Connect with us

Equality Forum: Legal Panel (Part I): Chewing Over Prop 8

Published

on

The New Civil Rights Movement’s John Culhane is the official blogger for Equality Forum, Philadelphia’s internationally known and always interesting cavalcade of events that celebrates, informs and provokes on all (or many, anyway) things LGBT. John will be sharing reports daily over the next few days. Read all John’s Equality Forum posts here. 

You could tell that National Legal Panel had some serious heft: The event (like the National Politics Panel, which followed) was held in the Constitution Center on Friday, and introduced by a public relations/education leader there. And then there was the way the panelists filed in — in single file, from stage right, while being announced like the day’s contestants on Jeopardy!

The credentials and background of the panelists, along with the absurd depth of their knowledge, justified this folderol. Moderator Jennifer Pizer is the Legal Director at the Williams Institute (LGBT research initiative) at UCLA; William Eskridge is a Yale law professor who has written extensively on many issues related to the LGBT community, but perhaps especially about marriage equality; Hayley Gorenberg is the Deputy Director of Lambda Legal and has litigated many high-profile cases; and Janson Wu is a staff attorney for the Gay and Lesbian Legal Defenders (“GLAD”) who has also been successful in cases brought in New England to secure LGBT rights — especially with regard to the vile Defense of Marriage Act.

In fact, the panelists had so much to say that one post can’t do the panel justice. In this Part I, let’s talk about Eskridge’s analysis of the Prop 8 litigation. (Stay tuned for a second post in a day or two.)

Pizer’s effective style was to get each panelist to catch the audience up on recent developments by asking a series of provocative, yet open-ended questions. Eskridge began the discussion by asking us how many thought there’d be full marriage equality in the U.S. within five, then ten, then twenty years. When he moved from ten to twenty years, the “yes” vote jumped from about half to almost all. And, as it turned out, that’s what Eskridge thinks, too. Instead of saying that directly, he used the progress of the Proposition 8 litigation to make his point. He’s hoping for a narrow win that would toss out Prop 8 — and thereby restore marriage equality to California — but leave other anti-equality laws intact.

As we know, Prop 8 is now before the Ninth Circuit court of appeals. The Prop 8 opponents (our side!) have won in both the federal district (trial) court and before a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit. Next, the judges are soon to decide whether to rehear the case en banc (in a group of twelve judged), or decline to do so, in which case the matter could be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court right away. (The Court would not be obligated to hear the case; in that event, the decision by the Ninth Circuit that Prop 8 is unconstitutional would stand).

The most interesting aspect of Eskridge’s presentation was his discussion of the narrow basis on which the Ninth Circuit had decided the case — a basis, it turns out, that Eskridge had advocated in an amicus brief he filed with the court. Instead of asking the appellate court to affirm the lower court’s broad ruling that excluding same-sex couples from marriage is a violation of both their right to equal protection under the law and of the fundamental right to marry, the Eskridge brief, asked the court to rule that Prop 8 is unconstitutional only because it bears a close resemblance to another Supreme Court case, Romer v. Evans. In Romer, the court ruled that an amendment to the Colorado state constitution that prevented localities from providing gays and lesbians with legal protections was a violation of equal protection of the law in the most fundamental way. Eskridge drew three clear parallels between that case and Prop 8:

(1) Voters took away a fundamental right from a discriminated-against minority (before Prop 8, same-sex couples had a right to marry that the California Supreme Court had identified from principles in the state’s constitution);

(2) The rationalizations for Prop 8 sweep too broadly. Let’s put this in terms non-lawyers can understand, by using an example. One of the procreation arguments advanced to justify the measure is that marriage is needed to increase the chances that opposite-sex couples who “accidentally procreate” will stay together. But how  is this end served taking away the right of same-sex couples to marry?

(3) The campaigns and the effect of the initiative was to “effect a status denigration” on a particular class — in express defiance of Romer.  For example, ads emphasized that school children might now draw the inference that same-sex relationships were just as good as opposite-sex ones. Well, they should, if gays and lesbians are equal citizens. So these ads and the whole tenor of the campaign, then reflected in the vote, was in part to create a sort of forbidden caste system. That’s in defiance of Justice Kennedy’s quote in Romer that “the Constitution neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.”

