(An interesting tack to take in the 52nd district – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

Mike Lumpkin, retired Navy SEAL and candidate for the 52nd Congressional District, released the following press release this morning regarding yesterday’s California Supreme Court decision on same sex marriage.

Yesterday the California Supreme Court overturned a voter-approved ban on gay marriage igniting a storm of divisive partisan reaction across the nation. Retired Navy SEAL Commander and 52nd Congressional District Candidate, Mike Lumpkin, sees the decision and subsequent reaction as an unfortunate yet expected diversion. “Election after election extremists drive this emotionally polarizing issue and marginalize the concerns of everyday Americans,” said Lumpkin.  

The foundation of Commander Lumpkin’s campaign comes from the pro-American creed he lived by for 21 years as a Navy SEAL, “In the military there is no ‘right’ or ‘left’ there is only right or wrong for America.” Lumpkin believes divisive politics are the reason America has gotten so far off track and he is committed to solving issues that transcend extreme politics. “Americans understand the urgency of working together; our deficit is spiraling out of control, we are outsourcing jobs, military families face extended deployments, the border is not secure, and Social Security is in trouble. Americans are smart, patriotic folks and we want our country back. We have too much at stake to let perennial wedge agendas hijack our national discussion,” said Lumpkin. “Same-sex marriage is a states’ rights issue and today’s decision is not surprising given California’s constitution. If the decision is contrary to the will of the majority then Californian’s must change our state’s constitution.”

Congressional candidate Duncan Hunter Jr. responded by saying “Families are under assault by out of control liberal judges.” However, Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s and Log Cabin Republican President Patrick Sammon’s support for the decision underscores the fact that same-sex marriage is neither a Democratic nor a Republican issue.

“Extremists have some harsh realities to face; this ruling is not the product of a liberal court. Three of the four justices who made the decision were Republican appointees,” said Lumpkin’s campaign manager, Chris Young. “The people who used gay-marriage as a wedge issue to get into office controlled the House, the Senate, the Whitehouse, and had a 5-4 majority in the Supreme Court for six years. If senior Congressmen like Duncan Hunter were committed to an anti-gay marriage amendment and they didn’t get the job done, they were incompetent or insincere. Either way, the American people deserve better,” said Young.

Commander Mike Lumpkin served 21 years in the U.S. Navy including eight operational tours as a Navy SEAL on continents across the world. He received over 40 commendations and awards during his service. He was Deputy Commander of Joint Special Operations Task Forces during Operation Iraqi Freedom. He has served as the officer in charge of all west coast SEAL teams, managing over 2000 military and civilian personnel with budgets over $300 million. In addition, Commander Lumpkin served as the liason to Congress for the US Special Operations Command. He was born and raised in Vista. Commander Lumpkin and his wife Jill have one son and two beautiful granddaughters. They reside in Jamul.

Cross-posted with Beyond Chron:

Yesterday’s decision by the California Supreme Court was historic because it set a huge precedent.  Not because the Court found the ban on same-sex marriage similar to earlier bans on interracial marriage, nor because it said domestic partnerships are inherently unequal.  What really mattered is that the Court ruled sexual orientation a “suspect class,” which means that all laws that discriminate on that basis must now pass strict scrutiny – a crucial step forward in the rights of LGBT people.

But same-sex couples in California still lack the federal benefits of marriage that straight people take for granted – like Social Security and immigration – because the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) precludes them from doing so.  Marriage equality supporters must defeat a constitutional amendment in November that would repeal the Court’s ruling, but they also need a President Obama.  If DOMA gets repealed in 2009, gay couples in California will finally be equal in the eyes of the law.

After the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in March on whether the state’s marriage law is unconstitutional, most legal observers predicted that the Court would uphold the ban on same-sex marriage.  If California’s Domestic Partnership Law offers many of the same legal rights as marriage, how are same-sex couples harmed by not getting married?

The Court answered this question by ruling that the term “marriage” is a necessary part of that constitutional right.  By framing the right to marry within the right to have a family, families of same-sex couples must be accorded the same “dignity, respect and stature” as other families enjoy. Offering the “historic and highly respected designation of marriage” only to straight couples – while giving gay couples “the new and unfamiliar designation of domestic partnerships” presents a “serious risk” of denying them such stature.

