Prop 8 Decision: How to Strike Balance Between Majority Rules and Minority Rights

A 6-to-1 decision this week from the California Supreme Court ruled against the American Civil Liberties Union in Strauss v. Horton, recognizing same-sex partnerships with many, though not all, of the legal rights of marriage. The official court opinion upheld the validity of Proposition 8, which was adopted by California voters last November, including a new section (7.5 to Article I) in the California Constitution: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” That decision was hailed by opponents of same-sex marriage, such as ProtectMarriage.com, but it left supporters of gay marriage hanging as the next stage in their fight against Prop 8 begins. Equality California and the Courage Campaign are working to take the issue back to the ballot box – to repeal Prop 8 – while conducting statewide polls to gauge peoples’ attitudes on same-sex marriage.

Last year the American Civil Liberties Union, National Center for Lesbian Rights, and Lambda Legal filed a lawsuit challenging the validity of Proposition 8 in the California Supreme Court on behalf of six couples and Equality California. That legal challenge consists basically of three points:

1. Prop 8 is a revision, not an amendment, of the states' constitution, and therefore requires either a two-thirds vote of each house of the state legislature and a vote of the people, or a constitutional convention and a vote.
2. Prop 8 may violate the principal of trias politica, or separation of executive, legislative, and judiciary powers.
3. The “inalienable” right to marry cannot be determined by majority vote (unless, according to the attorney general, there is state interest in doing so).

Former California State Senator Sheila Kuehl was the first openly LGBT person elected to the California Legislature. She commented on the ruling, arguing that the court lost its way issuing this “slim and dishonest statement that same sex couples are not denied legal rights by denying them the ‘word’ marriage. The Court errs.”

Others agreed. The San Francisco police department alone reported arresting some 200 protesters, most of whom are members of One Struggle, One Fight, a civil rights coalition using civil disobedience.

Assemblyman (and gay rights activist) Tom Ammiano also decried the court's move as a reminder that “equality cannot be denied to any group and it is only a matter of time before justice prevails.”

ACLU head Anthony Romero indicated that the setback was particularly odd in light of “a recent Iowa Supreme Court ruling saying that it is unconstitutional to keep gay couples from marrying – and the passage of laws opening marriage to everyone by the Vermont and Maine legislatures.” Romero concluded that public support for marriage for same-sex couples is gaining ground, but California is being left behind. Romero spoke at The Commonwealth Club recently, highlighting the ACLU's challenges to the U.S. Patriot Act, litigation on the torture and abuse of detainees in U.S. custody, and challenges to the Bush administration’s illegal spying program. (Romero was the inaugural speaker in The Club's series on The U.S. Constitution in the 21st Century.) He is also the first openly gay man (and the first Hispanic) to serve as director of the ACLU. Romero and the ACLU argue that the Prop 8 debate is unique: The first time a ballot initiative has been used to change the California Constitution and strip away existing right for a particular group – a “suspect class.”

Antidiscrimination law is a cultural thread that defines progress in American society: A nation’s ongoing attempts to mitigate oppression of cultural minorities and compensate for systemic disadvantage, exploitation and injury. Tension between constitutionally protected civil liberties and the democratic mandate of majority rule also exploded during early deliberations that led to the Brown v. Board of Education decision, which was also fraught with conflict over whether popular opinion could deprive a minority of a constitutional right. Jusitice William Rehnquist’s court memos explored this key question of “Whether, in the long run, it is the majority who will determine what the constitutional rights of minorities are?”

As for the Fourth Estate, The Commonwealth Club also explored media coverage of Proposition 8 and its aftermath (Wednesday, April 15), highlighting the work of gay journalist/blogger Rex Wockner, Cynthia Laird, of the Bay Area Reporter, Equality Camp organizer Cathy Brooks, and Sandip Roy, from New America Now (KALW).

--By Andrew Shaw

Toward a New National Food Policy

On April 23rd, The Commonwealth Club will examine the future of food in our city, state and country, and the impact that reforms may have on the hungry.

Local food luminaries such as Michael Pollan and Alice Waters have advocated for radical changes in U.S. food policy. But those changes could have a surprising impact on people living in poverty.

According to the San Francisco Food Bank, 150,000 people in San Francisco (one in every four children) are going hungry, and the United States Department of Agriculture recently reported that more than 36 million Americans are “food insecure” – hungry.

As unemployment continues to rise, food banks are seeing the line between donors and clients blur. PBS’s “Newshour” reported that “Food banks and charities around the country are experiencing shortages as the economy continues to slide. Demand is up 25 percent over last year, and many food banks have closed after running out of money and supplies.”

