2012 Kentucky Guardian - KYGuardian.com

Gay-rights freedom riders met for more than two hours Monday with a handful of LDS officials in Salt Lake City to raise continuing concerns about Mormon policies and language that the advocates see as harmful to their community.

The group, Soulforce’s 2012 Equality Ride (see story: Soulforce Founders Leaving Virginia; Say It’s No Longer Safe for Gays — A Special Comment, and Kentucky Equality Federation sponsors Soulforce’s 2007 Equality Ride to Kentucky) had four specific requests for the LDS Church: to cut all ties with and denounce Evergreen International, which continues to use “reparative” therapy in its treatment of gays; to stop funding groups that are fighting civil marriage equality across the country; to encourage LDS Business College to bring its policies on homosexuality in line with current Mormon teachings; and to add sexual orientation and gender identity/expression to the faith’s policies for church employees.

Equality Ride had sought a meeting with Mormon higher-ups, including apostles or members of the church’s governing First Presidency. Instead, the advocates huddled with LDS legislative lobbyist Bill Evans, public-affairs representative John Taylor, former TV reporter Ruth Todd and LDS attorney Alexander Dushku, who helped write briefs defending the church’s position on California’s Proposition 8.

LDS Church spokesman Scott Trotter confirmed the meeting, noting that “the church meets with many people representing a variety of organizations and issues.”

Jason Conner, Equality Ride’s co-director, described the meeting as “overall positive,” noting that Evans in particular was “very gracious and hospitable.”

The five-member Soulforce team was “disappointed that no LDS Church leadership were involved,” Conner said in a phone interview. “But we are cautiously optimistic that progress is being made regarding LGBTQ issues.”

The activists pointed out, for example, the subtle discrepancies and emphases between the honor code at Brigham Young University in Provo and the one at LDS Business College in Salt Lake City — both schools are owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Conner said the Mormon officials took the issue under advisement.

A representative of LDS Business College was unavailable for comment Monday.

Conner said Mormon officials also agreed to work on using “more inclusive language” and to reiterate to members that no gay person should “question their worth or value or be kicked out of their home because of their orientation or gender expression identity.”

The church, for example, should stop describing members who were “struggling with their sexuality,” Conner said. “I’m not struggling. I am completely comfortable with my sexuality.”

Read more: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/53972523-78/lds-church-gay-conner.html.csp

Logo of Equality California.

The recently hired executive director of Equality California, the state’s major lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights organization, has resigned and will leave as of Friday, the group said Monday night.

The Marriage Director who Equality California recruited from Equality Massachusetts is also gone.

The news comes amid a deep cut in staff that the organization had not previously announced.

The evening e-mail statement came as opponents of SB48 face a Wednesday deadline to qualify a referendum to repeal that law, approved by Governor Jerry Brown earlier this year. That law mandates the teaching of the historical accomplishments of LGBT people and people with disabilities. Equality California appeared to be ready to defend it, though that is now in question.

In the e-mail, the organization’s Board of Directors said Roland Palencia “will step down as of Friday.” It also stated that the organization would release a “transition plan” by the end of this week.

Reached by phone, Palencia said, “I literally made a personal decision that I wanted to move on. There’s really nothing more to it.” He said he was not forced out by the board.

About the group’s financial situation, he said, “Right now a lot of nonprofits are having problems,” but he maintained that the organization has “a lot of support.”

Cathy Schwamberger, Equality California Institute board chairwoman, said its members were grateful for Palencia’s service “and wish him the best in all of his future endeavors.”

The organization appears to be in turmoil. Its recently laid-off Capitol office manager said staff has been cut drastically.

Matthew Bunch, who was the government affairs manager from January until he was laid off last month, said, “Everybody’s leaving,” adding that the organization has “a vacuum of leadership and a vacuum of staff.”

Rebekah Orr, Director of Communications for Equality California, said staff has shrunk from 18 to 11 this year, though she said more are “transitioning out of the organization.”

Former logo of the closed Equality Mississippi.

Equality Mississippi completely closed its doors in 2008 after eight years of being the only statewide LGBT civil rights organization in Mississippi.

