David Perdue: Too Extreme for Georgia

On Tuesday, David Perdue triumphed over longtime representative Jack Kingston in the Republican runoff for Saxby Chambliss’ U.S. Senate seat. The former Dollar General CEO has never run for political office, a distinction he has made the central theme of his campaign. Perdue has boasted that he is a “different kind of candidate,” but we’ve seen a candidate like him before: 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney.

The similarities between Romney and Perdue are striking: both CEOs, both millionaires, and both completely out of touch. Romney, however, was accused by right-wingers of being one thing Perdue clearly isn’t: moderate. Perdue has made no attempt to seem even relatively moderate and has dragged his extremist ideals as far to the right as he can. Make no mistake: he will not represent Georgia. Instead, he’ll represent those like him: wealthy, anti-immigrant and anti-equality.

Perdue already has proven that he is wrong for Georgia. He signed the FAIR Pledge, a pledge created by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) Task Force, vowing to oppose not only a pathway to citizenship for undocumented students but also any increase in work visas for legal immigrants. He is also anti-choice and anti-equality. With nearly 10 percent of Georgia’s population identifying as Latino and over 260,000 Georgians identifying as LGBTQ, Perdue would have a duty to represent all of his constituents—and that is a duty he won’t fulfill.

David Perdue has made it clear that he does not understand needs of Georgia’s diverse, changing population, which is why PFAW will help to make it clear that he is not the right choice for Georgia.
 

PFAW

Will Anti-Gay Groups Learn from Florida Court Ruling for Marriage Equality?

A Florida state court today became the latest in recent months to rule that prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying violates the U.S. Constitution. (As Freedom to Marry notes, the ruling applies only in Monroe County.)

One interesting part of the Equal Protection portion of the ruling discusses whether proponents of Florida's ban have anti-gay animus. Circuit Judge Luis Garcia discusses the arguments of two parties who had submitted amicus briefs in support of the ban: Florida Family Action (which is affiliated with the Florida Family Policy Council) and People United to Lead the Struggle for Equality. Perhaps not surprisingly, he finds the animus in the types of arguments they choose to make:

The court finds that despite the Amici Curiae assertion that there is no evidence of animus towards homosexuals by the proponents of the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment (FMPA), there is ample evidence not only historically but within the very memorandum of law filed by the Amici Curiae. ... [It] paints a picture of homosexuals as HIV infected, alcohol and drug abusers, who are promiscuous and psychologically damaged and incapable of long term relationships or of raising children. They contend, "the personal, social and financial costs of these homosexual-specific health problems concern not just those who engage in homosexual activity, but also the larger community of citizens who help provide services and who must bear part of the burden imposed by the health challenges. It is eminently rational for the voters of Florida to seek to minimize the deleterious effect of these conditions on public health, safety and welfare by affirming that marriage in Florida remains the union of one man and one woman."

The judge concluded that there was animus behind the Florida ban, such that the law is subject to a somewhat higher level of scrutiny than the ordinary law for Equal Protection purposes. Not surprisingly, the ban fails that scrutiny.

It is not a good day for right-wing groups that peddle in vicious anti-gay stereotypes.

PFAW Foundation

Kentucky Marriage Ban Struck Down

Continuing the unbroken record of marriage equality wins since last year’s Supreme Court ruling against DOMA in the Windsor case, today a federal judge ruled unconstitutional Kentucky’s ban on marriage for same-sex couples.

District Judge John G. Heyburn II wrote:

In America, even sincere and long-held religious beliefs do not trump the constitutional rights of those who happen to have been out-voted.

He dismissed the opposing arguments — including that the ban was good for the state’s economic stability and birth rates — out of hand, noting, “These arguments are not those of serious people.”

The judge has stayed the ruling for now, meaning that Kentucky couples can’t immediately begin marrying. But the decision is a significant victory for LGBT families in the Bluegrass State, where activists have fought courageously for equal rights for many years. Congratulations, Kentucky!

PFAW Foundation

Tenth Circuit Protects Right to Marry

Since last year's Windsor decision striking down DOMA, one federal district court after another has struck down bans against marriage equality. Many of those rulings are being appealed. Today, for the first time, a federal appeals court has entered the national conversation, with a powerful opinion upholding the right of same-sex couples to marry.

The ruling by a three-judge panel of the Tenth Circuit concludes that denying gays and lesbians the right to marry violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause (by denying a fundamental right to marry) and Equal Protection Clause (by making that right depend on a classification – the sex of the couple – that bears little if any relation to the state's purported goals).