Paula Jones, the director of food systems at the San Francisco Department of Public Health, agrees that there’s ever-growing demand for food pantries and other emergency food assistance. Jones says the city is also working, simultaneously, to address an overabundance of cheap junk food that drives obesity, diabetes and other health problems, particularly in poor neighborhoods where affordable, healthy food options are hard to come by.

As federal and state budgets tighten, the most vulnerable San Franciscans will also see cuts to federal nutrition programs. The San Francisco Department of Public Health reports that some 40,000 San Franciscans are eligible for, but not enrolled in, the food stamp program. Luckily, $1 million came to the city from the USDA to improve food stamp access, and the city has found ways to enable low-income residents to use food stamps at local farmer's markets.

City leaders have been brushing up on the impact of federal policy on local food systems, and San Francisco has begun advocating for changes in the federal farm bill, calling for enhanced nutrition programs, regional support for fruit and vegetable growers, and more support for ecologically sustainable farming.

San Francisco Chronicle Staff Writer Erin Allday detailed the coming changes in San Francisco food policy in her November 30, 2008 piece, “S.F. food policy heading in a healthy direction.” According to the Chronicle, the idea is to decrease reliance on imported food and create stronger ties between local farms and their immediate market, and to get a lot more local produce onto the plates of anyone served a public meal, especially schoolchildren and jail inmates. And Allday suggests that “the ideas are likely to stretch well beyond just supplying fresh produce to San Francisco” and could grow into new partnerships with farms that produce solar or wind power too.

Another of our panelists on the 23rd, Michael Dimock, president of Roots of Change, has been working with the city’s Urban-Rural Roundtable, a collaboration of urban and rural food producers and policy leaders. In his address to the roundtable March 31st, Dimock suggested that current economic straights are causing more people to go hungry, but “the tight state and city budgets [could] help to ensure a more thorough alignment of interests and a careful crafting of action. In order to ensure fundamental change, our actions must elevate food and agriculture on the list of competing priorities.”

Other panelists for the event include A.G. Kawamura, secretary of the California Department of Food and Agriculture, and Paul Ash, executive director of the San Francisco Food Bank. Food Blogger Amy Sherman will be the moderator. Join us at G&E Theatre, 245 Market St on the 23rd as these panelists offer their recommendations for crafting a food policy that ensures nourishment reaches the neediest of citizens.

Brush up on some of the issues with this presentation by Bay Area food writer, Marion Nestle:

State Supreme Court Takes up Prop. 8

California’s Supreme Court is hearing arguments on Proposition 8, in San Francisco this week, in the Earl Warren Building courtroom on McAllister Street. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom was a prominent and vocal opponent the 2008 ballot initiative to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry. Seating in the court is limited to 20, but you can watch the proceedings online here.

Barack Obama is rumored to have declined a photo op with Newsom during his visit to SF, not wanting to be seen posing with the same-sex-marriage-friendly mayor.

But Prop. 8 hearings aren’t the only reason Newsom is back in the family values spotlight. Criticism of Newsom reached a new height recently as the mayor and wife Jennifer Seible announced that they will be having a child.

San Francisco Chronicle writer, Erin Allday wrote Thursday, February 19, “City Hall chitchat has turned to how this might play in Newsom's run for governor. Analysts say that starting a family can only help the campaign -- and maybe reverse Newsom's long-standing playboy image.”

The baby announcement prompted Guardian Editor Tim Redmond to offer family advice too. “If the mayor, or the president, or the school superintendent, or the school board members, or the supervisors choose private schools, then they're saying that public education is good enough for the poor kids, but not for their own.”

Facing a tumultuous economic climate and a massive city deficit, Mayor Newsom has tough decisions to make in 2009. In his quest to keep San Francisco a thriving center for commerce and a livable city, Newsom’s had trouble meeting some campaign promises, and he is moving forward with staff cuts, opting for 1100 layoffs in the last 7 months (300 last week).

With a potential 2010 run for governor in his future, Newsom is also on the hook for stewarding some of his favorite issues -- homelessness, universal health care, and MUNI reform -- through the current recession and state budget mess.

Dispelling myths behind celebrity politicians can be a real challenge. Try your hand, and listen to Newsom’s recent appearance on KQED Radio. Or better yet, hear from the mayor directly here at The Club. Newsom will sit down for a frank and candid discussion about the issues facing the city, with Scott Shafer, host of KQED’s California Report, 6:30 p.m., Wednesday, March 11th.