum on the law. Chief Justice Roberts <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/9A0807.pdf">denied</a> the petition. He did not rule on the merits of the argument by petitioners, but he found that it "has some force." He said that petitioners would not lose opportunity to test a very similar argument, taking notice of the initiative case before the D.C. Court of Appeals:<br /><blockquote>[T]he D. C. Court of Appeals will have the chance to consider the relevant legal questions on their merits, and petitioners will have the right to challenge any adverse decision through a petition for certiorari in this Court at the appropriate time.</blockquote>Although the D.C. Court of Appeals <a href="http://www.dcappeals.gov/dccourts/appeals/index.jsp">offers real-time, video streaming of oral argument</a>, I expect public interest to overwhelm server capacity.Michael Ginsborghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05142968737430032147noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3808999261727661581.post-23412195956500077892010-05-02T17:45:00.000-07:002010-05-02T18:44:30.470-07:00Time reports on two same-sex divorce cases in TexasTexas Attorney General Gregory Abbott has filed appeals in two same-sex divorce cases because the judges denied his respective motions to intervene. The 5th District Court of Appeals in Dallas recently heard oral argument in <span style="font-style: italic;">In the Matter of the Marriage of J.B. and H.B.</span> (<a href="http://prop8legalcommentary.blogspot.com/2010/04/texas-appellate-court-hears-oral.html">Prop. 8 and the Right to Marry</a>). While this case was pending, Austin Judge Scott Jenkins granted a divorce decree to a former same-sex couple. <span style="font-style: italic;">Time</span> <a href="http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1986234,00.html">describes</a> the circumstances leading to the appeal from the divorce decree (<a href="http://www.3rdcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=15293"><span style="font-style: italic;">Texas v. Naylor and Daly</span></a>):<br /><blockquote>The divorce had been granted, the decree signed and the last legal step — the final order — was imminent when a representative of the Texas Attorney General's Office arrived in court to object on the grounds that the marriage was never legal in Texas. Judge Jenkins posed several questions to the AG's office: Did the AG really want to pursue this action since the state was already litigating a same-sex appellate case in Dallas? Had the AG's office given any consideration to the impact of the appeal on the couple's adopted four-year-old son and the custody arrangement included in the divorce decree? "The wise and merciful thing to do in this case is to simply leave these parties alone." Judge Jenkins told the <i>Austin American Statesman</i> after he signed the final order over the AG's objections. </blockquote><div id="TixyyLink" style="overflow: hidden; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: transparent; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; border: medium none;"><br /></div>Michael Ginsborghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05142968737430032147noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3808999261727661581.post-30768628748486575402010-05-02T12:58:00.000-07:002010-05-02T19:02:54.219-07:00Hawai'i Governor Linda Lingle's choice on civil unions legislation: approve it or accept the outcome of planned litigationJust before the current session of Hawai'i's legislature <a href="http://eqfed.org/familyequalityhi/alert-description.tcl?alert_id=38456975">ended April 29th</a>, it approved <a href="http://www.freedomtomarry.org/pages/marriage-versus-civil-unions-domestic-partnerships-etc">civil unions</a> legislation [<a title="Hawaii HB 444 (civil unions)" href="http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2009/lists/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=444" id="y99l">HB 444</a>] that seemed all but certain to expire with the session. (<a href="http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2010/04/hawaii-house-approves-same-sex-civil.php">JURIST</a> / <a href="http://www.care2.com/causes/civil-rights/blog/hawaii-lawmakers-approve-civil-unions/">Care2.com</a>) (For the legislation's legal context, see <a href="http://www.freedomtomarry.org/blog/entry/statement-from-evan-wolfson-executive-director-of-freedom-to-marry-on-/">this press release</a> by Freedom to Marry, Dale Carpenter's <a href="http://volokh.com/2010/04/30/civil-unions-in-hawaii/">post</a> at the Volokh Conspiracy.) Governor Linda Lingle must now decide whether to sign the bill into law. Although she has until July 6th to do so, she has already received a huge volume of e-mail and phone calls. (<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/02/us/02hawaii.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss">AP</a> / <a href="http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100501/NEWS01/5010306/0/NEWS01/Hawaii-civil-unions-bill-sparks-deluge-of-messages-to-governor">Honolulu Advertiser</a>) If Lingle doesn't approve the legislation, successful litigation would effectively reverse her decision. In February, Lambda Legal and the ACLU announced their plan of a lawsuit to establish that the state constitution's provision of equal protection requires Hawai'i to establish civil unions. (<a href="http://www.lambdalegal.org/news/pr/hy_20100201_hi-legislators-kill.html">Lambda Legal press release</a> / <a href="http://www.acluhawaii.org/news.php?id=373&PHPSESSID=50b988effe7728154a3f099dbbab2153">ACLU press release</a>) As law professor <a href="http://law.widener.edu/Academics/Faculty/ProfilesDe/CulhaneJohnG.aspx">John Culhane</a> <a href="http://wordinedgewise.org/?p=1086">reports</a>, the lawsuit was among subjects of discussion at Equality Forum's legal panel. According to <a href="http://www.lambdalegal.org/news/pr/hi_20100429_lambda-celebrates-passage.html">Lambda Legal's press release of April 29th</a>, the advocacy groups "were already on O`ahu this week in final preparations for litigation if the legislature failed to act by today's end of session. We're delighted that, as long as Governor Lingle does not veto the bill, our lawsuit won't be necessary."Michael Ginsborghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05142968737430032147noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3808999261727661581.post-30594000771092770952010-05-02T12:14:00.001-07:002010-05-02T18:59:14.719-07:00Oral arguments this week in Gill v. OPM; DOJ files brief in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. U.S. Dept. Health & Human ServicesSection 3 of the federal DOMA (codified at <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/1/usc_sec_01_00000007----000-.html">1 U.S.C. § 7</a>) excludes same-sex couples from federal laws that apply to married couples. On May 6th, U.S. District Judge Joseph L. Tauro will hold oral arguments in <a href="http://www.glad.org/doma"><span style="font-style: italic;">Gill v. OPM</span></a> on the constitutionality of Section 3. (<a href="http://www.glad.org/current/news-detail/glads-doma-challenge-heads-to-court-may-6/">04/08/10 GLAD press release</a> / <a href="http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/05/02/challenge_to_federal_marriage_law_heads_to_court/">05/02/10 <span style="font-style: italic;">Boston Globe</span></a>) <span style="font-style: italic;">The Maine Sunday Telegram </span><a href="http://www.pressherald.com/news/mainer-challenging-u_s_-defense-of-marriage-act_2010-05-02.html">profiles</a> Mary L. Bonauto, who was lead counsel in <em><a href="http://www.glad.org/work/cases/goodridge-et-al-v-dept-public-health/" title="Goodridge v. Department of Public Health">Goodridge v. Department of Public Health</a></em> and will argue on behalf of the plaintiffs. The <span style="font-style: italic;">Perry</span> case has received disproportionate attention from the media and blogs (including this one!), as attorneys for the <span style="font-style: italic;">Perry</span> plaintiffs secure a place among the <a href="http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1984685_1984745_1985481,00.html">2010 "<i>Time</i> 100</a>." But <span style="font-style: italic;">Gill v. OPM</span> will have an impact no less far-reaching than <span style="font-style: italic;">Perry</span>, especially if the <span style="font-style: italic;">Gill</span> plaintiffs prevail.