It’s what gay marriage supporters have argued for years, and is similar to the “separate is unequal” argument made by the Massachusetts Supreme Court in 2004.  But while that was a victory for California, it wasn’t the best part of yesterday’s ruling.

California’s law defining marriage as being between “a man and a woman” discriminates against gay couples – but to strike it down a court would have to rule that it violates equal protection.  If a law discriminates against a “suspect class” – like race, gender, religion or national origin – it must pass “strict scrutiny.”  In other words, the law is presumed to violate equal protection – unless the state can prove that it serves a compelling public interest, and is narrowly tailored through the least restrictive means toward that end.

But the courts have not recognized sexual orientation as a suspect class – so laws that discriminate against gays and lesbians have been upheld on “rational basis” grounds.  That means a law does not violate equal protection as long as the court can find some intelligible argument for why it makes sense.  New York, for example, upheld its ban on gay marriage through the “rational basis” test – its high court said the state had a greater interest in marrying straight people because they might accidentally have kids.

For decades, LGBT advocates have gone to Court and argued that laws discriminating against them are “gender discrimination.”  Hawaii’s landmark decision in the mid-1990’s on gay marriage was argued on this basis, and S.F. Superior Court judge Richard Kramer originally ruled in the present case in favor of marriage equality on the basis that it was sex discrimination.  The reason for taking this route was strategic: the courts have long considered “gender” to be a suspect class – but not “sexual orientation.”

Yesterday’s decision was historic because it ruled “sexual orientation” a suspect class.  I predicted this might happen when I read the Appellate Court decision in October 2006, where the lower court actually laid out what are the “necessary” elements of a suspect class: (a) the group has historically been oppressed, (b) the trait does not relate to a person’s value to society, and (c) the trait is immutable – i.e., cannot be changed.

Back then, the Appellate Court agreed that sexual orientation fit the first two categories – but said that they lacked evidence to conclude the third point.  At the time, I urged gay marriage advocates in Beyond Chron to give the Supreme Court ample factual evidence that sexual orientation is an “immutable trait” – and that if successful, the Court would have no choice but to strike the ban on same-sex marriage.

But the Supreme Court ruled that it didn’t matter if sexual orientation is “immutable” – because that’s not a necessary element of a suspect class.  “A person’s religion,” said the Court, “is a suspect class for equal protection purposes – and one’s religion is a matter over which an individual can control.”  The Court added that one can cease to be an alien (which is also considered a “suspect class”) by applying for U.S. citizenship.

Treating sexual orientation as a “suspect class” is a breakthrough for gays and lesbians in achieving their rights that will go beyond yesterday’s marriage decision.  In the future, any state law in California that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation must pass “strict scrutiny” – just like laws that discriminate on race, gender, religion or alienage.

San Franciscans were in a festive mood yesterday – after having waited 4 years for this outcome – but the practical legal effect on gay couples is rather minimal.  That’s because California Domestic Partnerships already gave same-sex couples most of the legal rights of marriage.  Moreover, California’s Supreme Court could only require that the state let gay people marry – without extending any marriage rights under federal law.

And the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which President Bill Clinton signed in 1996, explicitly says that same-sex couples cannot enjoy any federal rights – such as Social Security benefits, immigration laws that allow you to sponsor a foreign spouse, and the right to file a joint federal tax return.  Even Massachusetts, where gay couples have had the right to marry since 2004, does not have complete marriage equality for this reason.

But a President Barack Obama – along with bigger Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress – could change this after the November elections.  Obama has pledged to fully repeal DOMA, whereas Republican John McCain would not.  There will certainly be a fight in Congress, so marriage equality advocates must focus on the various House and Senate races in November – to ensure that a Democratic Congress will make it possible.

Meanwhile, the extreme right in California will put a constitutional amendment on the November ballot to prohibit marriage equality.  Because yesterday’s Court ruling was based on the California Constitution – not the U.S. Constitution – passage by the voters would effectively repeal the Supreme Court’s decision.  Therefore, much is at stake this November – and marriage equality supporters must mobilize now to defeat the initiative.

