[Thanks to Andrew Sullivan for the links and coverage of concerns about this lawsuit.]
The ACLU, GLAD, Lambda, NCLR, the Equality Federation, Freedom to Marry, GLAAD, HRC and NGLTF agree.
They are not happy with the Olson/Boies lawsuit, which I cover here. These organizations, in the more than a decade since I’ve been involved with them, have never come to such an agreement on anything so quickly.
If this lawsuit was filed with no consultation with any of the above groups, I seriously have to question the wisdom of Olson and Boies in having done so. Everyone has lots of problems with lots of LGBT orgs, but everyone respects at least a couple of leaders at a couple of the above-named groups. If Olson and Boies thought that this was a good idea, both men are smart enough to at least have consulted with someone from one of these groups. That they apparently didn’t is somewhat disconcerting.
[UPDATE: Note the second comment, which I detail further here. It comes from Toni Broaddus, the executive director of the Equality Federation.]
Here’s their statement:
LGBT Organizations Warn that Lawsuits Could Set Back
Progress on Marriage for Same-Sex Couples
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 27, 2008
NEW YORK – In response to the California Supreme Court decision allowing Prop 8 to stand, four LGBT legal organizations and five other leading national LGBT groups are reminding the LGBT community that ill-timed lawsuits could set the fight for marriage back. The groups released a new publication, “Why the ballot box and not the courts should be the next step on marriage in California.” This publication discourages people from bringing premature lawsuits based on the federal Constitution because, without more groundwork, the U.S. Supreme Court likely is not yet ready to rule that same-sex couples cannot be barred from marriage. The groups also revised “Make Change, Not Lawsuits,” which was released after the California Supreme Court decision ending the ban on marriage for same-sex couples in California. This publication encourages couples who have legally married to ask friends, neighbors and institutions to honor their marriages, but discourages people from bringing lawsuits.
“Why the ballot box and not the courts should be the next step on marriage in California” is available at www.equalityfederation.org. “Make Change, Not Lawsuits” is available at www.equalityfederation.org.
Popularity: 2% [?]
Chris Geidner is a lawyer in Washington, D.C., who writes at Law Dork, is the senior political writer at Metro Weekly and has written for The Atlantic Online, Advocate.com, Salon and other publications. An extended biography can be found
ACLU, GLAD, Lambda, NCLR, the Equality Federation, Freedom to Marry, GLAAD, HRC and NGLTF: Lead or get out of the way! You’ve had your chance! Gradualism didn’t work. I support this lawsuit 100%! It is well thought out, well timed and manned by two brilliant attorneys. These guys do NOT take a case to lose.
Could you give a guess as to timeline this case might follow as it progresses from District Court to Circuit Court to the Supreme Court, should it make it that far? Perhaps an earliest and latest range? I’m wondering how much time will be available for more States to have begun offering civil marriages to same-sex couples by the time it would reach the Supreme Court and how much the composition of that Court might have changed. Thanks.
These organizations are correct but that is beside the point. They can either lead the a community that is chomping at the bit to go or they can become irrelevant. People do not bow and follow the orders of organizations seen as accommodationist or gradualist. They follow organizations that can tap into the passions and moods of the moment. As demonstrated by the growing online grass roots movements and the numbers of people turning out for mass protests the community has moved way beyond the models of the 1990’s
Evolve with the movement or die as your donors find more aggressive places for their money.
I have been a regular financial supporter of Lambda, GLAAD, HRC, and NGLTF for many years now … but sometimes I wonder if these organizations are doing little more than coasting on their own inertia, a pitfall that afflicts MANY organizations.
The Human Rights Campaign, for instance, seems to have a very serious public relations problem within the LGBT community it ostensibly serves. Some people call it the “Human Rights CHAMPAGNE Fund” because of all the glitzy, A-List banquets and fundraisers it’s known for. But what exactly do they DO? Yes, they have an elaborate website; they are always telling supporters like me to contact my congressmen; they are always monitoring the internet for LGBT news, and “applauding” various little victories. But do they have a corps of lobbyists pounding the pavement and knocking on doors? THAT’S what I want to know.