<br /><br />The Department of Justice filed <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/30754624/Latest-DOJ-brief-defending-DOMA">a brief</a> in another DOMA challenge, <span style="font-style: italic;">Commonwealth v. Dept. of Health & Human Services</span>. (<a href="http://gay.americablog.com/2010/04/doj-vociferously-defends-doma-again.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+AMERICAblogGay+%28AMERICAblog+Gay%29&utm_content=Google+Reader">AmericaBlogGay.com</a>) In its brief, DoJ opposes the Commonwealth's <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/27095148">motion for summary judgment</a> (<a href="http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202444334928&Massachusetts_Challenges_Defense_of_Marriage_Act">National Law Journal</a>) Among other arguments against Section 3, the Commonwealth claims that it violates the 10th Amendment's guarantee of the state's exclusive authority over marriage.Michael Ginsborghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05142968737430032147noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3808999261727661581.post-54799031371992365122010-05-02T10:03:00.000-07:002010-05-02T16:03:37.102-07:00Law professor John Culhane brings the Equality Forum to everyone who can't attendThis year's <a href="http://equalityforum.com/">Equality Forum</a> has <a href="http://prop8legalcommentary.blogspot.com/2009/04/legal-scholars-speaking-at-this-weeks.html">again</a> <a href="http://wordinedgewise.org/?p=1053">engaged</a> law professor <a href="http://law.widener.edu/Academics/Faculty/ProfilesDe/CulhaneJohnG.aspx">John Culhane</a> to write about its panels. The <a href="http://equalityforum.com/2010/schedule_by_day.cfm">schedule</a> required John to <a href="http://wordinedgewise.org/?cat=878">highlight certain panels</a>, and he expects to conclude his series with an interview of David Boies, the "yin" to the "yang" Theodore Olson, who together represent the <span style="font-style: italic;">Perry</span> plaintiffs.<br /><br />Read his latest opinion article, "<a href="http://www.365gay.com/opinion/culhane-the-paradox-of-legal-gay-unions/">The Paradox of Legal Gay Unions</a>," for 365Gay.com. John's wide range of law review publication includes the rights of same-sex couples and other legal issues of sexual orientation. But the law review format has its limitations. It often (typically?) disengages authors from their lived realities of legal inequality, as if they were disembodied agents of legal reasoning. If this artificial disassociation does not neuter their insights, it requires a detachment that disconnects the reader from their own personal seismometers. "<a href="http://www.365gay.com/opinion/culhane-the-paradox-of-legal-gay-unions/">The Paradox of Legal Gay Unions</a>" returns John's insights to the fullest measure of their lived meaning. He describes the paradox from the perspective of his partner's incredibly powerful observation about their wedding rings, and of a friend's misfortune in separating from a partner.<br /><br />Last year, John favored this site with a <a href="http://prop8legalcommentary.blogspot.com/2009/08/professor-john-culhane-responds-to.html">four-part series</a> on "Marriage Equality and Religious Liberty." His blog, <a href="http://wordinedgewise.org/">WordinEdgewise</a>, consummates a marriage of zany humor, delightful style, evocative opinion, perceptive insight, and graceful humility. He is a treasure to read.Michael Ginsborghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05142968737430032147noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3808999261727661581.post-42385978187347777772010-05-01T16:51:00.000-07:002010-05-09T10:58:54.552-07:00What do Prop. 8 proponents want to exclude from evidence in the Perry case, and why?<span style="font-weight: bold;">05/06/10</span>: While I try to avoid rewriting posts, even when I err, I make an exception here, because otherwise I would lose a point I think worth making. See my new comments <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">in red</span>.<br /><br />I've just returned from vacation. By now, this site's readers know what I've only just learned: in the <span style="font-style: italic;">Perry</span> case, Judge Vaughn Walker has <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/30718829/Doc-650">proposed</a> June 16th as the date for closing arguments. (<a href="http://www.lgbtpov.com/2010/04/federal-prop-8-trial-to-hear-closing-arguments-on-june-16/">04/28/10 LGBT POV</a>) A <a href="http://prop8legalcommentary.blogspot.com/2010/04/continued-impasse-in-perry-cases.html">discovery dispute</a> had delayed this welcome sign of progress towards a final judgment. The logjam broke when California Equality and the ACLU decided to avoid <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/30482988/Doc-641">the prospect of a contempt citation</a> for failure to give a large number of their No-on-8 campaign communications to Prop. 8 proponents. (<a href="http://www.eqca.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=kuLRJ9MRKrH&b=5609563&ct=8215317&notoc=1">Equality California press release</a> and <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/30590872/Doc-649">associated filing</a>) Plaintiffs and proponents have informed Walker (<a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/30755156/Doc-651">here</a> and <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/30755239/Doc-652">here</a>) that they believe these No-on-8 groups ("the No-on-8 groups") have complied with previous orders for document production, so yesterday he <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/30758915/Doc-653">determined</a> that there was no need to consider whether they should be cited for contempt.<br /><br />Two discovery matters require resolution. (<a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/30718829/Doc-650">Walker's April 28th order</a>) First, proponents must submit campaign communications from the No-on-8 groups that they want Walker to allow into evidence. Plaintiffs may respond to the submission, and proponents may answer the plaintiffs' response. Walker will then determine what campaign communications, if any, to allow, and he will close the evidence record.<br /><br />Second, proponents (the defendant-intervenors) and their reluctant witness, Dr. Hak-Shing William Tam, want the Court to reconsider discovery orders in January and strike from the record certain parts of Tam's testimony. Tam - a director of the <span class="hl">Traditional Family Coalition</span> - was an official proponent. <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">But neither defendant-intervenors nor Tam identify him among a core group of persons who worked together on Yes-on-8 strategy and messaging. In fact, at trial, defendant-intervenors claimed Tam's testimony and communications were irrelevant precisely because his association with ProtectMarriage.com gave him no decision-making role in campaign strategizing or messaging. Nevertheless, they claim that under the 9th Circuit rulings, </span><a style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);" href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16974514884687625142"><span style="font-style: italic;">Perry I</span></a> and <a style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);" href="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/04/12/10-15649_WritDenyOrder_Filed.pdf"><span style="font-style: italic;">Perry II</span></a><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">, Tam' association automatically qualifies some of his testimony and private campaign communications for First Amendment protection. On their understanding of </span><a style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);" href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16974514884687625142"><span style="font-style: italic;">Perry I</span></a> and <a style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);" href="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/04/12/10-15649_WritDenyOrder_Filed.pdf"><span style="font-style: italic;">Perry II</span></a><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">, the First Amendment protects from discovery communications by "those persons who come together 'to advance one's shared political beliefs.'"</span> Walker has granted their requests (<a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/30417676/Doc-640">here</a>) and (<a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/30534937/Doc-642">here</a>) to file their proposed motions on the question of First Amendment protection, with opportunity for further argument by Tam, proponents, and plaintiffs. Walker is <a href="http://prop8trialtracker.com/2010/04/28/liveblogging-april-28th-hearing/">reported</a> to have said that he is "inclined to grant the defense motion for Dr. Tam’s reconsideration," <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">but he appears to have been referring to the request for leave to file this motion, not the motion itself. (Thanks to Kathleen Perrin for inviting me to reconsider this report.)