Equality Mississippi’s Board of Directors decided, due to financial hardships, the organization was to be closed.

This is the first time Kentucky Equality Federation has spoken about the Statewide Equality Coalition since its Board voted to withdraw.

As it currently stands, Kentucky Equality Federation remains the only standalone equality organization in the state. If all of Kentucky’s equality organizations unite [we must remember the disaster in California when they all united against Prop 8 in a coalition] and fail we have no other place to turn and this appears to be the position of Kentucky Equality Federation in their press release:

Richmond, KY – In light of recent occurrences, we at the Kentucky Equality Federation are issuing a statement to clarify our stance on the Statewide Fairness Coalition.

There are certain items that need to be addressed explicitly, as they set us apart from other organizations within the equality movement. Kentucky Equality Federation does not hold traditional fundraisers or host “social hours.”  In addition, we will not do anything to endanger long-term equality to accomplish short-term victories.

Kentucky Equality Federation is a founding member of the Statewide Fairness Coalition. Federation Board members and Regional Directors attended the first two meetings of its conception, but our Board voted to withdraw.

While we support the efforts of other equality organizations in the Commonwealth and do not seek to offend other groups in the Coalition, we have enjoyed better success and more flexibility as an organization independent of any official coalitions with Steering Committees.

After conversations with the Statewide Fairness Coalition, namely Mr. Chris Hartman of the Louisville Fairness Campaign, Kentucky Equality Federation will begin to support the Statewide Fairness Coalition as an independent, non-member organization as our Chairman, President, and/or Public Relations and Media Director deem appropriate. This decision was reached after posing the question to our Board members, officers, regional directors, outreach directors, contributors of Kentucky Equality Federation’s Official Blog, and standby volunteers.

As always, we remain committed to working with other equality organizations, and we are glad to have good working relations with them. We will support them when appropriate, and we continue to serve as the largest all-volunteer equality organization in the Commonwealth.

Our main goals at this point are to continue serving as public advocates for victims of abuse and discrimination, as well as preparing for the next legislative session in Frankfort.

To that end, we plan to build our legislative advocacy network and public affairs infrastructure further in addition to working with StoryCorps to tell the stories of those who grew up LGBTI in Whitesburg and Lexington, as well as raising money to support HIV/AIDS organizations around the Commonwealth.

Kentucky Equality Federation is also working to launch our “Faces of Equality” video series; to participate, contact us at: www.kyequality.org, and select “Faces of Equality Project.”

Prop. 8 supporters argue that a U.S. Appeals Court exceeded jurisdiction.

If last month’s ruling overturning Proposition 8 survives, same-sex marriage should be available only to the two homosexual couples who challenged the ballot measure and should remain barred for the rest of the state’s gay and lesbian population, sponsors of the measure told a federal appeals court.

In written arguments filed Friday night, ProtectMarriage.com, the group that sponsored Proposition 8, urged the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker’s ruling against the 2008 ballot measure.

Failing that, the group argued, the court should rule that the Aug. 4 decision affects only the couples named in the suit because it was not filed as a class action on behalf of all gays and lesbians, ProtectMarriage.com argued.

“At a bare minimum, the U.S. district court exceeded its jurisdiction to the extent its judgment extends beyond the four plaintiffs who were before the court,” lawyers for ProtectMarriage.com said.

Whitley County Judge-Executive Pat White Jr. head of the Whitley County Fiscal Court.

According to the Corbin Times-Tribune (covering Knox, Whitley and Laurel Counties):

Whitley County Judge-Executive Pat White Jr. is hoping to spark a national movement in order to pass and ratify an amendment to the United States Constitution establishing marriage as only being recognized as a union between a man and a woman in the United States of America.

White, an attorney, took the first step towards that effort Tuesday evening by asking the Whitley County Fiscal Court to approve a resolution, which asks the Kentucky Legislature to pass legislation demanding a federal constitutional convention for the purpose of passing a constitutional amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Fiscal court members unanimously approved the resolution during their monthly meeting Tuesday night. Copies of it will be sent to the leadership of both the Kentucky House of Representatives and the Kentucky Senate in addition to certain members of Kentucky’s Congressional delegation including U.S. Senators Mitch McConnell and Jim Bunning, U.S. Rep. Hal Rogers, and Kentucky Representative Dewayne Bunch (82nd District).