Yesterday’s court ruling was historic – and has created an exciting new precedent for gays and lesbians in California.  But we now run the risk of losing in November at the ballot box – and we still need to repeal DOMA at the federal level to get full marriage equality.  Defeating the initiative and repealing DOMA are both doable goals.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Paul Hogarth was a law school intern at Equality California during the summer of 2005, and got his J.D. from Golden Gate University in 2006.  He is an attorney licensed to practice law in California.

(I’m going to promote this because it’s starting to get a good deal of attention. Half of the equipement needed by the Naitonal Guard to aid in recovery and assistance is not in the state, and we’ve known about this for months. Sen. Boxer raised this concern yesterday. It’s hampering efforts and I think it’s worthy for consideration. – promoted by David Dayen)

Dear George W Bush & Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger:

Where is the National Guard?  Why is not the National Guard involved in protecting the people of Southern California, San Diego County, Riverside County, San Bernardino County, Ventura County, and Los Angeles County from the fire storms?

Might they be in Afghanistan?
Might they be in Iraq?
Might they be on the border of California & Mexico?

Is it not the job of the President and of the Governor to insure the safety and security of persons and property in the State rather than in an ill-conceived overseas venture?  Just a thought.

(Edited for space only. – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

California Psychological Association (CPA) Signs on as Amicus to American Psychological Association’s Brief to CA Supreme Court Re Gay Marriage.

As you know, the issue of Marriage Equality has been simmering below the radar for quite some time since Gavin Newsom, Mayor of San Francisco, first recognized Marriage Equality for same-sex couples.  Newsom gained international attention in February 2004, when he directed the city-county clerk to issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples.  Newsom claimed the California Constitution’s equal protection clause as his authority.  From February 12, 2004, until March 11, 2004, when Marriage Equality was halted by the California Supreme Court, about 4,000 couples were issued marriage licenses under Newsom’s directive in San Francisco.  On August 12, 2004, the California Supreme Court voided all of 4,000 licenses.

More below the flip…

Since then, courts in Massachusetts and New Jersey have ruled that Marriage Equality must be recognized.  The legislature of Massachusetts passed legislation for Marriage Equality.  More recently, the courts in New Jersey have ruled that the State must accommodate Marriage Equality.

In California, the people, through their duly elected officials in both legislative chambers have attempted to recognize Marriage Equality in 2005 and once again in 2007.  Both times, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Marriage Equality Terminator, vetoed the legislation.  He has indicated that the issue should be a matter for the courts and the voters of California to decide.  Schwarzenegger has obviously ignored the fact that the voters of California have spoken in 2005 and again in 2007 in favor of Marriage Equality through their legislators.  It so happens that the California Supreme Court may make a decision on Marriage Equality.  The Court will hear oral argumentss in a case for Marriage Equality in which fifteen (15) same-sex couples will be represented by the the American Civil Liberties Union and Lambda Legal.

Now, Miguel E. Gallardo, PsyD, President, wrote the following to the members of the CPA:

“Dear Members:

“I hope this message finds you all well and in good health. I am writing to inform you that, as an association, the CPA signed on to an Amicus Brief recently filed by the American Psychological Association with the California Supreme Court. Additionally, this email is intended to provide you with some background information and inform you of the process used by the Executive Committee (comprised of the CPA’s elected officers) and the Board of Directors in determining the appropriate action for CPA.

“Background

“In July 2007 the Public Interest Directorate of APA requested that CPA sign on to an Amicus Brief that the APA planned to file with the California Supreme Court. An Amicus Curiae Brief (literally, “friend of the court”) is a brief that is filed with the court by someone who is not a party to the case, but who has an interest in the case and believes that the court’s decision may affect its interest.  Amicus Briefs often include educative information and resources that may be useful to the Court.

Re full disclosure, BlueBeaumontBoyz is a member of the American Psychological Association.

Gallardo’s message continues:

“The Issue

“The current case stems from the original action of the San Francisco Mayor to allow marriage between gay and lesbian couples.  This case comes to the California Supreme Court from the California First Appellate District Court (Division Three), which reversed an earlier trial court decision, and upheld the constitutional California’s Family Code, that defines civil marriage as the union between a man and a woman.  The California Supreme Court must decide whether to uphold the Appellate Court decision or to overturn it and find the current definition of marriage unconstitutional (as did the earlier trial court).  A decision to overturn the Appellate Court’s decision would, in essence, enable gay and lesbian couples to be married in the state of California. 