</span><br /><br />Tam testified on <a href="http://prop8legalcommentary.blogspot.com/2010/01/selection-of-articles-and-posts-on_18.html">Day 8 of the trial</a> (January 21st), displaying obvious hostility and prejudice against same-sex couples who wish to marry. But are Tam and proponents trying to exclude evidence of Tam's animus, as they would have good reason to do? I can't reach that conclusion. Proponents seek exclusions of not just Tam's testimony, but selected declarations or communications by leaders of <span style="font-style: italic;">other</span> religious and allied organizations. In fact, as far as I can tell, <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">proponents and Tam would have Walker remove from evidence material that, if retained, poses a problem they appear to consider serious. Left in the trial record, the targeted testimony and communications risk inviting Walker's perception that proponents' organization, ProtectMarriage.com, influenced or aided what Tam what said and did during the Yes-on-8 campaign; </span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">and</span><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);"> it risks inviting Walker's perception that ProtectMarriage.com similarly influenced or aided </span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">other</span><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);"> religious leaders who displayed obvious anti-gay animus. In other words, proponents would remove evidence on the nature of their relationship with Tam and other clearly hateful supporters, so that, with these omissions, proponents can try to separate Yes-on-8 campaign strategizing and messaging from the allied efforts of obvious anti-gay bigots.</span><br /><br />Mine is an initial impression about <span style="font-style: italic;">one</span> of proponents' aims here. I would need more time than I have to confirm it. You can form your own conclusion, of course. Start with the <a href="http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Perry-Vol-8-1-21-10.pdf">transcript</a> of Tam's testimony. It provides context for specific testimony entries, and referenced exhibits of campaign communications, that Tam and proponents - in their motions <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/30417676/Doc-640">here</a> and <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/30534937/Doc-642">here</a> - have asked Walker to exclude from evidence. Kathleen Perrin has prepared <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/30725888/Tam-Testimony-mark-up">a document</a> to aid comparison between the transcript of Tam's testimony, on the one hand, and Tam's statements and campaign communications, on the other, that <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/30534937/Doc-642"><span style="font-style: italic;">Tam</span> targets for exclusion</a>. Then, if patience and resolve match your curiosity (!), use proponents' <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/30417676/Doc-640">motion</a> to compare <a href="http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/our-work/hearing-transcripts/">trial transcripts</a> with targeted statements and campaign communications by Tam <span style="font-style: italic;">and other</span> Yes-on-8 participants.<br /><br />Finally, I wish to credit and thank Kathleen for her public service as she provides <a href="http://www.scribd.com/ownbycatz">free access to the latest filings in the District Court case</a>. She selectively supplements <a href="http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-candce/case_no-3:2009cv02292/case_id-215270/">Justia.com's less current version</a> of the docket. Almost needless to say, I own responsibility for my inferences from the filings. The mistakes are mine, not hers!Michael Ginsborghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05142968737430032147noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3808999261727661581.post-87139635043086847132010-04-25T10:27:00.000-07:002010-05-02T18:51:52.156-07:00Continued impasse in Perry case's discovery dispute: Walker's order for ACLU and Equality California to show why he should not cite them in contempt<a href="http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2009cv02292/215270/634/">Order by Judge Walker on discovery dispute</a>, filed 04/17/10<br /><br /><a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/30370901/Doc-635">Prop, 8 proponents' response to April 17, 2010 Order</a>, and <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/30372904/Doc-636">declaration and exhibits</a>, filed 4/22/2010<br /><br /><a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/30373570/Doc-639">Statement of Objectors (ACLU) re April 17, 2010 order ) with 2 attachments (Exhibits A and B)</a>, filed 4/22/2010<br /><a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/30373105/Doc-637"><br />Plaintiffs' response to April 17, 2010 order with 3 Attachments (Exhibit A, B and C)</a>, filed 4/22/2010.<br /><a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/30417676/Doc-640"><br />Proponents' motion for Leave to File Motion to Strike and/or Reconsider prior discovery order</a> (<a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16974514884687625142">Perry I</a>), filed on 4/23/10<br /><br />[<span style="font-weight: bold;">update</span>: <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/30482988/Doc-641">Order to show cause why No on 8 groups should not be held in contempt. Sets hearing for 4/28/2010. (filed 4/25/10)</a>]<br /><br />(I am grateful for links to these documents from Kathleen Perrin<a href="http://www.scribd.com/ownbycatz"></a>, and for an update from California attorney Rick Xiao.)<br /><br />Judge Vaughn Walker has been trying to resolve an ongoing discovery dispute in the <span style="font-style: italic;">Perry</span> case that has already lasted longer than the trial. The dispute originates with two discovery orders in March. Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero <a href="http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2009cv02292/215270/610/">ordered</a> several No on 8 groups - including Equality California and the ACLU - to produce documents that Prop. 8 proponents ("Proponents") demanded. The groups objected, but Walker <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/28872865/Order-by-Judge-Walker-Granting-Motion-to-Stay-Judge-Spero-s-Discovery-Order-Until-Mar-29-2010-No-09-Cv-02292-N-D-cal-Mar-23-2010">sustained</a> Spero's ruling. The orders require the Equality California and the ACLU to produce private communications on campaign strategy and messaging that member individuals exchanged among the themselves and their counterparts in organizations belonging to the No on 8 - Equality For All coalition. The No on 8 groups appealed the orders by Judges Spero and Walker, claiming a First Amendment privilege from compelled disclosure of these communications.<br /><br />In its second discovery ruling in the case, a 9th Circuit panel decided that the No on 8 groups had not met criteria for the Court to review their objections. <span style="font-style: italic;">Perry v. Schwarzenegger</span>, No. 10-15649, <a href="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/04/12/10-15649_WritDenyOrder_Filed.pdf">slip op</a>. (9th Cir. Apr. 12, 2010) (“<span style="font-style: italic;">Perry II</span>”) As a result, No on 8 groups could not appeal their objections until Judge Walker cited them for contempt over failure to produce the ordered documents.<br /><br />The <span style="font-style: italic;">Perry II</span> ruling addresses the scope of the First Amendment privilege from compelled disclosure of internal campaign communications. In <span style="font-style: italic;">Perry I</span>, the 9th Circuit panel held that the privilege applies to "communications among the core group of <span style="font-style: italic;">persons</span> engaged in the formulation of campaign strategy and messages.” "<a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16974514884687625142"><span style="font-style: italic;">Perry I</span></a>," 91 F.3d 1147, 1165 n.12 (9th Cir. 2010) (emphasis in original). The context then concerned what campaign communications the Proponents - the "core group" - could exempt from discovery. But could they exclude <span style="font-style: italic;">only</span> those communications on campaign strategy or messaging <span style="font-style: italic;">internal </span>to ProtectMarriage.com? The question was not raised at the time, although Proponents reserved, on other grounds, their concerns about First Amendment privilege.