“We will begin distributing this resolution to the other counties in Kentucky asking them to pass similar resolutions and to distribute to the legislature of Kentucky asking them to take action at their next regular session,” White said after the resolution’s passage.

White said that he decided to draft the resolution after an Aug. 4 federal court decision striking down Proposition 8, which was California’s constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

“If it is set as established precedent by some of the higher courts, it would overturn the constitutional amendment here in Kentucky,” White said. “I thought of what could be done so that the people would get the opportunity to vote on this issue at the national level, and not be overturned by the courts.”

“There was a statement made by the San Francisco Mayor when the campaign for Proposition 8 was going on that no matter what the people wanted, this was going to be the law of the land that gay marriage was accepted.”

White said that he is hoping to start a national movement with this effort.

White noted that 45 states do not recognize gay marriage, including Kentucky, and that Kentucky’s traditional marriage amendment passed with a 74 percent majority.

Why does White feel so strongly about this issue?

“I don’t believe in homosexual marriage. It is against my raising and my morals,” White said. “I don’t believe that this should be decided by the courts.

WYMT-TV, the CBS affiliate for Southern Kentucky (covering 24 counties) reported:

It’s an issue that’s sparking a national debate and now an Eastern Kentucky official is hoping to make a statement when it comes to same-sex marriages. “I think it is a complete joke. It’s coming from a judge executive who has no political or executive authority. I think that it’s pathetic,” said Jordan Palmer with Kentucky Equality Federation.

Opponents call the resolution a step in the wrong direction. “It is a step back…if it’s inspired by tradition, or just plain old fashion bigotry. I think we should be teaching our children about diversity because diversity in our commonwealth makes us strong. It does not make us weak,” said Palmer.

Palmer’s complete comments (unedited): “Even if this makes it to the Kentucky Legislature, it would have to pass the constitution amendments Committee (and it would not). However, if the Whitely County Judge Executive believes for one moment that Kentucky Equality Federation, Marriage Equality Kentucky, Louisville’s Fairness Campaign, Kentucky Fairness Alliance, or Lexington Fairness would allow this to go unchallenged, I believe he is mistaken. Kentucky has a lot of good LGBTI organizations, and we are sick of being second class citizens.

If motivated by religion, by tradition or by old-fashioned bigotry, this will shed additional light on the fact that LGBTI people are second-class citizens; we are taxed, yet we can be fired for being gay or lesbian and we do not even have civil unions in the Commonwealth, and all of this is coming from the California trial.”

Jordan Palmer is the founder and former president of Kentucky Equality Federation and is currently serving as public advocate for the organization.

VIDEO

Kentucky Equality Federation graphic. All Rights Reserved. Used with permission.

The legal battle over same-sex marriage is far from over, both sides have said so.  Remember last year when the leaders of major gay rights organizations issued a plea urging people not to make Prop 8 a federal issue? Though I have fought for LGBTI equality and marriage equality for years, these organizations had good reasons for issuing their plea. Both national and state leaders listed their reasons for issuing the plea — the battle must we waged within the states.

Most legal scholars agree that the federal government cannot impose a definition of marriage onto the laws of the various states.

In 1971, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that Minnesota law limited marriage to opposite-sex couples, and that this limitation did not violate the United States Constitution. The plaintiffs appealed, and the United States Supreme Court, 409 U.S. 810 (1972), dismissed the appeal “for want of [a] substantial federal question,” meaning the U.S. Supreme Court lacked the authority to rule or override the Minnesota Supreme Court. That dismissal by the Supreme Court of the United States constituted a decision on the merits, and established Baker v. Nelson as the controlling precedent as a matter of federal constitutional law on the absence of federal authority regarding same-sex marriage.

Historically, the U.S. Supreme Court does not get too far ahead of either public opinion or the law in the majority of states (in which case same-sex marriage is overwhelmingly illegal).

