EvaPaterson.com

EJS joined other civil rights groups today in filing a petition with the California Supreme Court to stop the enactment of Proposition 8 because it would mandate discrimination against a minority group and did not follow the process required for fundamental revisions to the California Constitution.

In the petition (download PDF), the Asian Pacific American Legal Center, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Equal Justice Society, California NAACP and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. argue that in order to protect the fundamental rights of all Californians, a higher standard is required to overturn the right to marry. Minority communities cannot be stripped of their fundamental rights by a simple majority vote.

"We would be making a grave mistake to view Proposition 8 as just affecting the LGBT community," said Eva Paterson, president of the Equal Justice Society. "If the Supreme Court allows Proposition 8 to take effect, it would represent a threat to the rights of people of color and all minorities."

The petition filed by Raymond C. Marshall of Bingham McCutchen and Prof. Tobias Barrington Wolff of University of Pennsylvania Law School on behalf of leading African American, Latino, and Asian American groups echo the arguments made in the November 5 lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal and the National Center for Lesbian Rights: Proposition 8 prevents the courts from exercising their essential constitutional role of enforcing the equal protection rights of minorities.

The California Constitution requires that any measure attempting to revise the underlying principles of the constitution must first be approved by a two-thirds vote of the legislature before being submitted to the voters. Proposition 8 was not approved through that constitutionally required process.

"Proposition 8 contradicts the most basic protection guaranteed by the California Constitution, which is the right to equal protection of the laws," said John Trasviña, President and General Counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. "We can not allow the Constitution to sanction discrimination against one group of people."

"Direct democracy cannot override the California Constitution, which requires more than a majority vote to deprive a minority group of their fundamental rights," said John A. Payton, President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.

"We cannot become a society that picks and chooses who is entitled to equal rights," said Alice A. Huffman, president of the California State NAACP. "We should include all people from all walks of life in the entitlement to all freedoms now enjoyed by the majority of our population As a civil rights advocate, we will continue the fight of eliminating roadblocks to freedom."

"Consistent with core equal protection principles, minority communities must not be stripped of their fundamental rights by bare majority rule," said Karin Wang, Vice-President of Programs for the Asian Pacific American Legal Center. "California went down this path before when the majority population chose to bar interracial marriages involving an unpopular minority: Asian immigrants.  The state Constitution exists exactly for this reason - to protect the fundamental rights of minority communities."

"Let's not forget the landmark 1967 case of Loving v. Virginia, which allowed two people of different races to marry," said Paterson of the Equal Justice Society.  "People then believed it was acceptable to keep Mildred Loving from marrying a white man because of their ideas of who should marry whom. We must not return to those times."

The court has precedent for invalidating an improper voter initiative. In 1990, the court overruled an initiative that would have added a provision to the California Constitution stating that the "Constitution shall not be construed by the courts to afford greater rights to criminal defendants than those afforded by the Constitution of the United States." That measure was invalid because it improperly attempted to strip California's courts of their role as independent interpreters of the state's constitution.

A copy of the writ petition filed today is available at http://equaljusticesociety.org/prop8.

The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (naacpldf.org) was founded in 1940 under the leadership of Thurgood Marshall. Although LDF's primary purpose was to provide legal assistance to poor African Americans, its work over the years has brought greater justice to all Americans.

Founded in 1968, MALDEF (maldef.org), the nation's leading Latino legal civil rights organization, promotes and protects the rights of Latinos through litigation, advocacy, community education and outreach, leadership development, and higher education scholarships.

The Asian Pacific American Legal Center (apalc.org) is a nonprofit organization dedicated to advocating for civil rights, providing legal services and education, and building coalitions to positively influence and impact Asian Pacific Americans and to create a more equitable and harmonious society. APALC is affiliated with the Asian American Justice Center, the Asian American Institute in Chicago, and the Asian Law Caucus in San Francisco.

The Equal Justice Society (equaljusticesociety.org) is a national strategy group heightening conscious on race in the law and popular discourse. Using a three-pronged strategy of law and public policy advocacy, cross-disciplinary convenings and strategic public communications, EJS seeks to restore race equity issues to the national consciousness, build effective progressive alliances, and advance the discourse on the positive role of government.

Does this scenario seem familiar?  Devastation in New York City.  Two towering institutions are hit and collapse into rubble before our very eyes.  Bush and company are caught off guard. Our president has that startled deer in the headlights look (except he's not reading My Pet Goat). Administration officials come up with an ill-conceived plan that they expect the Congress to ratify without scrutiny.  Those with questions as to the wisdom of the plan have their patriotism questioned.  Vast powers are to be granted to government officials.

In the words of New York Times columnist and Princeton Economics professor Paul Krugman:

"...Mr. Paulson insists that he wants a 'clean' plan. 'Clean,' in this context, means a taxpayer-financed bailout with no strings attached - no quid pro quo on the part of those being bailed out. Why is that a good thing? Add to this the fact that Mr. Paulson is also demanding dictatorial authority, plus immunity from review 'by any court of law or any administrative agency,' and this adds up to an unacceptable proposal.

"I'm aware that Congress is under enormous pressure to agree to the Paulson plan in the next few days, with at most a few modifications that make it slightly less bad. Basically, after having spent a year and a half telling everyone that things were under control, the Bush administration says that the sky is falling, and that to save the world we have to do exactly what it says now now now."

As we have stated before, we at EJS embrace a holistic view of what we as progressives must do to create a better world.  It appears that this economic plan will not sail through in the dead of night as the Patriot Act did.  We are fully aware that our country is in deep trouble just as we were after the September 11 attacks.  We hope we have learned a lesson as a result of the excesses that occured as a result of panic and fear.  We urge our lawmakers to take a careful look at the proposals from the Bush administration.  Our friends at CREDO have an action plan.  Click on the link below for more information.

http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/no_blank_check

Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me.

