Advocacy Groups Vow to Return to Polls to Restore Marriage for Same-sex Couples

May 26, 2009—Today, in a 6 to 1 decision, the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8, the ballot measure that eliminated the right of same sex couples to marry. In the ruling authored by Chief Justice Ronald George, the Court stated “We emphasize only that among the various constitutional protections recognized in the Marriage Cases as available to same-sex couples, it is only the designation of marriage — albeit significant — that has been removed by this initiative measure.” At the same time, the court unanimously ruled that the more than 18,000 marriages that took place between June 16 and November 4, 2008 continue to be fully valid and recognized by the state of California. The decision reaffirmed the Court’s prior holding that sexual orientation is subject to the highest level of protection under the California Constitution.

In a strongly worded dissent, Justice Carlos Moreno stated, “The rule the majority crafts today not only allows same-sex couples to be stripped of the right to marry that this court recognized in the Marriage Cases, it places at risk the state constitutional rights of all disfavored minorities. It weakens the status of our state Constitution as a bulwark of fundamental rights for minorities protected from the will of the majority.”

“Today’s decision is a terrible blow to same-sex couples who share the same hopes and dreams for their families as other Californians,” said Shannon Minter, Legal Director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, who argued the case before the California Supreme Court in March. “But our path ahead is now clear. We will go back to the ballot box and we will win.”

The National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal, and the ACLU represent Equality California, whose members include many same-sex couples who married between June 16 and November 4, 2008, and six same-sex couples. David C. Codell and Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, and Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP are also counsel on the case.

At a press conference this morning, all of the groups vowed to return to the polls to restore the right to marry for same-sex couples.

Ramona Ripston, executive director of the ACLU of Southern California, said, “Shame on California. Shame on California! We are deeply disappointed by the California Supreme Court’s cowardly decision today, which for the first time in our state’s history permits a majority of voters in a single election to strip a fundamental constitutional right from a minority group that has historically been discriminated against. It will take time, determination and a united effort to overturn Proposition 8, but we have all those things, and we will use them to full advantage.”

The National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal, and the ACLU filed the legal challenge on November 5, after Proposition 8 was approved by just 52 percent of the voters on Election Day.

An unprecedented 43 friend-of-the-court briefs, representing hundreds of religious organizations, civil rights groups, and labor unions, and numerous California municipal governments, bar associations, and leading legal scholars, were filed in the case, urging the Court to strike down the initiative.

“Public opinion is moving in the direction of fairness and equality, and it is only a matter of time until the freedom to marry will again be secure for all Californians,” said Jennifer C. Pizer, Marriage Project Director for Lambda Legal. “Achieving equality always requires struggle, but over time people come to accept that equal treatment and equal protection of the laws is the best way to protect the rights of all.”

"By upholding Prop. 8, the Court has moved our state backward and has put all Californians at risk of losing fundamental rights at each and every election. Our Constitution must ensure that all Californians are treated equally by our government,” said Geoff Kors, Executive Director of Equality California. “Despite this injustice, we are prepared to return to the ballot box together with our allies to restore the freedom to marry. As more and more states across the nation allow same-sex couples to marry, and as we continue our efforts to win the hearts and minds of Californians through real conversations in homes, in neighborhoods, online and on the air, we are confident that same-sex couples will soon enjoy the honor, dignity and protections that only marriage provides.”

The case is Strauss et al. v. Horton et al. (#S168047).

***

The National Center for Lesbian Rights is a national legal organization committed to advancing the civil and human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people and their families through litigation, public policy advocacy, and public education.

Lambda Legal is a national organization committed to achieving full recognition of the civil rights of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, transgender people and those with HIV through impact litigation, education and public policy work.

The American Civil Liberties Union is America’s foremost advocate of individual rights. It fights discrimination and moves public opinion on LGBT rights through the courts, legislatures and public education.

Equality California is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, grassroots-based, statewide advocacy organization whose mission is to achieve equality and civil rights for all lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Californians.

ACLU/SC Pushes Anew for Release of Detained American as New Document Shows U.A.E. Cooperated in U.S. Rendition Program

LOS ANGELES, Calif. – The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California is asking a federal District Court in Washington D.C to provide access to key information exposing the United States’ role in the detention, torture and prosecution of an American citizen in the United Arab Emirates.

Naji Hamdan, a Muslim American auto-parts businessman who lived in the Los Angeles area for two decades, was detained last year by the U.A.E. at the behest of the U.S. government and severely tortured. He is now facing a June 14 trial in the U.A.E. on unspecified charges of promoting terrorism that appear to be based on false statements obtained through torture.