<br /><br />In <span style="font-style: italic;">Perry II</span>, the panel clarified application of the privilege to persons in member organizations of a very different core group - the Equality for All coalition:<br /><blockquote>Under <span style="font-style: italic;">Perry I</span>, the privilege applies to the core group of <span style="font-style: italic;">persons</span> engaged in the formulation of strategy and messages, whether or not they are members of a single organization or entity. The operative inquiry is whether they are part of an <span style="font-style: italic;">association</span> subject to First Amendment protection. We did not hold that the privilege cannot apply to a core group of associated persons spanning more than one entity. (slip. op., at 9)</blockquote>Judges Walker and Spero determined that the First Amendment privilege does not extend to internal communications among or between separate organizations that belonged to Equality for All. Given the <span style="font-style: italic;">Perry II</span> clarification, is it clear that the judges erred? The 9th Circuit panel said that it is unclear whether Walker and Spero meant "that the privilege cannot apply to persons who are part of a political association spanning more than one organization or entity."<br /><br />On April 13th, Judge Walker <a href="http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2009cv02292/215270/631/">ordered</a> the Proponents to show cause why the record of evidence should not be closed. Proponents responded that it should not be closed because the No on 8 groups had not complied with the March orders to produce the campaign communications subject to the orders. The No on 8 groups and Proponents had tried to craft a compromise that would allow discovery to proceed. The former would agree to an amendment of Walker's March 22nd order that substantially limited their disclosure obligation to the requirements of the <span style="font-style: italic;">Perry II</span> clarification. Proponents then demanded an "evenhanded" application of that guidance to all of <span style="font-style: italic;">their</span> qualifying campaign documents already entered into the record of evidence, so that they could then ask Walker to remove these documents from the record. The plaintiffs reserved a right to object to Proponents' demand. The compromise fell apart. Proponents recommended that Walker cite the No on 8 groups for contempt. (<a href="http://prop8legalcommentary.blogspot.com/2010/04/prop-8-proponents-in-perry-case-seek.html">Prop. 8 and the Right to Marry</a> / <a href="http://www.keennewsservice.com/2010/04/22/prop-8-sideline-fight-rages-on/">Keen News Service</a>)<br /><br />On April 17th, Walker discharged his April 13th order to allow Proponents and the No on 8 groups time to "confer and negotiate in order to reach a stipulation that will resolve remaining discovery issues." A second round of discussion ensued, but never rose to the level of a real negotiation. Positions instead hardened. The No on 8 groups <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/30373570/Doc-639">claimed</a> that "there can be no question" that Walker and Spero had "misapprehended" the scope of their First Amendment privilege. To correct the error, the groups would stipulate to an amended discovery order by Walker that allows them to exclude "communications solely among the core group of persons engaged in the formulation of campaign strategy and messages for the No on 8 - Equality for All campaign, whether or not they are members of a single organization or entity." The No on 8 groups say that Walker should accepts their stipulation, without resolving a related dispute between plaintiffs and Proponents over whether Proponents can revisit Proponents' previous document production.<br /><br />Proponents <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/30372904/Doc-636">would have accepted this stipulation</a>, but only if the proposed amended order allowed them to remove from evidence a large number of their internal campaign communications already in the record of evidence. According to plaintiffs, Proponents would, in fact, have Walker "strike from the trial record virtually every document that they originally tried, unsuccessfully, to shield from discovery."<br /><br />Plaintiffs <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/30373105/Doc-637">responded</a> that they could not accept the latest terms of a reprised compromise. They have asked Walker to order the nonparties, Equality California and the ACLU, to "produce the required documents in three days, or else be held in contempt," and order "Proponents to supplement the trial record within seven days, if at all, upon expiration of the [nonparty] production deadline before the Court closes the evidentiary record."<br /><br />Plaintiffs have the following <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/30373105/Doc-637">objections</a> to the compromise. First, plaintiffs claim that Walker and Spero did not err when they ordered the No on 8 groups to produce campaign communications. Plaintiffs read the March orders as entirely consistent with the subsequent, <span style="font-style: italic;">Perry II</span> clarification. But even if the judges had erred, theirs was not a clear error. Suppose that they had meant that “the [First Amendment] privilege cannot apply to persons who are part of a political association spanning more than one organization or entity.” <span style="font-style: italic;">Perry II</span>, slip op. at 9. Spero had still afforded these groups opportunity to show that their campaign participants <span style="font-style: italic;">functioned</span> as a core group of persons engaged in developing campaign strategy or messaging, so that participant campaign communications could qualify for First Amendment protection. The No on 8 groups did not provide information showing that their individual members functioned as core group of persons, So plaintiffs contend that the groups can not now object that they are entitled to withhold the contested communications.<br /><br />Second, Proponents want to use the <span style="font-style: italic;">Perry II</span> guidance to reopen discovery orders in January, with a request that Walker <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/30417676/Doc-640">remove from evidence many documents Proponents produced</a>. The plaintiffs argue that Walker should reject Proponents' request. Even if the <span style="font-style: italic;">Perry II</span> guidance applies to documents they produced, Proponents failed "to prove and preserve a privilege for any individuals in any organization other than ProtectMarriage.com. Furthermore, Proponents at trial allegedly "conceded that ProtectMarriage.com’s First Amendment privilege did not extend to separate religious organizations" whose members participated in the campaign. (In fact, Proponents said that the religious character of these organizations raised a different question of First Amendment protection.)<br /><br />Why are plaintiffs concerned about gaps in the record of evidence that would arise if Walker granted Proponents' request? Have a look at the <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/30417676/Doc-640">types of documents</a> that Proponents would have removed. My cursory review suggests that the communications at issue were between ProtectMarriage.com and ministers or leaders of religious organizations. Unfortunately, I do not have time to investigate the individual documents, so I can not say whether they stand out for hateful, anti-gay messaging.<br /><br />What can we expect at this point? Walker might decide that he has no viable option but to issue a contempt citation against Equality California and the ACLU, because he has given them and Proponents reasonable opportunity to resolve their differences. At any rate, expect continued delay in the progress of the case toward closing arguments and a final judgment.