“APA has filed similar Briefs in other states, including in Maryland where the Supreme Court recently rejected the Brief, but APA believes that the California case is probably the most important case to date on this matter and that this case will have a very large impact on the rest of the country. In addition to CPA, APA was joined in this Brief by the American Psychiatric Association and the National Association of Social Workers.

“The Decision Making Process

“The Executive Committee of the CPA Board of Directors based its actions on our newly adopted guidelines from the Social Issues Task Force which stipulate that the Executive Committee, after considering any issue, will determine how to involve the full Board of Directors. In this particular circumstance, the Executive Committee involved the CPA Board of Directors as early as was feasible in the review process. The Executive Committee ultimately reviewed all the relevant documents provided by APA, as well as other materials provided by various Board members and other interested individuals in this case. The final meeting of Executive Committee occurred on September 10th when a final decision was made to support the Brief. It was during this meeting, and several others, that the members of the Executive Committee reviewed the comments gathered from the Board of Directors comments, concerns, and suggested actions to change the language in the Brief. Based on the final meeting on the 10th, and the Executive Committee’s review of the comments from the Board of Directors, and by a majority vote, the CPA Executive Committee agreed that CPA join the Brief as an Amicus. 

“In essence, we followed what we believed to be the appropriate mechanisms to make an informed decision on behalf of the CPA and its members.

“This decision was forwarded to Dr. Clinton Anderson in the APA Public Interest Directorate.  Dr. Anderson and other members of the APA expressed their appreciation for CPA’s position on this issue.  A copy of the Amicus Brief that was filed with the California Supreme Court is attached for your information and review.

“We hope you find the information contained in this email and in the attached document helpful in understanding the significance in maintaining a level of integrity in our decision making process, as well as, ultimately deciding what final action to take on behalf of the Association, its members, and the communities in California that we serve.

“I appreciate your membership in the Association and I look forward to continuing to serve you in the future.

Best regards,

Miguel E. Gallardo, PsyD

President, CPA

The full brief may be viewed at [http://www.cpapsych….]

I was very surprised to learn that Donna had cast the deciding vote against the measure supporting gay marriage a couple of weeks ago; fortunately the person who delivered that news provided context.

I was at the local DFA meeting on the day she cast that vote, and the speaker was Stephen Whitburn, who is the DFA-endorsed candidate for City Council in the 3rd District.  He has not only DFA’s endorsement, but also Donna’s; they are longtime friends.  Follow me across the fold for Stephen’s context.

Stephen explained that he wasn’t upset about Donna’s vote, that he knew her to be a strong supporter of gay marriage, and that she had explained her reasoning to him, and that it made sense to him.  And it does to me, too.

It was a procedural matter; the measure had not been announced with enough advance time for people who might want to be heard on the issue to get to the meeting.  There was, I think, a matter of a holiday weekend that figured into the time calculation.  Donna, who is indeed a strong supporter of civil rights, including gay marriage, didn’t feel it was appropriate to trample the civil rights of those who might oppose the measure, by railroading the measure through before they had a chance to speak their piece.  She felt, rather, that the matter should be re-scheduled so that everyone could be heard, so that whichever way the issue was decided, it could be seen to have been decided with a full hearing of all voices.

I heard her a couple of days later on the Stacy Taylor show; she pointed out how wrong it would be to promote some civil rights by trampling others.  I think she was right on this issue, as I think she is often right, and I think she took a lot of undue heat for doing the right thing.

I suspect, but could never prove, that her spirit of evenhandedness here might even have contributed to Mayor Sanders’ change of heart in the matter; had she participated in the railroading, it would have been easier for him to react in similarly aggressive, competitive fashion.

So, hurrah for Donna!

Washington (Pony Express Press): As the War between North and South rages on, President Arnold Schwarzenegger has again announced his intention to veto a bill that would emancipate the slaves throughout the American territories, based on the fact that the practice of slavery has been ratified in the states of the Confederacy in the past.