My gut feeling is that it’s time for the Supreme Court to decide once and for all whether Gay and Straight couples should be treated equally. This can’t be simply a “state-by-state” issue. After all, the federal government has a vested interest in who is married for the purpose of tax law, Social Security, and a multitude of other legal benefits and responsibilities. Law-abiding, taxpaying Gay Americans have been contributing our fair share to the system for as long as this country has been in existence, and there is simply NO Constitutional justification for a double standard for Gay and Straight couples. Based on any strict interpretation of the 14th Amendment, I can’t imagine the Court deciding otherwise.
I want to know, once and for all, whether we are living in a democracy or a theocracy.
Olson and Boise DID consult with these groups beforehand. Olson and Boise decided to proceed anyway.
“These guys do NOT take a case to lose.”
No, these guys took this case because they’re being paid to take it. They didn’t wake up and think, “Damn! Those gay folks have been waiting too long!”.
Follow the damn money.
Brilliant legal minds would not pick this particular fight. There are millions of gay couples in far, far worse legal situations in other states. IF one were looking for the best case to take to the SCOTUS, there are thousands of better ones out there.
This is the brainchild of an idiot in LA who thinks hiring his pals/clients and throwing money at them is going to solve everything.
G, there is no physically proof they proceeded without verbal permission… this will be an interesting suit!
BobN,
Really, who is this paying Ted Olson’s and David Boies’s $1000+/hour fees for a pipe dream? I wanna recruit that guy as a client.
I, too, don’t like the idea that a lawsuit like this one requires the “blessing” of an organization. Still…there are lots of really bright people within those organizations that decided a lawsuit is not worth filing….
Well, I have to say that states HAVE been leading for decades. Every piece of lgbt legislation we have passed is at the state level. And our state-by-state marriage strategy IS working (um: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, Maine…). Also, since Equality Federation is the youngest group on the list, I’m not so sure we’ve “had our chance” just yet. Gradualism is NOT our approach, though. Strategic advocacy is our approach. And this litigation is not part of a broader strategic approach. Maybe the Bush v. Gore lawyers will win equality for us, and I’ll certainly celebrate if they do. We all have our fingers crossed that we don’t get a decision that, instead, actually makes it harder to get marriage and tears apart families and children because the parents are lgbt. This litigation is a risk — and the people bringing it aren’t the ones who will suffer if we lose. Still, we all have a right to our opinions, and it’s a great thing that someone who has always been a right wing partisan is standing up for lgbt equality. As for me — I’m not waiting years for litigation to wind its way through the federal courts, regardless of who files it. I’ll continue working with state equality groups to change hearts & minds in every state, to protect marriage in Maine, and to repeal Prop 8 in California. There’s plenty of work to do, and most of it is in our neighborhoods, not our courtrooms.
And what if the SCOTUS determines “once and for all” that we DON’T have the right to marry? Did it ever occur to you that forcing a ruling now, rather than in, say, 10 years, might make the difference between a ruling against us and one that’s for us?
You can’t imagine the court ruling that the Constitution allows government to prohibit same-sex marriage? Did you READ Scalia’s dissent to Lawrence?
Are you giving to your state group? The vast majority of lgbt lobbyists are working for state groups in state legislatures. In fact, all the rights we have were won at the state level, yet statewide lgbt advocacy groups receive only 9% of lgbt donations (I should note here that legal groups have also been key to many state victories). As the Equality Federation grows (we are the national alliance of state equality groups), our state groups are now able to have a voice at the federal level. This is new — but the work that state & local groups did to motivate the grassroots to fight for an inclusive ENDA shows our growing power to take grassroots voices to the national level. So — everyone has to decide what groups to support, but please look at ALL your options and please give strategically. And get your friends to give — our civil rights are at stake, but lgbt people actually give away less money to their community organizations than any other group. So — it’s not the only way you can help win equality, but it is definitely one of the most critical things you can do. The money lined up against is FAR greater than the money we have to do the work that needs to be done. Finally — just because we are right does not mean the Supreme Court will rule in our favor. We MUST create as much momentum and win as many victories in the states as we can — only by creating a critical mass of equality states will we create the climate necessary to get the Supreme Court ruling we deserve.
Your “gut feeling” does not mean that the Court will agree with the plaintiffs. The law on GLBT people and equal protection is still developing. It is disheartening to hear people who are truly concerned about equality and justice make arguments that show a lack of understanding of the Court’s political nature. The “state-by-state” approach is how things have happened historically. States banned slavery long before the US. States ended segregation and gave women the right to vote before the US. States got rid of their sodomy laws prior to Lawrence v Texas.