Why pitch your legal tent on such a narrow piece of land? Eskridge, like many, thinks that Justice Anthony Kennedy’ vote will be decisive. And since Kennedy wrote Romer and might be reluctant to issue a ruling that would decide the marriage equality issue once and for all, this laser-focus might make sense.

We’ll see, but probably not too soon. This case probably has another year or two of twists and turns before the last word is spoken.

Were he born 10,000 years ago, John Culhane would not have survived to adulthood; he has no useful, practical skills. He is a law professor who writes about various and sundry topics, including: disaster compensation; tort law; public health law; literature; science; sports; his own personal life (when he can bear the humanity); and, especially, LGBT rights and issues. He teaches at the Widener University School of Law and is a Senior Fellow at the Thomas Jefferson School of Population Health.

He is also a contributor to Slate Magazine, and writes his own eclectic blog. You can follow him on Facebook and Twitter if you’re blessed with lots of time.

John Culhane lives in the Powelton Village area of Philadelphia with his partner David and their twin daughters, Courtnee and Alexa. Each month, he awaits the third Saturday evening for the neighborhood Wine Club gathering.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

Trump Appeared Unaware His Budget Bill Cuts $1T From Medicaid: Report

Published

16 hours ago

on

July 2, 2025

By

President Donald Trump reportedly appeared to be unaware that the Republican budget legislation, formerly his “One Big, Beautiful Bill,” cuts approximately $1 trillion from Medicaid. In a meeting at the White House on Wednesday, Trump told moderate Republicans not to cut Medicaid, Medicare, or Social Security.

“Trump still doesn’t seem to have a firm grasp about what his signature legislative achievement does,” NOTUS reports. “According to three sources with direct knowledge of the comments, the president told Republicans at this meeting that there are three things Congress shouldn’t touch if they want to win elections: Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security.”

The legislation not only cuts $1 trillion from Medicaid, it effectively forces cuts of hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicare, and takes a large chunk—also possibly hundreds of billions—out of SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

The President has repeatedly vowed he will not touch Medicaid.

And as recently as Tuesday, Trump wrote: “Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security Benefits are not being cut, but are being STRENGTHENED and PROTECTED from the Radical and Destructive Democrats by eliminating Waste, Fraud, and Abuse from those Programs.”

READ MORE: ‘Every Reason to Be Scared’: Strategist Worried Trump Could Try to Rig or Cancel Midterms

“As the President has said numerous times, there will be no cuts to Medicaid,” a June 29 White House memo claimed. “The One Big Beautiful Bill protects and strengthens Medicaid for those who rely on it—pregnant women, children, seniors, people with disabilities, and low-income families—while eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse.”

That memo also claimed, “Medicare has not been touched in this bill— absolutely nothing in the bill reduces spending on Medicare benefits.”

At least 17 million people will lose health care coverage due to the bill’s cuts, The Washington Post reported on Tuesday.

READ MORE: ‘Special Place in Hell’: Top Dem Slams ‘Cult’ of ‘People Who Take Food Away’ From Kids

Critics blasted the President.

“No matter how far into physical or mental decline he was, there was never a single moment in Biden’s presidency that he appeared to be as checked out about what his administration was doing as Trump appears to be about this bill,” wrote Yahoo Finance reporter Jordan Weissmann.

“Imagine for a moment if Joe Biden did not know at a basic level of generality what the signature piece of legislation he was attempting to pass contained. The media outrage would be measured on the Richter scale but oddly, Trump is not held to this standard,” added another social media user.

And Bloomberg columnist Matthew Yglesias made this request: “Can a reporter ask Trump to explain what Medicaid is? Does he know?”

Watch the video above or at this link.

READ MORE: Trump Threatens to Block NYC Democratic Mayoral Nominee He Calls a ‘Communist Lunatic’

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

News

‘Every Reason to Be Scared’: Strategist Worried Trump Could Try to Rig or Cancel Midterms

Published

18 hours ago

on

July 2, 2025

By

In a stark warning, a top, veteran Democratic strategist says he believes President Donald Trump could try to rig or cancel the 2026 midterm elections, to retain control of Congress.

