Eva Paterson and EJS board member Tobias Barrington Wolff appeared at the Hammer Forum on Sept. 10 to discuss the uncertain future of marriage equality in California. While more states move to legalize same-sex marriage, California has instead eliminated this right with the passage of Proposition 8.

(San Francisco, CA, June 12, 2009)—We are very surprised and deeply disappointed in the manner in which the Obama administration has defended the so-called Defense of Marriage Act against Smelt v. United States, a lawsuit brought in federal court in California by a married same-sex couple asking the federal government to treat them equally with respect to federal protections and benefits. The administration is using many of the same flawed legal arguments that the Bush administration used. These arguments rightly have been rejected by several state supreme courts as legally unsound and obviously discriminatory.

We disagree with many of the administration’s arguments, for example that DOMA is a valid exercise of Congress’s power, is consistent with Equal Protection or Due Process principles, and does not impinge upon rights that are recognized as fundamental.

We are also extremely disturbed by a new and nonsensical argument the administration has advanced suggesting that the federal government needs to be “neutral” with regard to its treatment of married same-sex couples in order to ensure that federal tax money collected from across the country not be used to assist same-sex couples duly married by their home states.

There is nothing “neutral” about the federal government’s discriminatory denial of fair treatment to married same-sex couples: DOMA wrongly bars the federal government from providing any of the over one thousand federal protections to the many thousands of couples who marry in six states. This notion of “neutrality” ignores the fact that while married same-sex couples pay their full share of income and social security taxes, they are prevented by DOMA from receiving the corresponding same benefits that married heterosexual taxpayers receive.

It is the married same-sex couples, not heterosexuals in other parts of the country, who are financially and personally damaged in significant ways by DOMA. For the Obama administration to suggest otherwise simply departs from both mathematical and legal reality.

When President Obama was courting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender voters, he said that he believed that DOMA should be repealed. We ask him to live up to his emphatic campaign promises, to stop making false and damaging legal arguments, and immediately to introduce a bill to repeal DOMA and ensure that every married couple in America has the same access to federal protections.

We are relieved the Court protected couples who married before November 5. The presence of thousands of married same-sex couples across California will show those who don’t yet know us that marriage strengthens families and communities and threatens no one.

But by upholding Prop 8, the Court has diminished its legacy as a champion of equality. No minority group should have to defend its right to equality at the ballot. The Court’s decision jeopardizes every minority group in California.

“As a racial justice organization, the Equal Justice Society opposes Prop. 8 – not only because it’s the right thing to do, but also because EJS strongly believes in working with others to ensure that the rights of all are expanded, rather than diminished, in our society,” said EJS President Eva Paterson in a previous statement on the issue. Eva participated this morning in a press conference in opposition to Prop. 8.

“We cannot just pigeonhole Prop. 8 as a ‘gay’ issue. By rolling back the fundamental rights of one group, Prop. 8 casts a threat that now looms over the civil rights of all.”

Because the Court upheld Prop 8, it is now crystal clear that we must go back to the ballot, and we are going to win.

Since the vote on Prop 8, there has been a tidal wave of momentum in favor of full equality. Five states now embrace marriage equality for same-sex couples, and several more are on the brink. We believe that California voters will reverse this injustice at the ballot. California has been a leader in standing up for equality, and it will be again.

Banning same-sex couples from marriage is unfair. Same-sex couples have the same hopes, dreams and concerns for their families as everyone else. They should be allowed the dignity, recognition, and responsibility that come with marriage, just like everyone else.

Visit this page to download PDFs for the decision and NLCR’s amicus brief.

“We hope the California Supreme Court will uphold the essential principle of equality regardless of political controversy, just as the Iowa Supreme Court has done. The eyes of California and the world are now on the California Supreme Court, which must determine whether equal protection means equal, and whether Californians will continue to share that equality in the freedom to marry.”

“The California Supreme Court is expected to rule on the validity of Proposition 8, which altered the California Constitution to eliminate the right to marry for same-sex couples, by June 3, 2009.”

For more information about NCLR’s Proposition 8 legal challenge, visit www.nclrights.org.

Tobias, a constitutional law professor at U. Penn., rebuts Ken Starr’s argument that Prop. 8 should be considered an amendment rather than a revision to the state constitution, arguing that to agree with the Prop. 8 proponents’ arguments would pave the way for “any protected minority to have its fundamental rights taken away whenever a bare majority wishes to do so.”

In explaining why the structural provisions of the Constitution are so important and deserve special treatment, Starr let slip a reference to what the structural protections of government are actually for: They are designed to safeguard liberty. Therese Stewart, the lawyer for the city of San Francisco, went on to frame the issue succinctly: If we protect the structures of government but leave all liberties to simple majority vote, then we are safeguarding the moat while allowing the castle to burn down.