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">update: </span>Walker has just <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/30482988/Doc-641">ordered</a> the ACLU and Equality California to show cause why he should not hold them in contempt for failing to produce documents subject to the March discovery orders. They have until April 27th to submit their written arguments, for a hearing on April 28th. (<a href="http://www.keennewsservice.com/2010/04/26/contempt-order-looms-in-prop-8-trial">Keen News Service</a>)Michael Ginsborghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05142968737430032147noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3808999261727661581.post-78218746273818653262010-04-24T12:30:00.000-07:002010-04-24T14:27:11.212-07:00Texas appellate court hears oral argument in same-sex divorce caseA Texas appellate court heard oral arguments this week in a same-sex divorce case. Publicly available news coverage conveys a sketchy idea of questions arising under state law and the federal constitution. Mainstream media repeat prepared press statements by attorneys. (<a href="http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202449125584&pos=ataglance">AP</a> / <a href="http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/04/22/Gay-divorce-said-aiding-gay-marriage-ban/UPI-48791271948443/">UPI</a> / <a style="font-style: italic;" href="http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-gaydivorce_22met.ART.Central.Edition1.4c6baa6.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=ping.fm">Dallas News</a> / <a href="http://texaslawyer.typepad.com/texas_lawyer_blog/2010/04/full-house-for-samesex-divorce-argument-at-5th-court.html"><span style="font-style: italic;">Texas Lawyer</span> Blog</a> / <a href="http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdaily/2010/04/gaydivorce.html">Am Law Daily</a> ) <a href="http://www.dallasvoice.com/instant-tea/2010/04/21/texas-appeals-court-hears-oral-arguments-in-dallas-gay-divorce-case/"><span style="font-style: italic;">The Dallas Voice</span></a> affords an outstanding exception to unsatisfactory news reports. (The <span style="font-style: italic;">Texas Lawyer</span> probably does a good job at reporting, but I can not judge, because I do not subscribe to it.) I rely on the briefs to summarize the procedural path to appeal, and to summarize the underlying legal arguments by parties on both sides. The legal issues warrant this level of attention. I also conclude that divorce equality under the constitution unavoidably implicates marriage equality. I may be wrong, of course, so I welcome comment.<br /><br />On October 1st, a Dallas judge <a href="http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/tx/intervenor.pdf">ruled</a> that that her court has jurisdiction to hear a divorce suit by a same-sex couple - identified as J.B. and H.B. - who had married in Massachusetts. Judge Tena Callahan found that the court has the power to divorce the couple, notwithstanding Texas' constitutional and statutory bans on same-sex marriage. To the extent that these bans would deprive the court of this power, she found that they violate the 14th Amendment's guaranty of equal protection. She also rejected a motion to intervene by state Attorney General Greg Abbott, who contended that bans on same-sex marriage limit the court's jurisdiction to voiding the marriage. (<a href="http://texaslawyer.typepad.com/texas_lawyer_blog/2009/10/state-district-judge-finds-texas-ban-on-gay-marriage-unconstitutional.html"><span style="font-style: italic;">Texas Lawyer</span></a>) The next day, Abbott filed a notice of appeal, seeking relief in the state 5th District Court of Appeals. On December 7th, Judge Callahan issued findings of fact and conclusions of law. (Tab 4, <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/30251304/In-the-Matter-of-the-Marriage-of-J-B-and-H-B-Brief-of-the-State-of-Texas-No-05-09-01170-CV-TX-Ct-App-5th-Dist-Jan-12-2010">Attorney General's brief</a>) Amending her October 1st order, she further ruled that due process under the 14th Amendment protects the right to divorce of married same-sex couples, and that prohibiting divorce would unduly burden their constitutionally protected freedom of association and right to travel.<br /><br />The parties to the appeal disagree about whether Texas state law allows same-sex couples to divorce. If the law does not allow same-sex divorce, parties disagree about whether it would violate the federal constitutional protections of same-sex couples, although neither party had raised these constitutional questions. Abbott argues that by banning same-sex marriage state law must also ban same-sex divorce - without violating the U.S. constitution. J.B.'s attorneys argue that the prohibition on same-sex marriage has no bearing on eligibility for divorce, but that if the appellate court addresses the constitutional questions Callahan decided, a divorce prohibition would be unconstitutional.<br /><br />Abbott failed to convince the appellate court that it could dispose of the case without oral argument, by reversing Callahan's decision and granting the Attorney General's position on the court's jurisdiction. (<a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/30251304/In-the-Matter-of-the-Marriage-of-J-B-and-H-B-Brief-of-the-State-of-Texas-No-05-09-01170-CV-TX-Ct-App-5th-Dist-Jan-12-2010">Attorney General's brief</a>) The proper remedy for the couple, he maintains, involves voidance of the marriage, not divorce, because Texas law applies to couples who reside in the state, and the law does not recognize same-sex marriage, even if laws of other states do. And while neither party asked Callahan to rule on federal constitutional protections, <em>Baker v. Nelson</em> 409 U.S. 810 (1972) still has binding effect. In <span style="font-style: italic;">Baker</span>, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a decision by the Minnesota Supreme Court that excluding same-sex couples from marriage does not violate due process and equal protection under the 14th Amendment. <span style="font-style: italic;">Baker</span> applies to this case, because "divorce is the enforcement mechanism for marriage," so that if it is not unconstitutional to ban same-sex marriage, it can not be unconstitutional to void, rather than divorce, a same-sex couple. Abbott also claims that Texas law does not restrict J.B.'s freedom of association or right to travel: "it simply refuses to extend legal enforcement to the promises and commitments outside the legal institution of marriage." Finally, he claims that Callahan's decision implicitly violates section 2 of the federal DOMA. On his account, section 2 reinforces Texas' right, under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the constitution, not to give "legal effect" to same-sex marriages through divorce.<br /><br />(The Liberty Institute also filed <a href="http://libertyinstitute.org/current_cases.php?category=6&article=61">a brief</a> supporting the Attorney General, and <a href="http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/liberty-institute-argues-dallas-same-sex-divorce-case-says-granting-same-sex-divorce-violates-texas-constitution-and-doma-91753934.html">participated</a> in the oral argument.)<br /><br />In their <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/30251486/In-the-Matter-of-the-Marriage-of-J-B-and-H-B-Appellee-Brief-No-05-09-01170-CV-TX-Ct-App-5th-Dist-Feb-8-2010">brief</a>, attorneys for J.B. explain why the appellate court "need not hold that Texas' same-sex marriage policy is unconstitutional to affirm the trial court's exercise of subject matter jurisdiction in this case, despite the [Attorney General's] unfounded, and wholly politically motivated, arguments to the contrary." A divorce proceeding for J.B. and H.B. would not mean that the state recognizes the marriage policies of other states as its own. Granting a divorce would represent noting the validity of a same-sex marriage "under the laws where it was formed," rather than a judgment that the marriage was valid in Texas.<br /><br />If the appellate court reaches the constitutional questions of Callahan's decision, J.B.'s attorneys argue that <span style="font-style: italic;">Baker</span> does not have binding effect, because <span style="font-style: italic;">Baker</span> concerned marriage, not divorce, and courts have distinguished the fundamental "liberty interests" in each. The summary nature of the <span style="font-style: italic;">Baker</span> ruling, and case law since 1972, undermines the extent of deference it can receive. In addition, the most stringent test of constitutional review would apply to this case: the state must have a compelling reason not to allow same-sex couples to divorce. Under this "strict scrutiny" test, the federal constitution does not allow the state to bar a divorce proceeding for same-sex couple on the basis of sexual orientation, and guarantees such couples a right to divorce. The core of J.B.'s equal-protection argument is that voidance does not provide same-sex couples an adequate substitute for divorce, and that depriving them of means to divorce stigamtizes them. The state can identify no legitimate interest in imposing that kind of burden on same-sex couples who want divorces.