Windy City Media Group Frontpage News
Celebrating 30 Years of Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Trans News
home search facebook twitter join
Gay News Sponsor Windy City Times 2016-02-10
DOWNLOAD ISSUE
About WCMG Publications News Index  Entertainment Features Bars & Clubs Calendar Videos Advertisers OUT! Guide    Marriage

Sponsor

  WINDY CITY TIMES

Supreme Court's second move alarms gay activists
News Update, Jan. 18, 2010
by Lisa Keen, Keen News Service
2010-01-13

facebook twitter del.icio.us stumble upon digg google +1 reddit email


In its second surprise move in a week, the U.S. Supreme Court announced Jan. 15 it would review another narrow dispute involving anti-gay activists' alleged fear of harassment over their public opposition to legal recognition for same-sex relationships.

The court's actions—because they are unusual involvements in two cases regarding same-sex relationships— have gay legal activists worried.

"With the first decision, it might have looked like it was mostly driven by justices who are just adamantly opposed to cameras in the courtroom," said Jenny Pizer, head of Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund's National Marriage Project. "But with the second decision, it goes from being worrisome to alarming. Both decisions are based on quite absurd arguments" that the anti-gay activists are being "terribly persecuted by an angry mob, and that's just ridiculous."

The latest case, Doe v. Reed, stems from the controversy over a new law that recognizes domestic partnerships in Washington state. The legislature passed, and the voters—through Referendum 71—ratified that new law last year. But a lingering side issue in matter has been whether citizens who signed the petitions that forced the new law onto the ballot last November can block those petitions—normally, a part of the public record— from public view.

Those who want to keep the petitions secret say they are asking for this special dispensation because they fear that people who disagree with them will harass them for having taken the position that they did. Protect Marriage Washington, the group that sought, unsuccessfully, to overturn the domestic partnership law, filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking to seal the petitions from public scrutiny. A federal judge issued a temporary order stopping release of the signatures, pending a final decision, and the appeals of that decision are now before the high court.

The U.S. Supreme Court's announcement that it would intervene in that dispute comes just two days after the Supreme Court took the unusual move of intervening in a procedural dispute surrounding California's Proposition 8. Proponents of that November 2008 initiative, which was successful in banning legal recognition for same-sex relationships, claim they are opposed to making the trial proceedings available for even a very limited amount of public exposure because they fear harassment from people who disagree with them.

In Hollingsworth v. Perry, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 Jan. 13 to overturn lower-court decisions from the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. Those decisions would have allowed airing of the Prop 8 trial on closed circuit television in several federal courthouses around the country and for delayed posting on YouTube.

In a 17-page opinion, to which no justice's name was attached as author, the majority indicated its decision was based—not on the merits of whether this trial should be made available for public viewing, but rather because—"it appears the courts below did not follow the appropriate procedures set forth in federal law before changing their rules to allow such broadcasting."

Nevertheless, the majority recounts that Prop 8 "advocates claim that they have been subject to harassment as a result of public disclosure of their support," including death threats and boycotts. And it stated that proponents of Prop 8 "have demonstrated that irreparable harm would likely result from the District Court's actions" to make the proceedings viewable by the public.

Specifically, the majority suggested that U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker, who is presiding over the Prop 8 trial Perry v. Schwarzenegger, allowed only five business days for public comment on his plan to make the proceedings public, whereas "administrative agencies…usually" provide 30 days or more.

"There are qualitative differences between [ pro-Prop 8 witnesses ] making public appearances regarding an issue and having one's testimony broadcast throughout the country," stated the majority opinion. "...It is difficult to demonstrate or analyze whether a witness would have testified differently if his or her testimony had not been broadcast."

Dissenting from that decision were Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and the court's newest justice, Sonia Sotomayor. Breyer, writing a 10-page dissent for the minority, called the majority's decision "unusual" and said there was no reason for the high court to intervene on this issue. The dissent also noted that the majority was doing "harm to the public interest" by interfering with public's right to have access to the trial proceedings.

The high court's decision to review the Washington State battle, coupled with last week's decision barring the public viewing of the Proposition 8 trial, is causing some anxiety among gay civil rights advocates.

The Perry case vote was 5-4; it required at least four justices to take Doe v. Reed, and it can be safely assumed that those four have reason to question the decision of the lower courts.

Lambda's Pizer called the Supreme Court's involvement in "extra-procedural micro meddling" over courtroom cameras and its decision to hear the Referendum 71 petitions dispute makes it "hard not to draw a bigger, bleaker conclusion" about the high court's motives. In both cases, she said, anti-gay activists are making "absurd claims" in order to secure "special protection" from the government.

"Their claims would be comical," said Pizer, "if they weren't falling on such distressingly receptive high court ears."

©2010 by Keen News Service. All rights reserved.


facebook twitter del.icio.us stumble upon digg google +1 reddit email




Windy City Media Group does not approve or necessarily agree with the views posted below.
Please do not post letters to the editor here. Please also be civil in your dialogue.
If you need to be mean, just know that the longer you stay on this page, the more you help us.


