NFL bans anti-gay discrimination

David Boies

The new National Football League players’ contract bans discrimination based on sexual orientation.

And no one noticed.

In the NFL’s rush to save the season, a nondiscrimination clause was slipped into the final contract. Or maybe it was intentional. But no one was looking for it. No one expected it. And no one noticed it.

No one except Pete Olsen, a third-year law student who writes Wide Rights, which follows gay rights in the sports industry.

How could this have happened? Certainly it wasn’t an important agenda item for either players or owners rushing to save the season and billions of dollars. The blog suggests that New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft has been an LGBT rights supporter and may have had a hand in slipping it in. But the answer also might have to do with the attorneys.

Ted Olson

The attorney for the players was Ted Olson. The attorney for the owners was David Boies. Sound familiar? The two have opposed each other before. Olson represented President George W. Bush and Boies was Vice President Al Gore’s attorney in Bush v. Gore. But they’ve teamed up to represent same-sex couples in California who are battling Proposition 8, which ended marriage equality in that state.

Here’s what might have happened. Whoever wrote up the nondiscrimination clause simply used wording he was accustomed to using and added sexual orientation. After fighting Prop 8 so thoroughly, he probably didn’t think twice about including it. The other may have looked at the new nondiscrimination clause, said to himself, “Yup, that looks right.” End of discussion. Never was mentioned. And a month went by before anyone noticed.

 

—  David Taffet

Calif. Supreme Court agrees to rule on whether Prop 8 supporters have standing to appeal

LISA KEEN | Keen News Service

The road to marriage equality in California just got a little longer.

The California Supreme Court said today it would make ruling on whether Yes on 8 proponents have authority, under California law, to appeal a federal court ruling that the initiative is unconstitutional.

The announcement, at 4:20 p.m. Central time today, means the California court will soon hear arguments in the landmark Perry v. Schwarzenegger case. But the question will be a procedural one only: whether there is any authority under California law that would provide Yes on 8 proponents with standing to defend Proposition 8 in a federal appeals court.

The court’s brief announcement said it would hear arguments on an expedited schedule and asked that the first briefs be due March 14 and that oral argument take place as early as September.

Once the California Supreme Court decides whether state law provides any right to Yes on 8 to represent voters on appeal, the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel will then make its final determination as to whether Yes on 8 has standing to appeal. And, if the 9th Circuit says Yes on 8 does have standing, it will also rule on the constitutionality of Proposition 8.

The question before the California Supreme Court was whether there is any authority under California law that would enable Yes on 8 proponents to represent voters who approved Proposition 8. The answer mattered to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel. Without any authority under state law, the appeals panel suggested, the group might not have any “standing” at all to appeal the decision. If a party has “standing,” they are sufficiently affected by a conflict to justify having a court hear their lawsuit or appeal on the matter.

When the legal team of Ted Olson and David Boies filed a legal challenge to California’s Proposition 8 in federal district court, the state, under Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown, had standing to defend the law. But neither provided a defense and, instead, the Yes on 8 coalition that campaigned for the initiative did so.

When the district court found Proposition 8 unconstitutional, the state officers said they would not appeal the decision, so Yes on 8 once again sought to defend the law, this time in the federal appeals court. But both Schwarzenegger and Brown urged the 9th Circuit not to accept the appeal, saying the best thing for California was to abide by the district court ruling.

So, when the 9th Circuit panel heard oral arguments on the appeal last December, one of the first and most pressing issues it had to wrestle with was whether Yes on 8 still had “standing” to bring the appeal when the state government had decided it wanted to honor the district court decision.

What bothered the panel was their belief that the state officers — Schwarzenegger and Brown — were acquiring veto power by simply refusing to defend a voter-approved law with which they disagreed.

The panel asked the California Supreme Court to say whether there might be some authority under state law that would provide Yes on 8 with standing to bring the appeal.

