50 labor unions (according to the Sacromento Bee) will file an amicus brief on Friday asking the California Supreme Court to overturn Proposition 8.
The list is a who's who of labor unions including the AFL-CIO, SEIU and Teamsters.
"It was United Health Workers-West President Sal Rosselli who explained why labor is interested in seeing the measure overturned:
There are fundamental constitutional rights that cannot be abolished by ballot initiative. Our organizations stand for fairness and equality for working people—not only in the workplace but in all aspects of society. Today we are standing up for all California families in asking the court to overturn…
"
LINK
He continues:
"Us defending the right of gay people to marry, us defending this civil right is fundamentally important because well, there's a slippery slope and wealthy bigoted people could organize votes of the electorate to take away other civil rights.
He cited the example of the right to picket, something which is guaranteed by the state Constitution in California, but which is illegal in Alabama."
This comments gets at the heart of the problem with the assault on gays by those amongst progressives who do not see gay issues as progressive issues.
The core issue is that you can not change the law for gays by singling us out for discrmination under the law without it harming everyone.
Or, as Rick Jacobs of the Courage Campaign says:
"In California, everyone is a minority; we're a majority-minority state, so this effects everyone."
The progressive causes here is the cause of how our system is suppose to work. If you believe in rule of the majority, you will have no issue with Prop 8. If you believe in Constitutional democracy, you will have a problem with it.
Progressives, such as labor unions, objectively understand this reality. You can not change the laws for gays without other groups coming next. This is not hyperbole or a slippery slope argument. This is the way precedents work in the law. Once you open the door , some enterprising lawyer or group can and will use that precedent in other cases and other propositions.
In short, equal protection and fundamental rights exists for all of us or none of us. There is no middle ground on this point. If there is, then for whom is the middle ground next to be applied after gay people are sacrificed? That's a question that none of these organizations want to have to address.