Organizations Made Plea Not to Make Prop 8 a Federal Issue

Nine gay and civil liberties organizations – including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Human Rights Campaign, the National Center for Lesbian Rights and Lambda Legal – said “even the strongest gay-rights decision the court has issued – the Lawrence v. Texas case striking down laws against intimacy for gay couples – explicitly commented that it was not saying anything about formal recognition of same-sex relationships.”

SPECIAL NOTE: Credit to the Kentucky Supreme Court who struck down sodomy laws over 10 years before the U.S. Supreme Court heard the Lawrence v. Texas case (2003). The Kentucky Supreme Court struck down laws against intimacy for gay couples back in 1992 (Wasson v. the Commonwealth of Kentucky).

What prominent LGBTI organizations said last year about a federal lawsuit:

• Evan Wolfson of the GLBT equality group Freedom to Marry sent out a May 27 press release that stated, “In response to the California Supreme Court decision allowing Prop 8 to stand, four LGBT legal organizations and five other leading national LGBT groups are reminding the LGBT community that ill-timed lawsuits could set the fight for marriage back.”

• Law professor John Oakley of the University of California called the suit “a silly and rash act.”

• “It’s an enormous intellectual exercise against the biggest legal opponent in the country—the United States government,” said Lambda Legal’s Jennifer Pizer.

• “Successful change involves building blocks,” Matt Coles, director of ACLU’s LGBT project, told the Wall Street Journal’s law blog. “You build constitutional principles alongside efforts at the societal and legislative levels. They’re jumping over the process and going straight to the end. From where we sit, this is a very high-risk proposition.”

• “In our view, the best way to win marriage equality nationally is to continue working state by state, not to bring premature federal challenges that pose a very high risk of setting a negative U.S. Supreme Court precedent,” Shannon Minter, legal director of National Center for Lesbian Rights, told the AP.

NOTE: This entry was made by the co-founder and former president of Kentucky Equality Federation, Jordan Palmer. This entry may not conform to our editorial standards. This entry has been approved by an editor or moderator.

U.S. District Judge sides with the California Supreme Court

A federal judge declared California’s ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional Wednesday, saying that no legitimate state interest justified treating gay and lesbian couples differently from others and that “moral disapproval” was not enough to save the voter-passed Proposition 8.

California “has no interest in differentiating between same-sex and opposite-sex unions,” U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker said in his 136-page ruling.

Octogenarian Phyllis Lyon and her lifelong partner Del Martin were the first same-sex couple to be married in San Franciso City Hall in February 2004 in a private ceremony that opened the floodgates to thousands more weddings and multiple court battles.

Although Martin died four years later, Lyon was able to witness the landmark federal court ruling Wednesday striking down Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriages.

The California Supreme Court ruled 4 to 3 that gays and lesbians were entitled to marry under the state Constitution in a historic ruling in May 2008. Voters passed Proposition 8 six months later, amending the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

It is not the end of the fight. You can expect it be appealed up the legal food chain.

Andy Pugno, general counsel for ProtectMarriage.com, the official proponents of Proposition 8, released the following statement today in response to the ruling of U.S. District Court Chief Judge Vaughn Walker in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case:

“Today’s ruling is clearly a disappointment. The judge’s invalidation of the votes of over seven million Californians violates binding legal precedent and short-circuits the democratic process. But this is not the end of our fight to uphold the will of the people for traditional marriage, as we now begin an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

“It is disturbing that the trial court, in order to strike down Prop 8, has literally accused the majority of California voters of having ill and discriminatory intent when casting their votes for Prop 8.

“Reversing today’s decision will also serve as a reminder that the role of the courts is to interpret and apply the law only as enacted by the people and their elected representatives, not to impose new social policies.

“And federal precedent is clear that there is no constitutional right to same-sex marriage. To prevail in the end, our opponents have a very difficult task of convincing the U.S. Supreme Court to abandon precedent and invent a new constitutional right.”