The legal team challenging Proposition 8, led by Ted Olson and David Boies, filed briefs with the California Supreme Court, saying the state court should not provide such a determination because the standing issue in a federal appeals court is essentially a matter of federal law.

© 2011 by Keen News Service. All rights reserved.

—  John Wright

Top 10: As Prop 8, DOMA cases proceeded, Texas made its own marriage news

Marriage
LANDMARK RULING | Marriage equality supporters celebrate outside San Francisco City Hall after Judge Vaughn Walker’s August ruling declaring Prop 8 unconstitutional. (Rick Gerharter)

No. 4:

View all of the Top 10

As the year began, all eyes were on California, where conservative superstar Ted Olson and liberal luminary David Bois joined forces to challenge the state’s voter-approved constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. The case is Perry v. Schwarzenegger, but both Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown declined to defend Prop 8. As a result, ProtectMarriage.com, the main group behind the initiative, filed to intervene and defend it in court. On Aug. 4, six months after the trial began, Judge Vaughn Walker issued his ruling striking down the ban as unconstitutional, prompting celebrations across the country. The state refused to appeal, but the amendment’s supporters did. In December, a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit convened to hear oral arguments in the Prop 8 case. The judges grilled attorneys on both sides, but marriage equality advocates said they were encouraged by the hearing. A ruling is expected next year, but the case likely will end up at the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, two lawsuits challenging the federal Defense of Marriage Act went to trial in Massachusetts this year, and in both cases, DOMA came out the loser. Those cases are also now on appeal.

In Texas, Attorney General Greg Abbott continued his crusade against same-sex divorce. In a Dallas case, Abbott’s office won a victory in May when a state appeals court overturned a judge’s decision to grant a same-sex divorce. Abbott’s appeal of another divorce in Austin is pending.

Meanwhile, transgender issues and LGBT marriage rights collided in July as Houston trans woman Nikki Araguz found herself going up against her in-laws, following the death of her husband, volunteer firefighter Thomas Araguz. Araguz’s family and former wife claimed his marriage to Nikki was invalid because she was born a biological male, and that all his benefits legally should go to them instead of Nikki. The case is awaiting trial.

And Texas would make big marriage news again in November, when a gay couple from Dallas announced they’d been legally married without leaving the state. Mark Reed-Walkup and Dante Walkup held their wedding ceremony at the W-Dallas hotel, but it was officiated via Skype from Washington, D.C., where same-sex marriage is legal. A few weeks later, D.C. officials declared the marriage invalid. The couple later physically traveled to D.C. and got married again. They’ve also renewed a complaint against The Dallas Morning News for refusing to publish their wedding announcement.

Elsewhere, Illinois became the sixth state to approve civil unions. In Hawaii, the legislature approved a bill allowing same-sex civil unions, but Republican Gov. Linda Lingle vetoed it. Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty vetoed a bill that would have given same-sex partners control over the dispensation of their partners’ remains after death, because he supports “traditional marriage.”

Wisconsin’s Supreme Court upheld that state’s gay marriage ban.

Internationally, Portuguese President Anabel Cavaco Silva signed into law legislation that allows same-sex marriage. Argentina’s legislature approved a bill legalizing gay marriage, and President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner quickly signed it into law.

— Tammye Nash

This article appeared in the Dallas Voice print edition December 31, 2010.

—  Kevin Thomas

Oral arguments ‘promising’ in Prop 8 case

Judges grill attorneys from both sides on issue of standing, merits of federal case challenging California’s same-sex marriage ban

Lisa Keen |  Keen News Service

SAN FRANCISCO — Famed attorney Ted Olson told a 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on Monday, Dec. 6 that the reason proponents of Proposition 8 have put forth to justify their ban on same-sex marriage is “nonsense.”

That reason, said Olson, reading from a page in the brief filed by attorneys for the Yes on 8 coalition, was that same-sex marriage “will make children prematurely preoccupied with issues of sexuality.”

“If believed,” said Olson, “that would justify the banning of comic books, television, video games, and even conversations between children.”