Under Due Process, a law denying a fundamental constitutional right is subject to strict scrutiny: It can survive only if it's narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. Similarly strict scrutiny is required under Equal Protection for a classification that impinges on a fundamental right. (The court doesn't address one of the law's unanswered questions, which is whether any law discriminating against lesbians and gays should be subject to heightened scrutiny.)

The state of Utah put forth several arguments relating to reproduction and child-rearing, but the court pointed out that:

each of the appellants' justifications rests fundamentally on a sleight of hand in which same-sex marriage is used as a proxy for a different characteristic shared by both same-sex and some opposite-sex couples. Same-sex marriage must be banned, appellants argue, because same-sex couples are not naturally procreative. But the state permits many other types of non-procreative couples to wed. ... Same-sex marriage cannot be allowed, appellants assert, because it is better for children to be raised by biological parents. Yet adoptive parents, who have the full panoply of rights and duties of biological parents, are free to marry. As are opposite-sex couples who choose assisted reproduction.

...

[A] state may not satisfy the narrow tailoring requirement by pointing to a trait shared by those on both sides of a challenged classification.

For those who argue that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment never intended for it to guarantee the rights of gays and lesbians, the court says:

Although courts may be tempted to suppose that the Due Process Clause protects only those practices, defined at the most specific level, that were protected against government interference by other rules of law when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified ... such a view would be inconsistent with our law. A prime part of the history of our Constitution ... is the story of the extension of constitutional rights and protections to people once ignored or excluded. (internal quotations and citations omitted)

The opinion elaborates:

A generation ago, recognition of the fundamental right to marry as applying to persons of the same sex might have been unimaginable. A generation ago, the declaration by gay and lesbian couples of what may have been in their hearts would have had to remain unspoken. Not until contemporary times have laws stigmatizing or even criminalizing gay men and women been felled, allowing their relationships to surface to an open society. As the district court eloquently explained, "it is not the Constitution that has changed, but the knowledge of what it means to be gay or lesbian."

The three-judge panel stayed today's ruling until the Supreme Court can resolve the expected appeal, so the right to marry won't automatically be coming immediately to the other states in the Tenth Circuit (Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Wyoming). In fact, the same three-judge panel is still considering a constitutional challenge to a marriage ban in one of those states, Oklahoma. Oral arguments in the two cases were held just a week apart.

Utah could appeal today's panel decision to the entire Tenth Circuit, or it could instead go directly to the Supreme Court (which would decide for itself whether to hear the case).

PFAW Foundation

Indiana’s Marriage Ban Struck Down

In another win for equality, today U.S. District Judge Richard Young struck down Indiana’s ban on marriage for same-sex couples. Because the judge did not stay the ruling, the Indianapolis Star reports that couples can begin getting married right away.

Not a single state marriage ban has been able to withstand a challenge in federal court in the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in United States v. Windsor, which struck down part of DOMA.

Congratulations, Indiana!

PFAW Foundation

Same-Sex Marriages Continue in Wisconsin After Federal Judge Denies Motion to Stay

Since last Friday’s ruling by Federal Judge Barbara Crabb that Wisconsin’s ban on same-sex marriages is unconstitutional, hundreds of same-sex couples have lined up to get marriage licenses across the Badger State. Immediately after receiving the ruling, clerks in Dane and Milwaukee counties began issuing marriage licenses, and in both areas, facilities stayed open late on Friday and continued issuing licenses on Saturday. Officiants, including judges, ministers, and commissioners, married couples on-site at their respective county courthouses.

Similar to actions in other states where courts have struck down same-sex marriage bans, Wisconsin’s right-leaning GOP Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen filed multiple motions to “preserve the status quo” attempting to stop same-sex marriages from happening.

As of Tuesday afternoon, 48 of the state’s 72 counties were issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, despite the ongoing legal battle. Wisconsin’s Vital Records Office is accepting the licenses, but holding them until they receive further guidance from Van Hollen.

For its part, the ACLU filed a proposal of how to implement same-sex marriage in the state. If approved, the plan would force Governor Scott Walker, Attorney General Van Hollen, and county clerks across the state to treat all same-sex and opposite-sex couples equally under the law.

Judge Crabb is set to have another hearing on June 19th.

PFAW Foundation

Windsor's Ripples of Equality

A unanimous three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit issued a ruling yesterday showing how the Supreme Court's Windsor case (DOMA) is helping to bring greater equality, even in areas unrelated to marriage equality.