Ultimately, Professor Doug NeJaime at Loyola Law School, Los Angeles said, even the four more liberal justices on the U.S. Supreme Court might shy away from a sweeping decision that could overturn same-sex marriage bans across the country. “The U.S. Supreme Court rarely likes to get too far ahead of things,” he said.

Reverend Jim Garlow, pastor of Skyline Church in La Mesa, California, and a leading supporter of Proposition 8 stated: “Given the present makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court at this time, ’one woman, one man’ will stand,” he said.

Even the LGBT community who applauded the opinion, however, said the path ahead for it is not clear or easy. Professor NeJaime said while Judge Walker’s ruling he found “a great opinion,” he was skeptical of the strategy to take a marriage case through the federal courts. Despite Judge Walker’s efforts to set a factual foundation and the traditions of deference, he said, the U.S. Supreme Court is not completely constrained by lower court findings of fact.

Flag of California

The first decision in what is expected to be a long legal battle over California’s same-sex marriage ban will be announced Wednesday afternoon, with both sides planning appeals if they lose.

The California Supreme Court ruled 4 to 3 that gays and lesbians were entitled to marry under the state Constitution in a historic ruling in May 2008. Voters passed Proposition 8 six months later, amending the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

The decision will be posted online between 1 p.m. and 3 p.m., Pacific time, and will be written by Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker of Federal District Court here, who oversaw a lengthy trial on the ban — Proposition 8 — this year. Walker, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush, heard myriad witnesses testify about the history of marriage, the nature of homosexuality and the degree of power gays and lesbians possess in the political system during the 2 1/2-week trial in January. (previous story)

But on Tuesday, supporters of the ban — who were widely regarded as being on the defensive at many points in the trial — had already filed paperwork indicating that they would appeal, according to The San Francisco Chronicle.

The trial, which included testimony from experts on marriage, sociology and politics, was instigated by a lawsuit filed by two gay couples who said that Proposition 8 impinged on their constitutional rights to equal protection and due process. The proposition was passed in 2008 by 52 percent of California voters, and nullified an earlier decision by the state Supreme Court allowing same-sex marriage.

Regardless of the outcome, supporters of gay marriage were planning demonstrations in San Francisco and Los Angeles on Wednesday evening.

U.S. District Judge S. Todd Rogers / Photo Credit: AP

Although a majority of California voters say they support same-sex marriage, that endorsement is as tenuous as it was two years ago when voters told pollsters that they approved of the idea but still voted to ban the marriages.

A Field Poll scheduled to be released today shows little has changed since May 2008, when 51 percent of voters said they supported same-sex marriage, only to ban it by approving Proposition 8 six months later.

The legality of Prop. 8 probably will be decided this month when U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker rules on whether the ban violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equality. The legal battle could ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

As in May 2008, 51 percent of voters say they support same-sex marriage, with 42 percent opposed and 7 percent having no opinion.

Yet when given a third option of allowing same-sex civil unions but not marriage, about one-third of survey participants – 34 percent – said they prefer this alternative, dropping the numbers of those who support same-sex marriage to 44 percent and that favor no legal recognition of same-sex couples to 19 percent. Three percent had no opinion.

Support not solid

The results of the question with three options illustrated that the “51 percent is not rock solid,” Field Poll director Mark DiCamillo said, referring to the level of support for same-sex marriage in the two-option question. DiCamillo highlighted how the drop in approval of same-sex marriage came from all the surveyed subgroups, including age, political party, region, race-ethnicity and religion.

Patrick Egan, a politics professor at New York University who has studied the issue, noted that over the last few decades, voters have become increasingly supportive of full marriage rights for gays and lesbians. But he said it is common for polls to overstate the likelihood of people voting that way on ballot measures.

Researchers do not know why voting results for same-sex marriage initiatives fail to match polls, Egan said, but DiCamillo said one reason for the discrepancy in 2008 was that Prop. 8 proponents launched a successful campaign that boosted voter turnout in their favor.

