Federal Lawsuit Filed to Overturn Prop. 8

On Wednesday May 27, Theodore B. Olson and David Boies held a news conference and announced that they had filed a complaint in federal court requesting a permanent injunction against implementation of Prop. 8 and a judgment that Prop. 8 violates the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution as well as 42 U.S.C. 1983.

Olson and Boies represented George Bush and Al Gore respectively in the 2000 presidential election case that went before the U.S. Supreme Court. They have joined together and created the American Foundation for Equal Rights, which according to its website, "is dedicated to protecting and advancing equal rights for every American through legal, policy and political advocacy."

Their first project, is the federal court challange to Prop. 8.

Links:

American Foundation for Equal Rights
American Foundation for Equal Rights Facebook on Facebook
American Foundation for Equal Rights Federal Complaint

The Selling of Homosexuality

The din subsequent to the California Supreme Court decision on Proposition 8 to be issued May 26^th at 10:00 a.m. may cause attention to focus on the protests, the protesters, their cause etc. and by doing so, two critical points may become lost: first, the legal decision itself, and second, and perhaps more important, how the protest or celebrations themselves fit into the broader plan of selling homosexuality to America.

Read about how a plan written in 1990 for selling Homosexuality to America is being implemented today in a new TwoMinuteBriefing entitled “The Selling of Homosexuality”.

To access this TwoMinuteBriefing, visit www.TwoMinuteBriefing.com or simply click here.

Official - California Supreme Court WILL Issue an Opinion on Proposition 8 on Tuesday

The California Supreme Court website has posted the following information:

The California Supreme Court has announced that it will issue an opinion in three cases challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8 at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, May 26, 2009. (Strauss v. Horton, S168047; Tyler v. State of California, S168066; City and County of San Francisco v. Horton, S168078.) Tuesday at 10 a.m., the opinion will be available on the California Courts Web site at this link: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/.

Domestic Partnerships - Gay Marriage

Susan Estrich, in her commentary entitled The Real World of Gay Marriage states:

But calling it a "domestic partnership" rather than a "marriage" is a slap in the face, either a distinction without a real difference (and thus unjustified) or a sign of inferior status, of lesser rights and second-class citizenship that cannot be justified by any interest of the states. Religions are free to marry whomever they want; what the Bible does or doesn't say, however, is not the province of the State. No one is telling the Mormon Church what it can do with respect to gay marriage. The Mormon Church should not be telling us.

This commentary was headlined in Rasmussen Reports daily public opinion update of March 6, 2009, which of course was the day that arguments were presented before the Supreme Court of California regarding the legality of Proposition 8, passed last November by California voters.

As other states look to pass “domestic partnership” arrangements, Susan Estrich’s statement above and California’s example should be carefully examined. It was California’s then existing “domestic partnership” arrangements that the Supreme Court of California used in part to justify its pro gay marriage decision in the In Re Marriage Cases (2008) 43 Cal.4th 757 [76 Cal.Rptr.3d 683, 183 P.3d 384], and which ultimately has led to the Prop 8 battle before the court today.

READ Susn Estrich’s commentary in Rasmussen Report here.

Targeting Prop 8 Supporters

Since the November election last year, and the passage of Proposition 8 in California, there have been many news stories of individuals who financially supported Proposition 8 being targeted, and in some cases threatened with boycotts because of their support. While the list of who donated on either side of this issue is a matter of public record, the use of this information to target supporters of Proposition 8 seems antithetical to allowing the political process to function unencumbered from harassment.

A web site now exists which provides a Google map "mashup" with the data of who donated in support of Proposition 8. With the functionality of Google maps, one can pick any town and zoom in and find markers indicating the homes of those donated to pass Proposition 8.

TwoMinuteBriefing believes that this is a highly inappropriate use of this data. The creation of donor lists was for the intent of disclosing whether certain corporations or individuals were seeking to unduly influence the political process through their donations. The creation of donor lists was NOT done for the intent of allowing either side of an issue to then harass those on the other side of an issue.

TwoMinuteBriefing also found that while the owners of most websites use their names or company name when registering a website, the creators of one specific "mashup" map have hidden their names by registering their website through an anonymizer.

Protecting Marriage or Limiting Marriage

The battle of same-sex marriage in California continues.

Earlier this year, those in favor of traditional marriage were able to place on the November 2008 ballot a measure to amend the California Constitution to include the statement, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." This measure, if passed, would be titled the "California Marriage Protection Act." This is proposition 8 on the ballot.

However, taking into account the Supreme Court of California decision in May of this year to allow same-sex marriage, the California Secretary of State gave proposition 8 the label "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couple to Marry," and gave as the first line of the description of the initiative as, "Changes California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry."

Those in favor of traditional marriage felt that this wording was biased and challened the wording in court. Their concern is that with this ballot wording, voters would be less likely to vote in favor of defining marriage as between a man and a woman. On August 8, the Superior Court ruled in favor of the Secretary of State. Although the proponents of the proposition plan to appeal, it is quickly becoming unlikely that the wording will be changed.

To see the official ballot label, click here and scroll down to Proposition 8.