JACL to Sign Onto Amicus Brief in Support of Same-Sex Marriage
Just as JACL fought against anti-miscegenation laws in the 1960s, its stance in support of same-sex marriage remains firm.
SAN FRANCISCO—Almost 40 years have passed since the last anti-miscegenation laws were stricken from the books — a hard fought battle that finally gave interracial couples the right to marriage. And JACL was front and center.
In 2005 JACL continues to fight for the right of individuals to marry but this time on a different playing field: the right of same-sex couples to enter matrimony.
At a national JACL board meeting Sept. 24 board members reaffirmed the organization’s stance in support of same-sex marriage by announcing their plans to sign onto an amicus brief in the state of California, along with several other civil and human rights groups, in support of same-sex marriage.
“In much the same way that anti-miscegenation laws denied Asian Americans equality in the right of marriage, the organization made a decision that denying gays the right to marry is wrong,” said John Tateishi, JACL executive director. “If we believe that all Americans should share in equal rights, this is one of the issues that defines that belief.”
“It’s important for JACL to sign onto this amicus brief since we believe the Constitution and Bill of Rights requires the government to provide equal rights to everyone … especially when a community is denied those rights,” said Ken Inouye, JACL national president.
In 1994 the JACL national council voted to approve a same-sex marriage resolution at a contentious biennial convention in Salt Lake City becoming the first national Asian Pacific American organization to take this often-controversial stance. Since that time the JACL has consistently voted in favor of same-sex marriage issues.
JACL will now sign onto an amicus brief in a soon to be filed appeal by the city of San Francisco, city officials, and several same-sex couples in response to a recent anti-same-sex marriage brief filed by California Attorney General Bill Lockyer. The groups argue that the current law defining marriage is unconstitutional and does not provide equal rights to gays and lesbians.
Lockyer filed the brief Sept. 21 with the First District Court of Appeals arguing against a San Francisco Superior Court’s recent ruling that the state of California’s current stance against same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. Lockyer argues that current California laws strike a balance between traditional marriage and equal rights for same-sex couples.
“The common understanding of marriage is deeply rooted in our society, and it is legitimate for California to maintain this meaning while affording equivalent rights and benefits to same-sex couples,” wrote Lockyer in his appeals brief filed on behalf of himself, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, state Registrar Michael Rodrian and the state of California.
On March 14 San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer ruled in six different cases — four in favor of same-sex marriage and two against — that the state of California’s current law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman is discriminatory. His ruling is on hold during the current appeal process.
Last month a bill by Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, AB 849, legalizing same-sex marriage was passed by the legislature but Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill Sept. 29 arguing that California Proposition 22 passed in 2000 defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
The issue of same-sex marriage has always been heatedly debated amongst JACL members and is sure to continue with the organization’s recent announcement that it will sign onto the amicus brief.
“It’s probably rare that we all agree on any issue, but this one is particularly contentious because it’s so closely tied to moral values,” said Tateishi. “However, I do believe that this is an issue of equality … there was a time when being Japanese meant that you could not marry someone if he or she were white. We either fight for equality or we don’t.”
“I hope our members will understand that this is about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It’s not meant to be disrespectful to anyone,” said Inouye.
In a recent research study by the Williams Project at the UCLA School of Law, 13,000 Asian Pacific Islanders identified themselves as living with same-sex partners in California during the 2000 Census. They make up more than one-third of the 38,200 APIs in same-sex couples in the United States, more than any other state.
Although same-sex marriage obviously impacts the APA community, today many APA organizations have chosen to shy away from this contentious issue, refusing to take a stand on either side of the same-sex marriage debate.
“Other APA groups have avoided this issue for the obvious reason that it’s so controversial and contentious,” said Tateishi. “I suspect that were this brought to the national council, it would be debated just as vigorously today as it was in 1994. This is a tough issue for all of us.”
Other groups that have come out in support of same-sex marriage include The California Conference of the NAACP, United Farm Works of America (UFW), Anti-Defamation League (ADL), and Chinese for Affirmative Action (CAA).
The city of San Francisco, city officials and the various same-sex couples have 30 days to submit their appeal from the day Lockyer filed his brief. Once submitted, the state of California has 20 days to respond. Oral arguments before the appeals court could take place early next year.
But whether the First District Court of Appeals rules in favor or against Lockyer’s brief, the issue of same-sex marriage will eventually head to the California Supreme Court with a ruling likely late next year.
Print This Article-
Email This Article