“It would be wrong for the people, and by people I mean wealthy landowners, to vote for something and for me to then overturn it,” Schwarzenegger said. “So they can send this bill down as many times as they want, I won’t do it.”

This is the second year in a row that President Schwarzenegger has vetoed the emancipation bill from the Congress, refusing to offer a proclamation of his own.  The bill would set free millions of colored Americans from the bonds of slavery.  Some have suggested that the people actually voted for the legislators who drafted the bill, but the President, in the midst of shuttling back and forth to Gettysburg for updates on the fighting, dismissed this.

The situation was made all the more intriguing by the fact that the President’s chief of staff is currently a slave.  Abolitionist activists have called on the chief of staff to resign.

on the flip…

OK, the metaphor is getting tired, but you get the idea.  But really, gay activists have called on Susan Kennedy to resign.

GOVERNOR ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER said today, that he will veto the bill legalizing same-gender civil marriage because 61% percent of California voters favored Proposition 22 in March 2000. Ms. Kennedy agreed with the Governor’s decision using Prop 22 (which only bars California from recognizing same-sex marriages performed outside California), when he used the same excuse to veto the bill in 2005. He says he will never sign this bill. In 1948, if California voters had been allowed to vote on inter-racial marriage when the California Supreme Court struck down the anti-miscegenation law and found in favor of inter-racial marriage, over 72% of the voters would have voted against it.

Even though I, a plaintiff, am going to the California Supreme Court next year, (and the Governor has said he will “abide” by the CA Supreme Court’s decision), I am not only extremely disappointed in the Governor’s lack of courage, but am especially disappointed in Susan Kennedy, his chief of staff, whose “same gender wedding” I attended in Hawaii several years ago.

Since I attended Susan’s wedding, why is she so against attending mine? Both Arnold and Susan know that it is unconstitutional for the majority to deny a minority equal protection under the law. To hide behind that [Prop 22] as an excuse, is cowardly and unforgivable, for both the Governor and especially for Ms. Kennedy, a lesbian. Rather then backing the Governor’s decision with unacceptable excuses, I ask that Ms. Kennedy resign as Chief of Staff. If not, shame on you Susan, to side against your community, and deny civil marriage to your friends.

I wonder if she’ll respond.

There are a bunch of things that I wanted to post about that I might as well highlight in one post, kind of like when Asia recruited members of Yes, King Crimson, and Uriah Heep to create a “supergroup”:

• BeDevine notes that yet another gender-neutral marriage bill has passed the Legislature, and once again Arnold Schwarzenegger has vowed to veto it because “the people have already spoken on that issue.”  Apparently the people don’t vote for their own representatives in the state legislature.  And at what point does the statute of limitations run out on referring to a ballot measure from 2000?

• Senator Loewenthal has pulled back the container fee bill that would have charged importers a $30 fee on each cargo container to go towards fighting pollution at the ports.  This will go into negotiation and probably be passed in some form in 2008.  Hopefully it’ll be a form that will still have some teeth.

• Dan Weintraub makes the fallacious argument that the United Farm Workers are somehow betraying their principles by asking for the ability to form a union after a majority of employees sign cards endorsing it.  He thinks that there’s no intimidation in a secret ballot election, apparently ignoring decades of union busting, threats, and workplace closures that have arisen from attempts to unionize.

• As mentioned in the Quickies, the CA Hospital Association has agreed to a tax in themselves… sort of.  In exchange, they would receive money back to them based on how many poor people they treat.  Most hospitals would actually make money on the deal.  It’s also hard to see how this would do anything to fix our state’s strained emergency rooms, which presumably is where these poor people would be encouraged to go for treatment.

• Also in the Quickies is some good news on the enviroment, as new CARB chief Mary Nichols has set some pretty strong targets for emissions cuts.  They’re first steps but they presage positive developments in the future.

• Finally, the Teamsters waged a successful protest at the California-Mexico border against the Bush Administration effort to allow 100 Mexican trucking companies to deliver goods anywhere in the United States.  This will not only damage our environment and public safety by opening up the roads to unsafe Mexican trucks, it undermines American job security for one of the few good union industries left to our working class.  The goal is to marginalize unionized truckers, pure and simple.  Matt Stoller thinks this could be the next “Dubai ports deal” if the word gets out about it.