Herrera and other officials disappointed but hopeful as Supreme Court takes marriage equality case

|
(7)
Attorney General Kamala Harris, City Attorney Dennis Herrera, and others at today's press conference.
Mike Koozmin/SF Newspaper Co.

City Attorney Dennis Herrera, Deputy City Attorney Theresa Stewart, California Attorney General Kamala Harris, and other officials who held a press conference at City Hall today admitted they were disappointed that the US Supreme Court has decided to review the Ninth Circuit Court ruling that Proposition 8, the 2008 measure banning same-sex marriage in California, was unconstitutional.

“But we can't let that obscure the tremendous progress that we've made in California on marriage equality,” said Herrera, who has been at the center of a struggle that began in 2004 when then-Mayor Gavin Newsom decided the city should begin unilaterally issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, in defiance of state and federal law.

“I'd be lying if I didn't say I was a little disappointed,” said Stewart, who has been the city's main litigator on the issue as it moved through court injunctions blocking marriages by the city, the California Supreme Court ruling the ban on same-sex marriage violated the state constitution, the vote amending the constitution through Prop. 8, and the Ninth Circuit ruling Prop. 8 violated federal equal protection standards.

Herrera and Stewart both expressed confidence that the Prop. 8 case that the Supreme Court will review, Perry v. Brown, was put together in a solid, meticulous way that will make it difficult for the US Supreme Court to disagree with the Ninth Circuit conclusion. “We worked really hard to put in the best possible case,” Stewart said, while Herrera said, “I can think of no better case to take up than this case...The confidence level of all of us is high.”

They also expressed hopes that the strategy of lead attorney Theodore Olsen to make broad arguments that any legal distinctions denying rights to homosexuals are unconstitutional – as opposed to the city's more narrow approach that Prop. 8 doesn't pass legal muster, which Herrera called “complementary” to Olsen's approach – would be successful in making this case a definitive civil rights victory.

“Are we a country that is true to its word and true to its spirit, or not?” is how Harris framed the question, focusing on the basic equal protection argument and the need to “stand for the principle that we are equal and we will be treated that way.”

She and others called this “the civil rights struggle of our time,” and they pledged to win this issue now, no matter what. “I am optimistic that we're going to win at the Supreme Court,” Sup. Scott Wiener said, pledging to win the right to marry at the ballot box even if the court doesn't affirm that right. “We're going to win this fight one way or another.”

Sup. David Campos, who is also gay, agreed that same-sex marriage will again be legal in California and “the question is whether the Supreme Court chooses to be on the right side or history or the wrong side of history.”

Comments

Jason Grant Garza here ... Herrrera is DISAPPOINTED ... take a NUMBER ... what about my DISAPPOINTMENT after I went to EMERGENCY after my soulmate died and was denied by the city. Go to http://www.myownprivateguantanamo.com to see the paperwork and FALSE TESTIMONY that had my case thrown out of FEDERAL COURT (C02-3485PJH) only to sign a confession settlement agreement with the OFFICE of INSPECTOR GENERAL admitting fault and guilt OVER BREAKING FEDERAL LAW ... then the city, DPH and the city attorney left me for DEAD. Yes, the concerned Herrera over EQUAL RIGHTS, JUSTICE, etc ... where is my EQUAL RIGHT to CONTRITION and RESTITUTION after a SIGNED CONFESSION, where is my JUSTICE after they had my case thrown out of FEDERAL COURT with "TESTILYING?" Let the GAMES continue ...

Anyway, it started ALL over again ... go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cP3jCmJFRo to see. Shall I show you WHAT I HAVE RECEIVED from the city attorney so far? Go to youtube ( Jason Garza ) to see what I got from the sheriff, da and sfpd.

Disappointed ... take a number ... I as a GAY person will be MORE DISAPPOINTED if it DOES NOT GO before the COURT as I would like to know where I stand as a citizen, human being and GOD's creation.

As I had told GAYS all my life ... those seeking to deny, repress and judge ... should have their INHUMANITY CALLED ... what, 10% of the population is gay ... will they PUT 30 million gays in jail if they strike or revolt against the oppression?

Are they going to put EVERY POT SMOKING individual in WASHINGTON state in jail?