<br /><br />J.B.'s attorneys also argue that if Texas court can not divorce same-sex couples, the state would unconstitutionally infringe on J.B.'s right to travel. A divorce prohibition has no other purpose than to penalize married same-sex couples for moving to Texas, because it does not apply to married, opposite-sex couples. A divorce prohibition would also create "an atmosphere of hostility to their lawful unions designed to dissuade them from relocating to Texas, in circumstances whether they might otherwise consider moving here."<br /><br />J.B.'s attorneys answer Abbott's argument that Callahan's decision implicity violates the federal DOMA. They say that the federal DOMA has no bearing on the constitutional right to divorce, or on equal protection of the law in access to divorce proceedings.<br /><br />Whatever the merits of Abbott's constitutional arguments, they reflect more than the influence of "political motivation." Suppose the appellate court decides the case on constitutional grounds, and rules that equal protection and due process require Texas courts to hear same-sex divorce suits. While the right to divorce and the right to marry involve distinguishable constitutional interests, constitutional arguments for the right of same-sex couples to divorce would have the same force on their right to marry. I do not see how these arguments can be circumscribed. More importantly, neither does Abbott.Michael Ginsborghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05142968737430032147noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3808999261727661581.post-60931404055122804442010-04-21T12:53:00.000-07:002010-04-24T14:30:08.728-07:00Recent news and commentary<span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">Perry v. Schwarzenenger</span><br /><br />Andy Pugno, General Counsel of ProtectMarriage.com, posts an "<a href="http://www.protectmarriage.com/blog/2010/04/update-on-perry-v-schwarzenegger-case/">update</a>" on the case, and promises "more discussion of our legal defense of traditional marriage in coming emails."<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">Cole v. Arkansas</span><br /><br />Law professor <a href="http://www.nyls.edu/pages/378.asp">Arthur Leonard</a> has <a href="http://newyorklawschool.typepad.com/leonardlink/2010/04/arkansas-trial-judge-declares-adoption-restrictions-unconstitutional.html">commentary</a> on <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/30313733/Cole-v-Arkansas-Dept-of-Human-Services-Et-Al-Slip-Op-No-60CV-08-14284-Ak-Pulaski-Circuit-Court-Apr-16-2010-PDF">a ruling</a> that invalidates an Arkansas ban on adoption and foster care by same-sex couples. Law professor <a href="http://law.widener.edu/Academics/Faculty/ProfilesDe/CulhaneJohnG.aspx">John Culhane</a> also <a href="http://wordinedgewise.org/?p=1039">comments</a> on the ruling.The Alliance Defense Fund plans to appeal the ruling. (<a href="http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/3940">ADF press release</a>)<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">Greene v. County of Sonoma</span><br /><br /><a href="http://www.nclrights.org/site/PageServer?pagename=issue_caseDocket_Greene_v_County_of_Sonoma_et_al" target="_blank"><em>Greene v. County of Sonoma et al</em></a>., <a href="http://www.nclrights.org/site/DocServer/Greene_v_Sonoma_County.pdf?docID=7461">complaint</a>, No. SPR-81815 (Cal. Sonoma County Super. Ct. filed Mar. 22, 2010)<br /><br />"(San Francisco, CA, April 19, 2010) — Today, NCLR launched <a href="http://www.facebook.com/JusticeForClay?v=info&ref=mfinfo_edit_sections">a national media campaign</a> to bring visibility to a tragic new case where Sonoma County, California officials separated an elderly gay couple and sold their worldly possessions despite the measures the men had taken to protect their relationship." (<a href="http://www.nclrights.org/site/PageServer?pagename=press_Greene_v_SonomaCounty041910">04/19/10 press release</a> by National Center for Lesbian Rights) For additional coverage, see <a href="http://bayarea.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/20/suit-charges-elderly-gay-couple-was-forced-apart/"><span style="font-style: italic;">The New York Times</span></a>, <a href="http://www.bilerico.com/2010/04/meet_harold_greene_and_clay_scull.php">The Bilerico Project</a>, and <a href="http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2010/04/elderly-gay-couple-split-possessions-sold-by-california-county/">HRC Back Story</a>.Michael Ginsborghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05142968737430032147noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3808999261727661581.post-76686949378574328792010-04-20T13:07:00.000-07:002010-04-24T08:22:46.914-07:00Oral argument tomorrow in In the Matter of the Marriage of J.B. and H.B.<span style="font-style: italic;">In the Matter of the Marriage of J.B. and H.B.</span>, <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/30251304/In-the-Matter-of-the-Marriage-of-J-B-and-H-B-Brief-of-the-State-of-Texas-No-05-09-01170-CV-TX-Ct-App-5th-Dist-Jan-12-2010">brief of the State of Texas</a>, No. <a href="http://www.5thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/EDOCS/09/091170.HTM">05-09-01170-CV</a> (Tx. Ct. App. 5th Dist. Jan. 12, 2010)<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">In the Matter of the Marriage of J.B. and H.B.</span>, <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/30251486/In-the-Matter-of-the-Marriage-of-J-B-and-H-B-Appellee-Brief-No-05-09-01170-CV-TX-Ct-App-5th-Dist-Feb-8-2010">Appellee J.B.'s brief</a>, No. <a href="http://www.5thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/EDOCS/09/091170.HTM">05-09-01170-CV</a> (Tx. Ct. App. 5th Dist. Feb. 8, 2010)<br /><br /><br />Oral argument in this case takes place tomorrow, starting at 2 p.m.. (<a href="http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6968534.html">AP</a> / <a href="http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/041810dnmetgaydivorce.266f07771.html"><span style="font-style: italic;">Dallas Morning News</span></a>/ <a href="http://www.dallasvoice.com/instant-tea/2010/04/19/gay-divorce-update-arguments-wednesday-in-dallas-case-ags-office-to-appeal-austin-ruling/"><span style="font-style: italic;">Dallas Voice</span></a>). The docket is <a href="http://www.5thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/FILES/05/09/05091170.HTM">here</a>. For a brief description of the case, see <a href="http://texaslawyer.typepad.com/texas_lawyer_blog/2010/03/oral-argument-set-at-5th-court-of-appeals-in-samesex-divorce-case.html">this entry</a> by the <span style="font-style: italic;">Texas Lawyer</span>.Michael Ginsborghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05142968737430032147noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3808999261727661581.post-69921718152746903622010-04-18T09:05:00.000-07:002010-05-02T17:57:03.529-07:00Angelique Naylor responds to Texas Attorney General's appeal of divorce from her former wifeAngelique Naylor told Newsweek that in appealing her divorce decree, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has pursued a "<span class="BlogPostWords">politically motivated attack and attempt to wear me down financially by running up my legal bills." (<a href="http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thehumancondition/archive/2010/04/16/breaking-lesbian-divorce-appealed-in-texas-by-attorney-general.aspx">Newsweek</a>) She also states that the appeal is "</span><span class="BlogPostWords">is an egregious misuse of state resources when there is already an almost identical case already set for a hearing in the 5th court of appeals next week." The other case on appeal is </span><em>In the Matter of the Marriage of J.B. and H.B.