And it isn’t exactly the reason Yes on 8 proffered during their successful 2008 campaign to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage. Back then, the primary reason, noted Olson, was “protecting children” from the notion that marriage between same-sex couples was OK.

So, what should the court consider as the reason behind denying same-sex couples the right to marry, asked Judge Michael Hawkins.

“Should we look just at the record in the district court?” he asked, or should we “imagine whether there is any conceivable rational basis” to ban gays from marriage?

Olson urged the court not to use its own imagination but to look at the reasons proffered by the Yes on 8 proponents and determine whether they “make sense” and whether they are “motivated by fear” or a dislike of gay people.

“Protecting our children,” said Olson, “is not a rational basis. It’s based on the idea there’s something wrong with” gay people.

Both Olson and his legal counterpart, Charles Cooper, argued with greater passion and animation during Monday’s argument before the federal appeals court than they had in January and June before U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker. It was Walker’s ruling in August — that California’s ban on same-sex marriage violates the U.S. Constitution — that brought them to the appeals court in San Francisco on Monday. Unlike at the district court trial, where the U.S. Supreme Court barred any television or web broadcast, the appeals proceedings were carried live on national television by CSPAN and several California stations. Demonstrators crowded outside the federal building in San Francisco under the watchful eye of federal protection service officers. And interested observers and journalists packed the courtroom and watched broadcasts all over the country.

The three judges on the appeallate panel vigorously challenged each side’s arguments on both matters before the court — Yes on 8 and Imperial County’s legal qualification (standing) to appeal, and the validity of Walker’s declaration that Proposition 8 violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Judge N. Randy Smith, an alum of the Mormon-owned Brigham Young University, leveled hard questions at Cooper over Yes on 8’s claim to have legal standing to press the appeal. Then he pitched equally hard questions to Olson’s comrade David Boies, about the “problem” created for the court by the fact that neither the governor nor attorney general appealed the district court decision themselves. Even though neither has the power to veto an initiative, said Smith, they both nullified the initiative by not appealing it.

Boies tried to make the point that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown made their decisions not to appeal after Judge Walker declared the initiative to be unconstitutional.

Judge Stephen Reinhardt, widely perceived to be a staunch liberal, seemed to agree with Smith, saying the governor and attorney general’s refusal to appeal the district court decision “does not seem to be consistent” with the state’s initiative system. And should the court find that Yes on 8 and Imperial County both lack the legal qualifications to appeal, the judges said, the appeals court has no cause to rule on the merits of the dispute.

Boies argued that the concern about what the governor and attorney general did was a “different issue” than standing. And on the issue of standing, said Boies, Yes on 8 and Imperial County have no standing to bring the appeal, simply because they can’t meet the standard of demonstrating a real injury from the district court’s decision.

It was not an easy sell. Hawkins expressed frustration that the court might not be able to render a decision on the merits “so it’s clear, in California, who has the right to marry and who doesn’t.”

Yes on 8 attorney Charles Cooper had argued that, because the California Supreme Court had, in an earlier, related court proceeding given Yes on 8 the right to intervene in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case to defend Proposition 8, it intended to convey standing, too. By the end of the first hour of the proceeding — which was devoted to standing — the panel seemed inclined to ask the California Supreme Court to certify whether it intended Yes on 8 to have standing.

The panel seemed equally uncomfortable with the effort by a deputy clerk of Imperial County, Isabella Vargas, to seek standing to appeal Walker’s decision. The judges, particularly Hawkins, pointedly and repeatedly asked why Imperial County’s deputy clerk was seeking the status, and no explanation was given as to why the county clerk did not.

Robert Tyler, an attorney with a religious advocacy legal firm representing Vargas and Imperial County pro bono, evaded the answer to that question both in and out of the courtroom. At a press conference following arguments, he claimed the answer was a matter of attorney-client privilege.