Where is the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT on this? Where was it during my constitutional rights to LIFE, LIBERTY and the pursuit of HAPPINESS ? Oh, that is right I've had NO LIFE, NO HEALTH CARE. NO DAY in COURT http://www.tortdeform.com/archives/2007/07/access_denied_no_health_care_... .

Go to http://www.myownprivateguantanamo.com to see the city attorney paperwork and know how far the city attorney will play the propaganda part ... we care, we tried, we are concerned ... until they fail or are busted ... look at my case ... realize after the settlement did they come to me to offer CONTRITION, RESTITUTION or even BASIC HUMANITY ... HOWEVER, I AM NOT HOPEFUL they will EVER DO the "RIGHT THING" since there is NO CONSEQUENCE ... does it remind you of priests and politicians? Promise the world, deliver nothing and when it fails ... not responsible. Sort of what I am going through with the Department of Public Health ... all show, no substance and when exposed NO CONSEQUENCE ...

SO DISAPPOINTMENT I am used to, lies, deceit and INHUMANITY I am used to also.

Keep DRINKING the KOOL-AIDE. Oh and while were at it ... let's ask Mr. Wiener about case # 11048 from the SUNSHINE TASK FORCE that found him guilty of "OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT" ... yes, look over her (see how much I care and am doing) and NOT over here (where I was busted, where I voted against Ross while under suspicion of "OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT") ... maybe we can ask ETHICS since they changed the STANDARD for ROSS will they re-open all the "OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT" cases they failed on ... we can start with my NURSE RATCH case http://www.tortdeform.com/archives/2007/07/access_denied_no_health_care_... or http://myownprivateguantanamo.com/master.html .

"Telling the TRUTH during TIMES of UNIVERSAL DECEIT becomes a REVOLUTIONARY ACT." George Orwell

I know you do NOT believe me ... a signed confession ... this guy is mental ... well here it is http://myownprivateguantanamo.com/settle1.html ... and I still sit here ... NO CONTRITION, NO RESTITUTION, NO JUSTICE, NO HUMANITY however reams upon reams from everyone about how much they care, etc. BEWARE false prophets, false words, and false deeds ...

Posted by Jason Grant Garza on Dec. 08, 2012 @ 7:06 am
Posted by Guest on Dec. 09, 2012 @ 5:43 pm

or not. It's a non-issue to me. I don't even understand why they would want to absorb an obviously heterosexual institution. But, as my kids say, whatev's.

But this whiney desire to have an over-centralized government impose this on States that very evidently would rather stick pins in their eyes than allow gays to marry does strike most reasonable people as a reach too far.

Maybe one day, when Christians are not a majority in the US, this won't matter. But the one thing that black and hispanic voters are pissed about is this. They support Obama but, being more Christian that whites, they sure as heck don't want this imposed on them by a bunch of white justices and do-gooder liberals.

The advances in civil rights have mostly favored whites, particularly white women and liberals. If the left wants to lose the support of non-whites, it seems unlikely they could adopt a better strategy.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 09, 2012 @ 7:06 pm

You are over analyzing things. The progressives move forward on all fronts together. Cheers comrade!

Posted by lillipublicans on Dec. 09, 2012 @ 7:18 pm

How have they mostly favored whites, particularly white women and liberals?

Posted by Hortencia on Dec. 10, 2012 @ 12:24 pm

white women who, in just two generations, have gone from being abused stay-at-home housewives to virtual equality economically and vocationally. Watch "Mad Men" if you don't believe that.

It's helped blacks too, but they remain mostly mired in poverty and crime, while white woman get all the "rights" to sue when disadvantaged AND have the money, energy and chutzpah to follow through on it.

It's very similar to how the main beneficiaries of rent control aren't poor non-white families but over-educated white liberals like Tim, Steven, Marcos, Greg, Eddie and Lilli. It doesn't so much help the poor as it enables slackers and losers to live in SF as virtual Peter Pan's.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 10, 2012 @ 1:13 pm

> imposed on them by a bunch of white justices and do-gooder liberals.
civil rights dont get "imposed" on people. by that logic the country should never have had integrated schools/military/etc because some white bigots might have felt "imposed" upon.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 10, 2012 @ 1:25 am