On big political and social issues, the Court comes in to correct the “outliers.” When Loving v Virginia was decided, for example, only 16 states banned interracial marriage. Also, the Court had favorably decided so many race cases, including Brown v Board of Education, that it was easy to predict how it would rule. Furthermore, Congress had already passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act. And just about all of the states banned racial discrimination in some respect. Basically, there was a long history of racial justice that informed the Court’s ruling in Loving.
By contrast, outside of hate crimes laws, no federal statute protects GLBT people from discrimination. The military openly discriminates against GLBT people pursuant to federal law. Only six states recognize same-sex marriage. DOMA is still the law of the land. The President opposes same-sex marriage. Many states have amended their constitutions to ban same-sex marriage. And only a few states prohibit discrimination against GLBT people. These are not the best conditions to bring a federal case — particularly with 4 votes already in the “no” column.
When Romer v Evans was decided, only ONE state (Colorado) prohibited the enactment of laws protecting gays and lesbians from discrimination. When Lawrence v Texas was decided, only four states criminalized same-sex sodomy exclusively — while in Bowers, about 25 states criminalized sodomy. The Court routinely cites to developments in the states and in Congress when it decides important “rights” and “equality” cases. This lawsuit and the arguments that endorse it fail to appreciate or understand this historical and doctrinal context.
http://dissentingjustice.blogspot.com/2009/05/ted-olsen-and-david-boies-are-either.html
Actually, that’s not true. Almost all of us found out about this lawsuit on Tuesday. It was actually filed last week.
I’ve heard the same thing G. It’s likely that they didn’t contact each and every group. There are so many that I doubt if they even tried. Personally, I strategically would have contacted only the one’s that I view as effective.
I gave to my state group (FairWisconsin) until I began disagreeing with their approach for dealing with passage of the constitutional amendment here. It seems that they continue to be in a state of disorder although they have managed to get a pitiful excuse for domestic partnerships out of committee. They’re predicting that it will take until 2014 to overturn the amendment IF they get support starting in the current legislature.
I appreciate the products of all the rights organizations, but let me be frank. I think the rights groups have become as bad as the churches. Send money, we’re doing the best we can. Repeat ad nauseum. Moreover, the bloat and redundancy that is associated with this reminds me of the problems we have with the federal government. How many groups of groups do we have to have? I would love to see where you come up with the statistics regarding LGBT giving.
I agree with you that true equality will come from changes at the state level and SCOTUS. These two things are correlated; correlation, however, does not indicate causation in either direction. Perhaps, as with the civil rights act of 1964, SCOTUS will be the source of the change at the state level.
Did you ever consider that we can wait 10 years, approach SCOTUS and get ruled against then too? I CAN imagine this today and 10 years from now. Did YOU read Scalia’s dissent to Lawrence? I did read Scalia’s dissent, many times including another today, and despite his dissent, Lawrence is now controlling when it comes to a LGBT right to privacy in our relationships. He CAN NOT deny this. I and several of my friends even believe that he will likely vote FOR this now. His reasoning ability is fierce, but even he has to follow Lawrence, Romer and Loving to a logical conclusion.
Wow, BobN, anger much? Maybe this is “the brainchild of an idiot in LA who thinks hiring his pals/clients and throwing money at them is going to solve everything.” The “damn money” has to come from some where and if it’s being used to pay a juridical bazooka like Olson and Boies, great! More power to the LA idiot!
LGBT rights organizations “would not pick this particular fight,” but brilliant legal minds did, in fact, pick this particular fight. You’re right about millions of gay couples being in far worse situations, but I disagree that there are better ones out there. If there were “better ones out there,” why didn’t the LGBT groups offer them up to help strengthen a case that they consider inferior?
Boies and Olsen are going to disappear from GLBT people after this case — whether they win or lose. So the notion that GLBT social movement organizations will become “irrelevant” lacks any meaningful basis.
The Supreme Court will not respond to the “passions” of the GLBT communnity. Wanting marriage does not do the legwork needed to achieve it. People seem to embrace a very immature and ahistorical notion about “change” – something that the Obama generation is quickly learning to discard. It really takes work. This does not make someone a gradualist sell-out. Instead, it is a statement of reality.
Finally, “aggressive” action need not happen in a court. The GLBT groups have not opposed the marriage equality movement. Instead, they believe that the process should remain in state courts and legislatures rather than federal courts. The notion that progressive change is the exclusive province of federal courts is untrue.