</em> (<a href="http://texaslawyer.typepad.com/texas_lawyer_blog/2010/03/oral-argument-set-at-5th-court-of-appeals-in-samesex-divorce-case.html"><span style="font-style: italic;">Texas Lawyer</span> Blog</a>)<br /><br />(<span style="font-weight: bold;">04/20-21/10 update</span>: AP has a report on the appeal in <a href="http://texaslawyer.typepad.com/texas_lawyer_blog/2010/02/ags-office-battles-a-second-texas-samesex-divorce-case.html">Naylor's divorce case</a>, but fails to distinguish substantive and procedural issues in the two cases. Commenting on the article, law professor <a href="http://www.law.upenn.edu/cf/faculty/twolff/">Tobias Barrington Wolff</a> <a href="http://politicsone.co.cc/texas%E2%80%99-cruel-push-to-prevent-same-sex-couples-from-divorcing">observes</a> that even if Naylor or her spouse could relocate to Massachusetts and divorce there, the federal DOMA would allow Texas to "disregard the divorce decree of a same-sex couple altogether.")Michael Ginsborghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05142968737430032147noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3808999261727661581.post-31353750570584701592010-04-17T09:59:00.000-07:002010-04-18T08:36:11.127-07:00Prop. 8 proponents in Perry case seek order of contempt against California Equality and ACLU over discovery dispute, and aim to expand the dispute<span style="font-style: italic;">Perry v. Schwarzenneger</span>, <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/30087793">Prop. 8 proponents' response to April 13, 2010, order to show cause why record of evidence should not be closed, and motion for contempt</a>, No. 09-cv-2292 (N.D.Cal. Apr. 16, 2010), and <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/30087925">exhibits<br /></a><br />(I wish to thank a kind reader of this site for forwarding the referenced filings.)<br /><br />On April 13th, Judge Walker <a href="http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2009cv02292/215270/631/">ordered</a> Prop. 8 proponents in the <span style="font-style: italic;">Perry</span> case to show cause why the record of evidence should not be closed, and he set an April 16th deadline for them to do so. In their response, they contend that the Court must keep the record open because No-on-8 groups - including Equality California and the ACLU - failed to produce documents that two discovery orders in March required them to produce.<br /><br />The orders apply to a category of nonpublic, campaign communications that individuals within Equality California and the ACLU exchanged with coalition partners of the Equality for All Campaign. The only private communications subject to the orders concern formulations of No-on-8 campaign strategy and messaging. The orders further limit document production to private communications that the No-on-8 groups exchanged; it excepts communications internal to each of the organizations.<br /><br />The No-on-8 groups lost their appeal of the March discovery orders. (<a href="http://prop8legalcommentary.blogspot.com/2010/04/9th-circuit-panel-dismisses-appeal-by.html">Prop. 8 and the Right to Marry</a>) They had claimed that the documents the orders compelled them to disclose were not relevant to identifying or clarifying the intent of voters who approved Prop. 8. At Courage Campaign's Prop. 8 Trial Tracker, Brian Leubitz <a href="http://prop8trialtracker.com/2010/04/14/on-the-aclueqca-discovery-litigation/">says</a> that the issue of relevancy has been "the focus" of objections by Equality California and the ACLU. However, the central issue of concern involves the extent to which the First Amendment protects certain campaign communications from compelled disclosure.<br /><br />In fact, the No-on-8 groups also claimed that Judges Walker and Spero clearly misinterpreted a previous appellate holding on the scope of First Amendment privilege from compelled disclosure. In January, a 9th Circuit panel had held that "the First Amendment privilege is ... limited to [internal, private] communications among the core group of <span style="font-style: italic;">persons</span> engaged in the formulation of campaign strategy and messages." "<a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16974514884687625142"><span style="font-style: italic;">Perry I</span></a>," 91 F.3d 1147, 1165 n.12 (9th Cir. 2010). At the time, this holding protected from discovery the internal campaign communications of individuals within a "core group" - the ProtectMarriage / Yes-on-8 campaign of the official Proponents. In his March 5th <a href="http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2009cv02292/215270/610/">discovery order</a>, Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero applied the holding to document production in a different context - to a category of campaign communications that Proponents seek from the No-on-8 groups. On March 22nd, Judge Walker <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/28872865/Order-by-Judge-Walker-Granting-Motion-to-Stay-Judge-Spero-s-Discovery-Order-Until-Mar-29-2010-No-09-Cv-02292-N-D-cal-Mar-23-2010">sustained</a> Spero's order against objections by the No-on-8 groups, and required them to complete a "rolling production" of the relevant documents by March 31st.<br /><br />The same 9th Circuit panel in <a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16974514884687625142"><span style="font-style: italic;">Perry I</span></a> issued a stay of the March discovery orders until it <a href="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/04/12/10-15649_WritDenyOrder_Filed.pdf">dismissed</a> the appeal on April 12th. The panel decided that its prior First Amendment holding does not preclude a First Amendment privilege for private communications on campaign strategy and messaging, exchanged among a "core group of associated persons spanning more than one [campaign] entity." "The operative inquiry," the panel said, "is whether they are part of an <span style="font-style: italic;">association</span> subject to First Amendment protection." (italics in the original) Walker and Spero had not clearly erred in this matter because the N0-on-8 groups never provided information to show that it was the function of their organizations to associate in a coalition. Because Walker and Spero had not clearly erred (and for other reasons), the panel concluded that the 9th Circuit Court lacked mandamus jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The No-on-8 groups could not seek relief until they failed to produce the required documents and Judge Walker cited them for contempt.<br /><br />Proponents now seek an order of contempt against Equality California and the ACLU for their continuing failure to produce documents subject to the March discovery orders. The <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/28872865/Order-by-Judge-Walker-Granting-Motion-to-Stay-Judge-Spero-s-Discovery-Order-Until-Mar-29-2010-No-09-Cv-02292-N-D-cal-Mar-23-2010">March 22nd order</a> required Proponents to assess the document production and determine, by April 12th, which documents would be relevant to enter into the case's evidentiary record. Having received no documents, Proponents contend that the evidentiary record must remain open until the No-on-8 groups produce the documents.<br /><br />Proponents also acknowledge that the No-on-8 groups offered a "compromise proposal" to end the discovery dispute. The groups expressed a willingness to comply with an amended discovery order. What amended order would satisfy them? Judge Walker would have to rule that their exchanged campaign communications qualify for First Amendment protection under the latest guidance of the 9th Circuit panel. Proponents countered, saying that they would accept the compromise proposal, but only if Walker "evenhandedly" applied the guidance to "the Court’s prior discovery and evidentiary rulings with respect to Proponents’ claims of privilege." In other words, Proponents would want Judge Walker to revisit his pre-trial discovery orders, so that the Proponents could exclude from the record of evidence any private campaign communications on strategy or messaging that Proponents exchanged with allied organizations.<br /><br />As matters now stand, the No-on-8 groups have filed no motion to set out their compromise proposal. If the groups do file that motion, the <span style="font-style: italic;">Perry</span> plaintiffs say that plaintiffs "reserve the right to weigh in with the district court regarding the content of" an amended order." (Exhibit H) Moreover, whatever the groups do, Proponents plan to file a motion asking that Walker revisit his pre-trial discovery orders: "If the No-on-8 Groups do come forward with a motion for further relief, then Proponents will promptly respond so that the issue can be considered in tandem with Proponents’ own forthcoming motion for similar relief consistent with the Ninth Circuit’s further guidance."