The court ruled that a lawyer cannot peremptorily "strike" (remove from the jury pool without giving a reason) a potential juror based on their sexual orientation. But in reaching that conclusion, the Ninth Circuit concluded that any government classification based on sexual orientation triggers heightened scrutiny for Equal Protection analysis. This is a departure from Ninth Circuit precedent, which had previously applied only the lowest level "rational basis" scrutiny.

But that was before Windsor. The panel concluded that while the Supreme Court didn't explicitly address the appropriate level of scrutiny for anti-gay laws in the DOMA case, it in fact applied heightened scrutiny.

Windsor requires that when state action discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation, we must examine its actual purposes and carefully consider the resulting inequality to ensure that our most fundamental institutions neither send nor reinforce messages of stigma or second-class status. In short, Windsor requires heightened scrutiny. Our earlier cases applying rational basis review to classifications based on sexual orientation cannot be reconciled with Windsor. Because we are bound by controlling, higher authority, we now hold that Windsor's heightened scrutiny applies to classifications based on sexual orientation. [internal quotations and citations removed]

The panel discussed the types of discrimination faced by gay and lesbians during our nation's history:

In the first half of the twentieth century, public attention was preoccupied with homosexual "infiltration" of the federal government. Gays and lesbians were dismissed from civilian employment in the federal government at a rate of sixty per month. Discrimination in employment was not limited to the federal government; local and state governments also excluded homosexuals, and professional licensing boards often revoked licenses on account of homosexuality. ... Indeed, gays and lesbians were thought to be so contrary to our conception of citizenship that they were made inadmissible under a provision of our immigration laws that required the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to exclude individuals "afflicted with psychopathic personality." It was not until 1990 that the INS ceased to interpret that category as including gays and lesbians. It is only recently that gay men and women gained the right to be open about their sexuality in the course of their military service. As one scholar put it, throughout the twentieth century, gays and lesbians were the "anticitizen." [internal citations removed]

Indeed, today's Right Wing is dedicated to the idea that gays and lesbians are outsiders to our society. But most Americans know better, and so did five Supreme Court Justices in Windsor.

As the Ninth Circuit decision shows, the impact of Windsor continues to grow, and not just in the area of marriage equality.

PFAW Foundation

Our ENDA mission started with Senator Kennedy

UPDATE: ENDA got its start in 1994, but ENDA was not the first attempt in Congress to prohibit sexual orientation discrimination. Such protections were part of a broad civil rights bill introduced in 1974 that protected not only sexual orientation but also sex and marital status. Dubbed the Equality Act, its champions were Bella Abzug and Ed Koch.

Many who spoke this week in support of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, including PFAW, invoked the name of a long-time ENDA champion, the late Ted Kennedy. So we reviewed the record and found his speech in support of ENDA's inaugural introduction in 1994.

And here's Senator Kennedy at the ENDA press conference in 1995:

Eighteen years later, four after his passing, we are still working to complete the mission that Senator Kennedy laid before the nation. We are keeping the pressure on all of Congress to pass ENDA.

The time is now!

PFAW

Where is Speaker Boehner hiding all the good bills like ENDA?

At a press conference yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) posed a question that you might also be wondering about:

Where is the secret vault in the US House where Speaker Boehner is hiding all the good bills?

Leader Reid makes a good point. Why "lock away" the Employment Non-Discrimination Act when 68 percent of voters, including 56 percent of Republicans, believe that the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender employees should be protected by federal law? Why keep the House from voting on ENDA when 8 out of 10 voters already think such a law exists?

Is Speaker Boehner afraid it will pass?

 

Senate HELP Committee Chairman Tom Harkin (D-IA):

The message from all the senators was clear:

It's our message, too.

Speaker Boehner needs to decide whether he will cave to that kind of bigotry or stand with the vast majority of voters who support this legislation.

Here are a few other highlights from the final day of Senate debate on ENDA.

Again from Leader Reid:

Senator Al Franken (D-MN):

Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH):

Senator Susan Collins (R-ME):

Senators who stood on the right side of history and voted for passage should be thanked. Senators who stood with anti-gay extremists should hear your disappointment. There are more instructions here and here, and you can always reach them by dialing 202-224-3121.

As we move on to the House, if you have not added your name already, sign our petition now to keep the pressure on all of Congress to pass ENDA.

The time is now!

PFAW