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.

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.

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.

A 150-day period to gather signatures to place the question on the ballot ended on Monday.

Restore Equality 2010 says it fell short of the 695,000 signatures needed by yesterday’s deadline to put the measure on the ballot.

“We have a large team of volunteers that are interested in working on marriage equality,” said Sean Bohac, chairman of the state advisory panel and San Diego coordinator for Restore Equality 2010. “We’re holding our heads high and proud of the work that we’ve done to keep marriage equality in the public consciousness.”

Two of the states largest organizations — Equality California and Courage Campaign, did not participate in the 2010 effort.  Since Prop 8 passed and same-sex marriage was overturned by the people, more than 15 new gay rights organizations formed across California, blaming Equality California, the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, Human Rights Campaign, and Marriage Equality USA for the defeat.

Courts and state legislatures have legalized same-sex marriage in five U.S. states and the District of Columbia, but popular votes have always rejected such unions, which are illegal in the vast majority of U.S. states.

Many gay organizations are hoping the U.S. Supreme Court will rule bans on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. This however is unlikely since the U.S. Supreme Court has already interfered in the 9th Circuit Court’s decisions.  (previous story)

Stanford University Professor Gary Segura, a national political scientist testifying on behalf of supporters of same-sex marriage said in January that gays and lesbians have little political power and can’t count on most of their friends in high places, including Governor’s or U.S. President Obama.  “Gays and lesbians do not possess a meaningful degree of political power. They are not able to protect their essential interests,” said Segura, who heads the university’s Chicano studies program and co-directs its Center on American Democracy.

In the meantime, Assemblyman John A. Pérez (D-Los Angeles), was elected earlier this year as Speaker of the California Assembly, the states lower chamber, and assumed office on March 1st. (previous story)

Now, Fox has the distention of being the first openly gay speaker of a state lower house, although Assemblyman John A. Pérez (D-Los Angeles) was elected to the speakership of the California Assembly several weeks before Fox (Pérez, however, will not be sworn in as speaker until March 1).

Members of the State of Rhode Island & Providence Plantations (official name of the state) House of Representatives elected Fox to succeed William J. Murphy in a day of pomp and speechifying, capping months of behind-the-scenes maneuvering.

After March 01, 2010, two states will have openly gay executives in charge of their lower chambers (California’s equivalent to a House of Representatives is the California Assembly).

Fox (pictured) is an attorney who was first elected to the Rhode Island House of Representatives in 1992. He is a graduate of Providence College, Rhode Island College, and Northeastern Law School.

“Politics is often timing, and you deal with the times you’re allotted,” Fox said in 2001, after being named House Finance Chairman.

The Providence Journal reported that during a famous midnight budget debate in 2004, an impassioned Fox lashed out at Republican Governor Donald L. Carcieri for trying to cut backroom deals to pick off Democratic votes. “Let’s get it on,” Fox thundered. “If you put lipstick on the pig, it’s still a pig, Governor Carcieri.”

Still, at a December news conference, Rhode Island Governor Carcieri gushed about Fox as “a real champion” for economic development.

Rhode Island & Providence Plantations is the smallest of the 50 U.S. states by size, and ranks 42nd by population with just over 1 million citizens. California ranks as the 3rd largest U.S. state by size, and 1st by population with nearly 40 million citizens.

At a federal court trial in San Francisco on the constitutionality of Proposition 8, Segura cited ballot measures, state and federal laws, hate crime statistics and opinion polls as evidence that gays and lesbians, like racial minorities, need judicial protection from discrimination.

“Gays and lesbians do not possess a meaningful degree of political power. They are not able to protect their essential interests,” said Segura, who heads the university’s Chicano studies program and co-directs its Center on American Democracy.

Political power, a disputed issue in the case, is a factor judges consider in weighing laws that treat groups of people differently and deciding whether they violate the constitutional guarantee of equal protection.

Segura’s testimony was a slap in the face to the Human Rights Campaign (the self described largest LGBT organization in the U.S.), the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Freedom to Marry, the national Equality Federation, Equality California, Marriage Equality USA, and all other state and federal gay rights organizations.

U.S. President Obama Criticized During Federal Trial

But Segura said U.S. President Obama has done nothing to overturn laws denying federal benefits to same-sex couples and allowing the military to discharge openly gay service members.

He also cited the Obama administration’s refusal to allow a female attorney with the federal appeals court in San Francisco, Karen Golinski, to cover her wife in her health insurance policy, despite an order from the court’s chief judge.

The administration said that the order wasn’t binding and that granting the benefits would violate federal law.

Golinski filed suit Wednesday, noting Obama’s “promise of positive change for lesbian and gay Americans.”

“This is not a reliable ally,” Segura said of Obama. “We have to look at the disconnect between rhetoric and action.”

FBI statistics also show that hate crimes motivated by sexual orientation have increased, Segura said – from 14 percent of all reported hate crimes in 2005 to 17.7 percent in 2008.  (previous story)

Federal Government Acts Beyond Its Constitutional Authority

The constitutionality of the U.S. Defense of Marriage Act is also being brought into question with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the first to legalize gay marriage, suing the federal government for violating states’ rights in violation of the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Lawmakers in Alaska, California, Kentucky, Hawaii, Idaho, Louisiana, North Carolina, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, New Jersey, New York, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington, are only some of the states that have enacted legislation condemning federal laws over the past five years and prohibit the state or its subdivisions from enforcing federal laws.  In addition, more than 400 cities have passed local ordinances prohibiting the enforcement of federal laws, including the city of Lexington, KY according to the National Bill of Rights Defense Committee.

A proponent of California’s same-sex marriage ban who warned that gay rights activists would try to legalize sex with children if Proposition 8 did not pass is expected to be called as a hostile witness Thursday for two same-sex couples suing to overturn the measure.

Lawyers for the couples said they planned to call San Francisco resident Hak-Shing William Tam to testify even though he has asked to be dismissed as a defendant in the case, the first in a federal court to examine if state bans on same-sex marriage illegally discriminate against gay Americans.

(Some Content Copyright 2010 by San Francisco Chronicle. All Rights Reserved. Some Content Copyright 2010 by United We Stand Media. All Rights Reserved.)