The three judges were equally tough in questions about the merits of Judge Walker’s decision. As Cooper attempted to read from his prepared statement, Judge Hawkins interrupted almost immediately to ask him whether voters have the right to re-institute segregation in public schools.

“No,” said Cooper.

“Why not?” asked Hawkins.

“Because it would be inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution,” said Cooper.

“As interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court,” interjected Hawkins.

“Yes,” conceded Cooper.

But in 1870, the U.S. Supreme Court probably wouldn’t have interpreted the constitution to forbid segregation? asked Hawkins.

Cooper conceded that was probably true.

“Well, how is this different?” asked Hawkins.

Judge Smith challenged Cooper using the Loving v. Virginia ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that said states couldn’t prohibit interracial marriage. He did so by noting that Cooper was arguing that the Supreme Court had already ruled on the right of states to proscribe same-sex marriage in Baker v. Nelson. The high court, in 1972, dismissed the appeal of a gay couple who had sought a marriage license in Minnesota. Dismissing an appeal has more significance than simply refusing to hear an appeal. But, in dismissing the Baker appeal, the high court explained it was doing so because there was no “substantial federal question” presented by the case. There is dispute within legal circles as to whether that dismissal means anything today. But Cooper, and others, have tried to make a case that the Baker action is precedent, and that it governs attempts by other states to ban same-sex marriages.

If Baker was precedent, said Smith, then why couldn’t states ban interracial marriage, too?

Cooper had to concede the right of states to decide who can marry is “not an absolute right” and that their right to do so “is limited by the restrictions of the U.S. Constitution.”

When Cooper tried to argue that society has a rational interest in the creation of children and in promoting responsible procreation to ensure that children are adequately cared for, Judge Reinhardt suggested that might be a “good argument for prohibiting divorce.”

Judge Smith jumped in to challenge Cooper on this point, too. He noted that California domestic partnership laws provide same-sex couples with all the same benefits and rights to marriage, including those involving child-rearing. What is the rational reason for denying same-sex couples the designation of the word marriage, he wondered.

Judge Hawkins challenged Cooper to explain how California’s same-sex marriage ban is different from Colorado’s Amendment 2, which said no law could prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. The Supreme Court struck down Amendment 2 in Romer v. Evans, saying the only reason for the law was animus against gay people and that laws may not be justified by mere animus.

Cooper argued that Amendment 2 had been a “sweeping” denial of protections to gay people, in banking, employment, housing, commercial transactions, and many other areas of life. Proposition 8, he said, is focused just on marriage. And, in marriage, said Cooper, society had an interest to protect unrelated to animus against gay people, and that interest is promoting responsible procreation.

Therese Stewart, the openly gay chief deputy city attorney for San Francisco, tackled that argument head-on, by noting that same-sex couples “do procreate — not in same way [as heterosexual couples], but they do procreate.”

Gay legal activists seemed pleased with how the arguments went Monday.

Evan Wolfson, head of the national Freedom to Marriage Project, said that, overall, he thinks “it looks promising, both on standing and on the merits.”

Shannon Minter, senior counsel for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, agreed, saying he was especially encouraged that “at least two of the judges seemed highly critical of Charles Cooper’s claim on behalf of the proponents that Prop 8 could be justified based on arguments relating to procreation.” And Ted Olson, he said, “was particularly eloquent and urged the Court to reach the broad question of whether same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry.”

Jenny Pizer, head of Lambda Legal Defense’s Marriage Project, said she wouldn’t be surprised if the panel’s eventual ruling includes “multiple decisions” on how they reached the same outcome “with different reasonings.”

“And if they conclude Prop 8 is invalid while disagreeing about the details of why,” said Pizer, “that may be just fine.”

The panel is expected to render its decision on both the standing issue and the constitutionality of Proposition 8 within a few months. Boies speculated during a post-argument press conference that the earliest the panel would likely render a decision is early next year and the earliest the case might be heard by the Supreme Court — during its almost inevitable appeal — would be 2012.