Included in the request to the District Court filed Tuesday is a document obtained by the ACLU/SC demonstrating that the U.A.E. has acted as the U.S. government’s proxy to detain people for extraordinary rendition in the past. The newly obtained document shows that U.S. officials communicated to Interpol that they intended to carry out an extraordinary rendition of an individual -- not Hamdan -- in U.A.E. custody with the help of Emirate Airlines in 2005.

“This document clearly shows that the U.S. has cooperated with the U.A.E. to engage in proxy detention in the past,” said Ahilan Arulanantham, director of immigrants’ rights and national security for the ACLU/SC. “Sadly, Naji Hamdan’s case makes clear that the U.S. is continuing to engage in such human rights abuses under the Obama administration.”

Also included in the request is information about concerns recently expressed by members of Congress over the U.A.E.’s poor human rights record after a videotape surfaced that captured a member of the Emirati royal family brutally torturing a detainee. Amnesty International has extensively documented the U.A.E.’s practice of torturing prisoners and, in particular, state-security detainees such as Hamdan.

These disturbing revelations, coupled with Hamdan’s looming trial in the U.A.E. and his own account of torture at the hands of U.A.E. officials, have led the ACLU/SC to send a petition bearing more than 1,000 signatures to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, urging her to intervene on Hamdan’s behalf to ensure that evidence obtained through torture is not used against him.

“Our government can no longer stay silent in the face of the mistreatment of its own citizens, particularly where they were detained at the behest of their own government,” Arulanantham said. “Given the extremely credible allegations that Hamdan was tortured while in U.A.E. custody, the U.S. must now use its influence to get him out of prison in the U.A.E., or at least ensure that evidence obtained through torture is not used against him in trial.”

In November, the ACLU/SC filed a lawsuit seeking Hamdan’s release. The lawsuit alleges that the United States asked the U.A.E. to detain and interrogate Hamdan -- knowing that he would be tortured -- so that the United States could avoid the constitutional protections Hamdan would have been afforded if detained and charged here at home.

Hamdan, who was born in Lebanon and became a U.S. citizen, managed the Islamic Center of Hawthorne, a mosque and community center. He suffered through years of surveillance and harassment by the FBI that began shortly after the agency increased monitoring of Muslim groups in the United States in the wake of 9/11. In 2006, he decided to relocate his family and business to the U.A.E. In 2008, FBI agents traveled from Los Angeles to the U.A.E. to question Hamdan further. Six weeks later he was detained by agents of the U.A.E.’s state security forces.

SANTA ANA, Calif. – The Orange County District Attorney's Office dismissed the case against five clients of the ACLU of Southern California on Thursday after a Superior Court judge refused to include them on a preliminary basis under the provisions of a sweeping gang injunction. The case against 57 other individuals named in the injunction was likewise dismissed.

The case marks one of the few times that individuals named in a gang injunction have been able to obtain legal representation and defend themselves against the charge they are gang members and should have their activities severely restricted. It also calls into question how many other times young men and women around the region have been unfairly subjected to the overly broad restrictions typically imposed by gang injunctions, said ACLU/SC Staff Attorney Peter Bibring.

“This decision shows that the district attorney's „guilt-by-association - strategy won't stand up in court,” Bibring said. “By dropping the case against anyone who offered a defense, the district attorney has conceded the weakness of his case and that he cast too wide a net.”

Erika Vanessa Aranda, Louis DeHerrera, Patrick Philip DeHerrera, Roy David DeHerrera and an unnamed juvenile were among 115 people that Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas had designated in his proposed injunction as among the “most active participants in” the Orange Varrio Cypress gang. Rackauckas has accused the gang's members of attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon, terrorist threats, robbery, drug sales and other crimes.

“The district attorney would not have dismissed our clients – and so many others -- if there was any evidence that they were dangerous,” said Belinda Escobosa Helzer, a staff attorney for the ACLU/SC's Orange County Office. “Their dismissal undermines his earlier claims that the people named in the injunction were all active and dangerous members of a gang.”

In the case of Aranda, Rackauckas's office attempted to link her to the gang even though she has never claimed gang membership, has never participated in a gang and has never been convicted of a crime. The district attorney based proof of her membership on three minor incidents, including a charge of trespassing for walking through an abandoned building in a short cut to a school in her neighborhood.

Touted by law enforcement officials as tough and necessary crime-fighting tools, aggressive gang injunctions have been used largely in poor communities of color with little proven effect. They raise issues of racial profiling even as they criminalize everyday activities such as visiting parks and associating with family and friends. In pursuing the injunctions, law enforcement agencies have eroded community trust and endangered the constitutional rights of nongang members to move freely and associate with whomever they like.