<br /><br />So Proponents are using the discovery position of the No-on-8 groups to outmaneuver the plaintiffs on what campaign communications will ultimately remain in the case's record of evidence. Proponents hope to expand the discovery dispute, but I am convinced that they are not simply manufacturing a pretext to delay closing arguments and final judgment by Walker. They defend the idea that the content of private campaign speech, rather "core group" membership, must determine the scope of First Amendment privilege. (<a href="http://prop8legalcommentary.blogspot.com/2010/04/opening-briefs-filed-in-9th-circuit.html">Prop. 8 and the Right to Marry</a>) I find their defense not just plausible, but compelling, and they are pursuing it through a U.S. Supreme Court petition now on hold. (<a href="http://prop8legalcommentary.blogspot.com/2010/04/9th-circuit-panel-dismisses-appeal-by.html">Prop. 8 and the Right to Marr</a><a href="http://prop8legalcommentary.blogspot.com/2010/04/9th-circuit-panel-dismisses-appeal-by.html">y</a>) Law professor Nan Hunter <a href="http://hunterforjustice.typepad.com/hunter_of_justice/2010/04/appeals-aplenty-in-the-perry-case.html">faults</a> the petition as "weak," but on grounds that do not convince me. If anyone has followed me this far (!), I would welcome comment on why I am wrong.Michael Ginsborghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05142968737430032147noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3808999261727661581.post-87316710361572199172010-04-16T14:52:00.000-07:002010-04-18T08:59:09.408-07:00Cole v. Arkansas: Judge rules that it's unconstitutional for Arkansas to ban adoption and foster-care by unmarried couplesIn <a style="font-weight: bold;" href="http://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights_hiv-aids/cole-v-arkansas-case-profile"><span style="font-style: italic;">Cole v. Arkansas</span></a>, plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of an Arkansas statute that bans adoption and foster-care by unmarried couples. The judge in the case has just ruled that the law "infringes upon the fundamental right to privacy guaranteed to all citizens of Arkansas." (<a href="http://arkansasnews.com/2010/04/16/judge-strikes-down-adoption-ban/">Arkansas News Bureau</a>) JURIST <a href="http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2010/04/arkansas-judge-strikes-down-gay.php">links</a> to the <a href="http://showtime.arkansasonline.com/e2/news/documents/2010/04/16/DOC041610.pdf">ruling</a> and reports on the litigation that led to it.Michael Ginsborghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05142968737430032147noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3808999261727661581.post-77457767347403689372010-04-16T12:34:00.000-07:002010-04-18T09:03:43.563-07:00President Obama's memorandum on increased patient rights to designate hospital visitators and medical powers of attorneyIn <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential-memorandum-hospital-visitation">a memorandum</a>, President Obama has directed the Department of Health and Human Services to draft rules allowing hospital patents to designate visitors, and to afford the visitors at least the same level of access as immediate family members. The rules would apply to all hospitals that participate in Medicare or Medicaid. Members of LGBT families would be among designated visitors guaranteed equal protection of visitation privileges. The rules would also require the hospitals to have policies for honoring patient designation of medical powers of attorney when patients are, or become, incapacitated. (<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/16/us/politics/16webhosp.html">NY Times</a> / <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gay-couples-hospitals16-2010apr16,0,1699384.story">LA Times</a> / <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/15/AR2010041505502.html?hpid=topnews">Washington Post</a> / <a href="http://www.lgbtpov.com/2010/04/obama-signs-memorandum-granting-hospital-visitation-rights-to-lgbt-partners-and-families/">LGBT POV</a>)<br /><br />Law professor <a href="http://www.blogger.com/%22That%20respect%20for%20individual%20autonomy%20and%20decision-making%20in%20the%20most%20challenging%20circumstances%20is%20the%20great%20accomplishment%20of%20this%20Memorandum,%20and%20it%20shouldn%27t%20go%20unacknowledged.%22%20%20http://wordinedgewise.org/?p=1035%20%20%20http://snipurl.com/vjfaf">John Culhane</a> has a predictably perceptive insight on what President Obama has accomplished. Having argued over a decade for marriage equality, he understands that marriage equality would do much more to remedy problems of discrimination against same-sex couples. But "read the Memorandum closely," he urges, "and you’ll see that the requested change goes far beyond marriage equality: The idea is to allow people to designate <em>the person of their choice</em> (either “on the spot” or through advance directives) to visit them in the hospital ... That respect for individual autonomy and decision-making in the most challenging circumstances is the great accomplishment of this Memorandum, and it shouldn’t go unacknowledged." (<a href="http://wordinedgewise.org/?p=1035">WordinEdgewise</a>)<br /><br />Mainstream media have represented the LGBT community as divided on the importance of Obama's memorandum. (<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/15/AR2010041505502.html?hpid=topnews">Washington Post</a>) The news has had a welcome reception among several advocacy organizations, including <a href="http://glaadblog.org/2010/04/16/glaad-applauds-presidential-memorandum-adding-hospital-visitation-protections-for-same-sex-couples/">GLAAD</a>, <a href="http://www.lambdalegal.org/news/pr/us_20100415_president-obama-issues-memo-on-lgbt-health-issues.html">Lamda Legal</a>, the <a href="http://www.thetaskforce.org/press/releases/pr_041510">National Gay and Lesbian Task Force</a>, and the <a href="http://www.hrc.org/14307.htm">Human Rights Campaign</a>. HRC Vice President David Smith called the development "a huge deal." (<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/16/us/politics/16webhosp.html">NY Times</a>) This view has support in the tragic circumstances of an LGBT family that led to <a href="http://www.lambdalegal.org/news/pr/ny_20100416_presidential-memo.html">a lawsuit</a> filed by Lamda Legal and an apology by President Obama. (The Miami Herald <a href="http://miamiherald.typepad.com/gaysouthflorida/2010/04/langbehn-pond-case-in-miami-leads-to-obama-directive-ordering-hospital-visits-for-gay-and-lesbian-partners.html">reports</a> on what happened to that family and the subsequent lawsuit.)<br /><br />While praising the decision, other advocates of marriage equality reserve criticism about what it falls short of. "[T]he dynamic leaves" Andrew Sullivan "queasy." (<a href="http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/04/obama-and-the-gays.html">Daily Dish</a>) Marriage Equality New York asks its supporters to share their appreciation with the President, but to also let him know "that we expect more from the White House on marriage equality." (<a href="http://blog.marriageequalityny.org/2010/04/victory-for-compassion.html">MENY Marriage News</a>) "It's not full equality, but it's something," <a href="http://gayrights.change.org/blog/view/a_presidential_apology_for_hospital_discrimination">says</a> Maia Spotts of GayRightsChange.org. "[D]oes HRC really think this is a huge deal," <a href="http://gay.americablog.com/2010/04/hospital-visitation-is-great-but-is-it.html">asks</a> blogger John Aravosis, "or are they simply, yet again, working for the President rather than working for the community?"<br /><br />The memorandum already has opponents. Peter Sprigg, a senior fellow for policy studies at Family Research Council, questions the President's political motivations, even though he does not reject the proposed benefits for LGBT families. (<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/15/AR2010041505502.html?hpid=topnews">Washington Post</a>) Pretending to separate intent from outcome, Sprigg said that the memorandum must be taken in its "political context." In that context, he claims, it "clearly constitutes pandering to a radical special interest group. The memorandum undermines the definition of marriage, and furthers a big-government federal takeover of even the smallest details of the nation's healthcare system." (<a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gay-couples-hospitals16-2010apr16,0,1699384.story">LA Times</a>)Michael Ginsborghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05142968737430032147noreply@blogger.com0