  ARTICLES YOU MIGHT LIKE

Justice releases guide for police engagement with diverse communities 2016-02-11
Report: Traditional deniers of LGBT rights behind 'Religious Liberty' push 2016-02-11
South Dakota may be first state to make law attacking transgender children 2016-02-10
FBI needs info in Near North arson case 2016-02-10
Argentinian trans activist dies 2016-02-10
BOOK REVIEW Marie Equi: Radical Passions and Outlaw Politics 2016-02-10
Sports: CLLAW-entine; Proud to Run; Chicago Sky; Billie Jean King; LGBTQ bowlers 2016-02-09
Man held on $1 million bond after stabbing 2016-02-08
Police kill trans man in Arizona 2016-02-07
Tax guide launched to help LGBTQ taxpayers 2016-02-05
HRC releases state equality index 2016-02-03
EI releases LGBT adoption guide 2016-02-03
The Child Soldier: From the Congo to Chicago 2016-02-03
First trans murder of 2016 in Texas 2016-02-03
Lesbian and Gay Bar Association of Chicago names Cecilia Horan President 2016-02-02
New Report connects religious exemptions to historic efforts to deny civil rights 2016-02-01
Large anti-gay rally takes place in Italy 2016-01-30
One Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration bill stopped, another advances 2016-01-28
Hastert sentencing rescheduled for April 2016-01-28
Indiana Senate committee stops 'Super RFRA' 2016-01-27
Relationships & the Law Today: Divorce considerations following marriage 2016-01-27
MOMBIAN LGBTQ parents creating change 2016-01-27
World: Russian pro-LGBT move; anti-trans incidents; Biden in Switzerland 2016-01-26
Drag performers allege discrimination at beauty-supply store 2016-01-26
Survey shows Indiana lost $60M in convention money over religious objections law 2016-01-26
Lambda Legal to Indiana Legislators: Reject these Bills! 2016-01-25
Petition seeks day of no murder 2016-01-20
South African jurist to speak at NU Jan. 20-21 2016-01-20
Thousands expected for Creating Change 2016-01-20
National roundup: Murderer sentenced; Eric Fanning; Montana's pro-LGBT move 2016-01-19
Gay couple among those displaced by fire 2016-01-17
ACLU responds to reports on decrease in pedestrian stops by CPD 2016-01-15
Dold first Republican to back Equality Act 2016-01-15
Friday: BYP100 to lead symbolic funeral procession, honor Black lives lost 2016-01-15
Saturday: BYP100 to march to reclaim MLK and build Black futures 2016-01-15
Michigan murderer sentenced to 30-60 years 2016-01-15
Recap: Brief on anti-trans law; Gay media; Tutu's daughter; Chamber partnership 2016-01-13
ASK LAMBDA LEGAL What's next for the LGBT-rights movement? 2016-01-12
National: Marriage milestone; gay man at SOTU; 'they' prevails; Stanford program 2016-01-12
World: AIDS conference; Grindr and China; Estonia partnership law 2016-01-12
 



Copyright © 2016 Windy City Media Group. All rights reserved.
Reprint by permission only. PDFs for back issues are downloadable from
our online archives. Single copies of back issues in print form are
available for $4 per issue, older than one month for $6 if available,
by check to the mailing address listed below.

Return postage must accompany all manuscripts, drawings, and
photographs submitted if they are to be returned, and no
responsibility may be assumed for unsolicited materials.
All rights to letters, art and photos sent to Nightspots
(Chicago GLBT Nightlife News) and Windy City Times (a Chicago
Gay and Lesbian News and Feature Publication) will be treated
as unconditionally assigned for publication purposes and as such,
subject to editing and comment. The opinions expressed by the
columnists, cartoonists, letter writers, and commentators are
their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of Nightspots
(Chicago GLBT Nightlife News) and Windy City Times (a Chicago Gay,
Lesbian, Bisexual and Transegender News and Feature Publication).

The appearance of a name, image or photo of a person or group in
Nightspots (Chicago GLBT Nightlife News) and Windy City Times
(a Chicago Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender News and Feature
Publication) does not indicate the sexual orientation of such
individuals or groups. While we encourage readers to support the
advertisers who make this newspaper possible, Nightspots (Chicago
GLBT Nightlife News) and Windy City Times (a Chicago Gay, Lesbian
News and Feature Publication) cannot accept responsibility for
any advertising claims or promotions.

 

 

 

TRENDINGBREAKINGPHOTOS

Sponsor
Sponsor
Sponsor
Sponsor
Sponsor


 



Sponsor

About WCMG Publications News Index  Entertainment Features Bars & Clubs Calendar Videos Advertisers OUT! Guide    Marriage



About WCMG      Contact Us      Online Front  Page      Windy City  Times      Nightspots      OUT! Guide     
Identity      BLACKlines      En La Vida      Archives      Subscriptions      Distribution      Windy City Queercast     
Queercast Archives      Advertising  Rates      Deadlines      Advanced Search     
Press  Releases      Event Photos      Join WCMG  Email List      Email Blast     
Upcoming Events      Todays Events      Ongoing Events      Post an Event      Bar Guide      Community Groups      In Memoriam      Outguide Categories      Outguide Advertisers      Search Outguide      Travel      Dining Out      Blogs      Spotlight  Video     
Classifieds      Real Estate      Place a  Classified     

Windy City Media Group produces Windy City Queercast, & publishes Windy City Times,
The Weekly Voice of the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Trans Community,
Nightspots, Out! Resource Guide, and Identity.
5315 N. Clark St. #192, Chicago, IL 60640-2113 • PH (773) 871-7610 • FAX (773) 871-7609.