Marc Solomon, the marriage director of Equality California (formerly the executive director of Massachusetts Equality), which works to secure legal protections for gay people, said that the poll results were “great news” because they showed an increase from last year’s Field Poll when 49 percent of voters approved of same-sex marriage. A Public Policy Institute of California survey released in March also showed a growing acceptance of same-sex marriage, with 50 percent of participants supporting same-sex marriage and 45 percent opposing it.

Still, Solomon acknowledged that the Field Poll showed a narrow margin and that Equality California needs to continue its outreach to voters before 2012, when supporters hope to get another initiative on the ballot.

“We’re certainly not resting on our laurels and we certainly have work to do,” Solomon said.

Defeats in 31 states

Voters have defeated same-sex marriage in all 31 states where it has appeared on the ballot. When arguments in the Prop. 8 trial culminated last month, Andrew Pugno, the general counsel of ProtectMarriage.com, said in a statement that if Vaughn overturns Prop. 8, it will “spurn 7 million Californian voters” who voted for the measure.

The poll found that, overall, women approve of same-sex marriage more than men, and the older voters are, the more likely they are to disapprove of same-sex marriage. Democrats and others who plan to vote for Attorney General Jerry Brown in this year’s gubernatorial race and Sen. Barbara Boxer in her re-election race tend to support same-sex marriage. Republicans and those likely to vote for gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman and Senate challenger Carly Fiorina are more likely to oppose it.

While most Protestants disapproved of same-sex marriage and Catholics came down evenly on the issue, people who practiced another or no religion tended to back same-sex marriage, according to the poll.

The Bay Area had the highest percentage of voters who support same-sex marriage: 63 percent. Only 29 percent of voters in the region said they did not support same-sex marriage, while 8 percent had no opinion.

The poll, conducted June 22 to July 5, was based on a telephone survey of 1,390 registered California voters and has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.8 percentage points.

This article appeared on page A – 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle

Prop. 8, which restricted the definition of marriage couples to straight couples, effectively overturned the California Supreme Court’s ruling that gay couples should be allowed to marry.

Roman Porter, the director of the California Fair Political Practices Commission, said an investigation revealed the Mormon Church was tardy in revealing about $37,000.00 worth of work its staff performed on behalf of Proposition 8 in the final weeks before the November 2008 election.

The commission’s five appointed members are scheduled to consider the proposed settlement on Thursday. The investigation did not uncover evidence that the church failed to disclose any contributions but concluded that it failed to meet required deadlines for disclosing the value of 13 days of staff time devoted to the campaign.

Its role in putting Proposition 8 on the ballot made the Mormon Church a target for much of the anger that gay rights supporters felt after California voters approved the ballot measure, which outlawed same-sex marriage five months after the California Supreme Court legalized it.

At the urging of church leaders, individual Mormons from around the country volunteered for and gave millions of dollars to the Yes on 8 campaign.

Porter’s finding came in response to a complaint filed by a gay rights activist after voters approved the gay marriage ban 19 months ago. At the time, the church said it had spent just $2,078.00 itself to support Proposition 8.

Fred Karger, the founder of Californians Against Hate, alleged the church ran out-of-state phone banks, produced commercials and provided other services without disclosing them as contributions to ProtectMarriage.com, the coalition of religious and conservative groups that sponsored the gay marriage ban.

Actress and former talk show host Roseanne urged a boycott against the supporters of “Yes on Proposition 8,” the supporters also included:

• Aaron Eckhart (actor)
• American Express
• Black & Decker
• Dell Computer
• Gladys Knight (R&B and Gospel Singer)
• Kroger (who also owns Ralph’s and Albertsons)
• Hollywood Video
• Host Marriott (Marriott Hotels & Resorts; this includes Courtyard, Residence Inn, and Fairflied Inn)
• KeyCorp (Key Bank)
• K-Swiss Shoes
• La Quinta Hotels
• Marriott International
• Priceline.com
• Ryder Systems (Ryder trucks)
• and Sky West (airline) among others. (previous story)

In Kentucky, Kroger also supporters the Kentucky chapter of the American Family Association, another anti-gay group.

In 1997, Time estimated that the Church of Latter-day Saints’ net worth was a minimum of $30 billion, and its annual gross was around $5.9 billion.