Read the full op-ed here.

Good morning.

I’m Eva Paterson, President and co-founder of the Equal Justice Society. I’m here today to stand together with my friends and allies as we ask the state Supreme Court to stand for fairness and opportunity in our society.

Last May, this Court ruled that two people in a committed and loving relationship deserve the dignity and support that come with marriage. The Court said that California is a place where everyone has the chance to realize his or her hopes and dreams.

The Justices were right.

But ruling now in favor of Prop. 8 would not only harm the rights of LGBT folks, it would represent a threat to all of us who are not in the so-called majority in this country.

As a racial justice organization, the Equal Justice Society opposes Prop. 8 – not only because it’s the right thing to do, but also because EJS strongly believes in working with others to ensure that the rights of all are expanded, rather than diminished, in our society.

We cannot just pigeonhole Prop. 8 as a “gay” issue. By rolling back the fundamental rights of one group, Prop. 8 casts a threat that now looms over the civil rights of all.

That is why the Equal Justice Society has joined the many civil rights groups….

… including the Anti-Defamation League, the Asian Pacific American Legal Center, the California State Conference of the NAACP, the Japanese American Citizens League, and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, to name just a few…

… who believe that Prop. 8 is wrong – and a radical change to our state Constitution that cannot be accomplished through a ballot initiative.

If it only takes a bare majority to take away the most fundamental guarantee of equal protection, then we are truly all at risk.

Our constitution is the founding document of a community. And the protector of the disenfranchised.

Our constitution is the statement of principles that protects the ability of all people in that community to live their lives and pursue their dreams.

The same constitution that protects the right of churches and religions to decide when to recognize marriage as a sacrament, and the right of every citizen to express their opinions about the issue — also protects the right of gay and lesbian people to be treated equally under state law.

This epic battle has personal relevance for me. In 1970, I fell in love with Gary Paterson, who is white, at the height of the Black Power movement.

Our love antagonized both black and white people.

The Supreme Court had struck down laws prohibiting interracial marriage just three years before in the landmark case, Loving vs. Virginia.

When we decided to marry, Gary’s parents were so appalled that first we eloped to Hawaii and then settled in Oakland.

Gary did not speak to his parents for almost seven years. We had epithets yelled at us in public.

What gay men and lesbians are experiencing now as they seek to marry feels very familiar to me. The state has no right to tell anyone who they can or cannot love or marry.

That is why Prop. 8 is misguided and cruel.

There are good people who continue to hold different beliefs about marriage for gay and lesbian couples. But amending our state Constitution is different. Writing a statement of inequality into the founding document of our state affects everyone’s status in our community.

It would say to some Californians that they are second-class citizens.

We have gone down that road before, and we know where it leads.

This case reminds us how important it is for progressives to keep doing coalition politics. Advocates for the rights of LGBT people, women, people of color, immigrants—we all need to stand together when any one group is attacked.

Let’s continue to stand together for our brothers and sisters who want to love each other.

For only standing together can we achieve profound and lasting justice.

Prop. 8 needs to end. And end now.

Thank you.

As a white lesbian leading a national LGBT legal organization and a straight, African-American Christian leading a national civil rights legal organization, we stand side-by-side in common cause. Racism and homophobia undermine and diminish any dream of a just and fair nation. If allowed to stand, Prop 8 would eviscerate equal protection of the law and leave every minority in California vulnerable to majority sentiment and whim. Today it may be same-sex couples and that is unacceptable under any circumstance, but tomorrow any unpopular minority could be next.

In this fight for justice we are sisters, and we ask that every fair-minded Californian join our family in standing against Prop 8. We ask you to join us and engage in conversations about the harms Prop 8 poses to all Californians. Please, talk to your friends and family, attend rallies and marches, post and comment on blogs, and write letters to the editor. Please visit our GET INVOLVED section of our website for tips on how to have these important conversations.

As you talk about the harms of Prop 8, please remember to acknowledge the essential role of the Court in protecting minority rights and remind your audience of the threat that Prop 8 poses to freedom and equality for all Californians. If a bare majority of voters can change our state Constitution to take away rights from a historically targeted minority group, what is the point of having a California Constitution?

It is crucial that our community and allies stand up against this harmful proposition and be visible. It is our chance to show the world that we will not stand for discrimination and intolerance. So make your voice heard today. Click here for some sample letters and blog posts that you can use to draft your own personalized letter.

Our nation is on a new path. A path that makes us all feel a renewed sense of shared values, hope, and humanity. Prop 8 demeans us all and stains our collective vision of a new day. Such a law should not be permitted to stand.

Kate Kendell, Executive Director, National Center for Lesbian Rights
Eva Paterson, President, Equal Justice Society