© 2010 by Keen News Service. All rights reserved.

—  John Wright

Appeals court grants stay of Prop 8 ruling

LISA KEEN  |  Keen News Service

A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals issued an order Monday granting Yes on 8’s request for a stay of Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. The appeals court panel also ordered, without being asked, that Yes on 8’s appeal of Walker’s ruling in Perry v. Schwarzenegger be addressed by the court on an expedited basis.

The panel said it would hear arguments on appeal during the week of Dec. 6, as well as arguments concerning whether Yes on 8 has legal standing to press the appeal.

The two-page order is a disappointment to many same-sex couples in California who were hoping that they would be able to obtain marriage licenses as soon as Judge Walker’s stay expired — at 5 p.m. Pacific time on Wednesday.

“We are very gratified that the Ninth Circuit has recognized the importance and pressing nature of this case and the need to resolve it as quickly as possible by issuing this extremely expedited briefing schedule,” said Ted Olson, one of the lead attorneys for plaintiffs challenging Proposition 8.

Olson, one of the most prominent conservative attorneys in the country, launched the high-profile challenge of California’s voter-approved constitutional ban on same-sex marriage with liberal attorney icon David Boies. Walker, chief judge of the U.S. District Court for Northern California (San Francisco), heard three weeks of testimony by the plaintiffs and Proposition 8 supporters in January.

In a dramatic 136-page ruling on Aug. 4, Walker declared the same-sex marriage ban in the state constitution violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection and due process. Walker agreed to stay — or delay enforcement — of his decision until Aug. 18, giving the 9th Circuit time to decide whether to grant a more extended appeal.

Evan Wolfson, who was a lead attorney on the first same-sex marriage case — in Hawaii in 1996 — called the 9th Circuit panel’s decision to continue Walker’s stay “disappointing.”

“But there are many twists in the road to justice,” said Wolfson, “and we are encouraged by the court’s setting a fast pace for the appeal, revealing that the judges understand how important a quick end to the exclusion from marriage is to gay couples, their loved ones, and all Americans who believe in equality under the law.”

The 9th Circuit panel includes two Clinton appointees — Judges Sidney Thomas and Michael Hawkins — and one Reagan appointee, Edward Leavey.

The panel set Sept. 17 as the date Yes on 8’s initial argument brief is due.

The response brief from the Ted Olson-David Boies legal team challenging Proposition 8 is due Oct. 18. And Yes on 8 may reply to plaintiffs’ brief by Nov. 1.

Monday’s order means the same-sex marriage ban will stay intact at least until December, when the 9th Circuit will hear arguments on both the issue of Yes on 8’s standing to appeal and, perhaps, on the merits of Walker’s decision.

Meanwhile, on the East Coast, where U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Tauro ruled — in two separate cases — July 9 that the ban on federal benefits to same-sex couples is unconstitutional, the clock is still ticking down the 60 days the U.S. Department of Justice has to appeal the decisions to the 1st Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.

© 2010 by Keen News Service. All rights reserved.

—  John Wright

LGBT leaders praise Ted Olson's performance during closing arguments in federal Prop 8 trial

Plaintiffs’ attorney says marriage ban causes ‘grave and irreparable’ harm; other side warns ‘no one can know’ consequences of overturning it

By Lisa Keen | Keen News Service

SAN FRANCISCO — There were so many people trying to get in to watch the final day of the landmark trial challenging California’s same-sex marriage ban, the court staff had to set up an additional overflow room for observers.

Those dozen or so members of the public who managed to snare seats in Courtroom 6 on the 17th floor of San Francisco’s federal courthouse building had to stand in line starting at 5:45 Wednesday morning to get them.

But gays in California are used to standing in line. They stood in line exactly two years ago – June 16, 2008 — to be among the first same-sex couples to obtain marriage licenses in the state. Now, they were watching closing arguments in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, a historic case challenging the November 2008 initiative that took away the right for gay couples to obtain marriage licenses in California.

—  John Wright