I need to say right off I'm not affiliated with Chad Griffin's AFER - the people who brought the Prop. 8 lawsuit. I'm just a huge fan, needless to say. But they brought this case and hired all of the expert witnesses, plus Ted Olson and David Boies. They all worked tirelessly to bring a truly in depth case forward and they obliterated all of the proponents' arguments. They did this so well that Judge Walker strongly agreed with everything they said - as he wrote in the most humanizing decision for gay people that I've ever read.
But things like this cost a lot of money and AFER is asking for some donations to help them with the appeals process as the case makes its way through the Ninth Circuit to the Supreme Court.
I feel so strongly about the work they've done that I've donated $50, money I don't have - especially after Netroots Nation wiped me out. And I'm asking people here - if you appreciate their work and want them to have the means to continue all the way to the Supreme Court, could you spare a donation?
The link is here. They apparently use Network for Good to handle all their online donations securely, but NfG specifies that the money goes to AFER.
I think we all need to step in and make sure this case continues and these people are never strained for resources. And Dkos is so awesome with raising money for the forces of good that I had to ask you guys. Back before the election when the front pagers of this community did weekly fundraising for certain candidates and causes, No on 8 made a fuckload of money. And this is definitely not the campaign that No on 8 was. As you can see, in just a short time, this has changed the discussion about marriage completely.
I don't have TV but the other night I saw a clip of Rachel Maddow's show in which the discussion was centered on the question of why does the president oppose marriage for gays and lesbians now? Why is he not for it? And this was on a mainstream TV show. I did not think in 2004 that six years later this would be considered conventional wisdom enough for MSNBC to treat the question like it's obvious that the President of the United States should be supporting marriage for gays and lesbians as well as straight people.
And this is happening because Prop. 8 and its aftermath changed everything. AFER has shifted the discussion with this case. We now have a campaign against opposition to marriage called "no hate." I wouldn't have thought in 2004 or even 2006 that it would be accepted to refer to opposition to the freedom to marry as hatred.
So I really hope we can show our appreciation and our full support for equality by sending them some money, even if you just have a little bit.
If you want to see just how good this decision is, look at the 80 findings of fact. Those alone will survive and be discussed in courts for a long time. I wrote about them as part of a long post at my blog so I'll post a little bit here and list the best ones:
- California, like every other state, has never required that individuals entering a marriage be willing or able to procreate.
- Eliminating gender and race restrictions in marriage has not
deprived the institution of marriage of its vitality..
- States and the federal government channel benefits, rights and responsibilities through marital status. Marital status affects immigration and citizenship, tax policy, property and inheritance rules and social benefit programs.
- Material benefits, legal protections and social support resulting from marriage can increase wealth and improve psychological well-being for married spouses.
- The tangible and intangible benefits of marriage flow to a married couple’s children.
- Same-sex love and intimacy are well-documented in human history. The concept of an identity based on object desire; that is, whether an individual desires a relationship with someone of the opposite sex (heterosexual), same sex (homosexual) or either sex (bisexual), developed in the late nineteenth century.
- Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of sexual, affectional or romantic desires for and attractions to men, women or both sexes. An individual’s sexual orientation can be expressed through self-identification, behavior or attraction. The vast majority of people are consistent in self-identification, behavior and attraction throughout their adult lives.
- Individuals do not generally choose their sexual orientation. No credible evidence supports a finding that an individual may, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or any other method, change his or her sexual orientation.
- Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital unions. Like opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples have happy, satisfying relationships and form deep emotional bonds and strong commitments to their partners. Standardized measures of relationship satisfaction, relationship adjustment and love do not differ depending on whether a couple is same sex or opposite-sex.
- Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals.
To sum up a few more, number 52 says that domestic partnerships aren't good enough. Marriage is such a huge social part of our existence that gays need marriage to be an American. 54 notes that having domestic partnerships is not the same and is in fact worse because it denies the cultural significance of marriage to us.
- Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages.
56 importantly notes that when gay people can marry, it will help their children.
- Proposition 8 places the force of law behind stigmas against gays and lesbians, including: gays and lesbians do not have intimate relationships similar to heterosexual couples; gays and lesbians are not as good as heterosexuals; and gay and lesbian relationships do not deserve the full recognition of society.
62 notes that there is no First Amendment problem here. No religions are required to accept same sex marriages.
64-65 rather cynically but importantly note that gay marriage will help California's (and presumably anyone's) economy.
66 notes that marriage bans make gays poorer, economically.
68 says that marriage bans, Prop 8 specifically, remind gay people that they are not as highly valued as straight people.
69-73 are all about how gay people can raise kids just fine, how kids don't need a male and female parent in their lives to be well adjusted, etc.
74 is another qualification for "suspect class" status, and an important truth that even the Supreme Court doesn't like to notice:
- Gays and lesbians have been victims of a long history of discrimination.
- Public and private discrimination against gays and lesbians occurs in California and in the United States.
76 notes different stereotypes about gays and says that NO evidence supports those stereotypes.
77 notes that antigay religious beliefs harm us.
- Stereotypes and misinformation have resulted in social and legal disadvantages for gays and lesbians.
The case is pretty strong going into the appeals process and others have noted that it seems to be written for Justice Kennedy at the Supreme Court. Actually, it seems that way to me - some of the same lines Kennedy wrote in Romer and Lawrence are rewritten by Judge Walker here, and used in regard to the marriage argument and not just discrimination and sodomy.
Bottom line is this: we desperately need this to continue and I can't think of a more progressive cause to donate to right now.