Photo Credits (clockwise from top left): Associated Press, Wall Street Journal, flickr.com/respres, Reuters

Today has been a wild day.  The Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped more than 500 points.  An already jittery nation wonders how Wall Street's woes will affect Main Street.  I have been watching the melt down of the housing situation with ideological interest.  How does a progressive person view what we are seeing?  Is there a progressive analysis of the economic woes that are affecting us?  Woe and whoa!!!

One of the hallmarks of conservative ideology is a disdain for government regulation.  It is thought that government serves as dead weight to the brilliance of the market.  The Equal Justice Society was privileged to be part of a retreat that took place in the Santa Cruz mountains some years ago and learned that much of today's Right-wing ideology was formulated in Mt. Pèlerin, Switzerland, early in the 20th century.

Many of the ideas expressed by Barry Goldwater and then put into place in the Reagan administration first saw the light of day in the cold mountain air of the Alps.  A disdain for government and a rock solid faith in the brilliance of the market were but two of the ideals embraced by those in attendance. 

When Ronald Reagan took office, the deregulation of American life began in earnest.  The deregulation of the airline industry is a prime example.  The Bush administration saw the deregulation of the banking and financial industries.  Former Senator Phil Gramm was a major proponent of this new approach to business.

One consequence of the diminution of regulation was the subprime mortgage crisis.  No one was watching as this scam moved forward.  As an NPR reporter said this morning, "My six year old daughter knows you do not lend money to people who cannot pay you back."  How true yet there was no one from the government advising banks and other financial institutions that these loans were a bad idea.  Folks just kept making money and the government fiddled while the subprime mortgages lit the kindling that got this firestorm going.

Parenthetically, the anecdotal information I have seen indicates that the borrowers involved were disproportionately Black and Brown, poor or low income.  The current administration cares little for these Americans so they were allowed to attempt to pursue the American dream of home ownership-a dream that has become a nightmare for all of us.

The Equal Justice Society is committed to new ways of bringing about social change.  We believe we must get out of our issue area silos and look at the big picture.  Although our expertise is in the area of racial justice, we at EJS are concerned with the whole of American society including our economic situation.  Dr. King talked of the "beloved community."  His aide Bayard Rustin talked of the Grand Coalition.

We at EJS are working with colleagues on what we call the Grand Alliance.  We have worked on judicial nominations and are currently working to unite those working on statewide initiatives that will be on the California ballot this November.

Rather that having folks work in their silos on their individual efforts, we have brought together six different campaigns in an effort to help each other across the individual issues of marriage equality, immigrant rights, criminal justice, renewable energy, voting rights and reproductive rights.

After the elections, we will be convening a number of allies to move these efforts forward.  We believe the financial crisis provides an opening that will allow us to re-institute the idea of the wisdom of government regulation.  Americans do not like the idea that billions of our tax dollars will be spend bailing out institutions that made colossally bad decisions.  Van Jones, Tom Saenz, Amy Moy, Amy Everett, Luke Cole, Vincent Pan and others will meet to figure out how to move a common agenda forward.

The Chinese word crisis is composed of two characters-danger and opportunity.

Take care.

This November, the people of California will be asked to vote on a question of equality, fairness - and love. For the first time, California's gay and lesbian couples are able to celebrate their lives together on equal terms under state law by entering into the civil institution of marriage.

An initiative on the November ballot seeks to change the California Constitution and take from them that opportunity. Californians should say "no" to the proposed amendment and ensure that our Constitution continues to stand for our best hopes and our highest aspirations.

A constitution is the founding document of a community. It is the statement of principle 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. That is what the California Supreme Court said last month, and the court was right.

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 this ballot initiative 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.

That is why Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and U.S. Sen. Barack Obama have both clearly stated their opposition to the proposed California constitutional amendment, even though they do not personally support marriage for gay and lesbian couples. they are opposed because a constitution is different. If a European-American Republican governor and an African-American Democratic presidential candidate can agree on that principle, then I believe the people of California can rally around it as well.

Committed, loving gay and lesbian couples will begin legally marrying next week. Do not take their marriages away from them in November.

We are stronger as a community when we come together to strengthen all of our relationships. Divided, we are weaker.

Our state Constitution has a long history of reflecting the best of California, and bringing out the best in its people, guided by principles of fairness and equality. By rejecting this amendment in November, we protect what is best about our Constitution by ensuring that marriage - and the rights and responsibilities it entails - remains available to all couples.

The San Francisco Chronicle published this opinion piece on Friday, June 13, 2008.

The California Supreme Court ruled today that two people in a committed and loving relationship deserve the dignity and support that come with marriage.

We celebrate today’s decision as a historic triumph for fairness and opportunity in our society.  The Court has said that California is a place where everyone has the chance to realize his or her hopes and dreams.

When I think of this historic moment, I'm reminded of Mildred Loving, whose landmark 1967 case of Loving v. Virginia allowed two people of different races to marry.

She said last year on the 40th anniversary of the decision that she wasn't out to 'make a political statement or start a fight.' They were in love and they wanted to be married.

Mildred Loving was a woman of color and her husband-to-be Richard was white, and at that time people believed it was okay to keep them from marrying because of their ideas of who should marry whom.

The Equal Justice Society is committed to realizing the Constitution's promise for all Americans – which includes LGBT couples receiving fully equal treatment under our state’s marriage laws.

We are proud to be one of many organizations that filed friend of the court briefs supporting the parties in these cases that sought equal status under the law. And we applaud the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal, ACLU and Equality California for their incredible efforts in turning a vision of fairness and opportunity into reality.

As a racial justice organization, we joined their efforts not only because it was right, 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.