“I don’t put anything past him, nothing,” James Carville told former CNN reporter Jim Acosta, as The Daily Beast reported on Wednesday. “To try to call the election off, to do anything he can. He can think of things like that that we can’t because we’re not accustomed to thinking like that.”

The Beast noted that “Carville is so convinced that Trump will rig the midterm elections that he’s already started sounding the alarm.”

“You know people come up to me all the time and say, ‘James. I’m really scared,’” Carville told Acosta on “The Jim Acosta Show” (video below).

READ MORE: ‘Special Place in Hell’: Top Dem Slams ‘Cult’ of ‘People Who Take Food Away’ From Kids

“I said, ‘you should be, you have every reason to be scared. Don’t kid yourself,’” Carville added.

“This is scary s—!” Acosta replied.

“Yeah, it’s really scary,” responded Carville. “Really scary.”

The conversation was sparked by a viewer’s question.

“They want to know,” Acosta said, “Do you worry about vote tampering in the midterms?”

“Do you worry,” the host continued, “about Donald Trump and Stephen Miller and some of these types monkeying around with the midterms and the way we do elections in this country?”

READ MORE: Trump Threatens to Block NYC Democratic Mayoral Nominee He Calls a ‘Communist Lunatic’

“In the short word, yes, in the longer word, very,” Carville said.

He went on to suggest that Democrats will do well in the governors’ races in Virginia and New Jersey, which will be held this November.

“I think what may happen is he’ll see the writing on the wall in Virginia,” Carville continued. “This is what I think is gonna happen. In New Jersey, also. He’s going to see retirements and people are going to start coming in and saying, ‘you know we’re getting ready to lose. I got to change, and I got to get some distance,’ and he’s going to see all that coming and I don’t put anything past him.”

Watch the video below or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘This Is Fascism’: Trump Sparks Fury After Calling to Deport U.S. Citizens

Continue Reading

News

‘Special Place in Hell’: Top Dem Slams ‘Cult’ of ‘People Who Take Food Away’ From Kids

Published

21 hours ago

on

July 2, 2025

By

U.S. Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA), the Ranking Member of the powerful House Rules Committee, blasted his Republican colleagues for their support of President Donald Trump’s budget bill that will cut $1 trillion from Medicaid, hundreds of billions from Medicare, and greatly reduce the food program known as SNAP—also by hundreds of billions—while giving massive tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans.

As the House began voting on the legislation on Wednesday, giving members just one hour for debate in a rush to meet the President’s July 4 deadline, Rep. McGovern took to the floor.

The Massachusetts Democrat denounced Republicans’ “attack” on SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. “You can live without a lot of things, but you can’t live without food,” he reminded his GOP colleagues.

Speaking to “those Republicans who think that it’s okay to give [billionaire] Jeff Bezos a tax cut, and at the same time, cut food benefits for struggling families,” McGovern declared, “we don’t share the same values.”

READ MORE: Trump Threatens to Block NYC Democratic Mayoral Nominee He Calls a ‘Communist Lunatic’

“Unloading billions of dollars in new costs on states, money they do not have, will force them to cut benefits and throw needy people off of SNAP. It is a rotten thing to do,” he added.

“And I believe there’s a special place in hell for people who take food away from veterans, from seniors, from children, from foster youth, and from hungry families. This is sick. This is disgusting.”

He called the rushed floor vote “legislative malpractice.”

READ MORE: ‘This Is Fascism’: Trump Sparks Fury After Calling to Deport U.S. Citizens

“We are not on a deadline,” he reminded House members. “No looming crisis.”

“We’re here because Donald Trump wants a Fourth of July party to celebrate this garbage bill. He wants fireworks and flags and cameras, not for this country, but for himself. So he says, ‘Close your ears, close your eyes, and vote for this bill.’ Honestly, sounds more like a cult than a Congress to me.”

After listening to a Republican—who was standing next to a big poster of President Donald Trump and fireworks—call for members to support the bill, McGovern declared, “Cult much?”

Watch the videos above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Surrounded by Sharks’: After Touring ‘Alligator Alcatraz’ Trump Vows to Renovate Original

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.