US: California Marriage Ruling a Victory for Human Rights

Historic Decision Confers Equal Right to Marriage to Same-Sex Couples

(New York, May 15, 2008) – The California Supreme Court’s ruling today striking down state law that limits marriage to opposite-sex couples is a victory for equality that should set a national and international example, Human Rights Watch said today.

“California’s highest court has affirmed that equality does not come with exceptions,” said Scott Long, director of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Rights Program at Human Rights Watch. “This historic decision should push the US government to stop obstructing equal treatment of relationships and families.”

On May 15, by a vote of 4 to 3, the court overturned a 2000 ballot measure that had limited the definition of marriage to a union between a man and a woman. The ballot measure presaged the issuing of marriage licenses to same-sex couples by the city and county of San Francisco in 2004. The court had ordered the city and county of San Francisco in 2004 to stop issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, pending resolution of whether California’s restriction of marriage to different-sex couples violated the state’s constitution. The American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal, and the National Center of Lesbian Rights filed suit under the California constitution’s provisions guaranteeing equality, liberty, and privacy to all state residents.

Opponents of marriage equality in California have been collecting signatures for a further ballot measure this year, which would amend the Constitution to enshrine a discriminatory definition of marriage as restricted to a man and a woman. State authorities will determine next month whether advocates have collected enough signatures to force the measure onto the ballot, which would also invalidate any marriages performed under the court’s decision.

“Human rights aren’t things to be revoked or repossessed,” said Long. “California’s voters, if it comes to that, will respect the principles behind this decision, and refuse to treat equality as transitory.”

In 2005 and again in 2007, the California legislature passed bills which would have ensured equal treatment under the law by allowing same-sex couples to marry in California. Both times, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed the bills. However, Schwarzenegger has stated he would oppose a discriminatory ballot measure this year. Under the 1996 “Defense of Marriage Act,” the US government is barred from recognizing same-sex relationships. Thus the California decision will still have no effect on marriage rights under federal law.

Source: Human Rights Watch

The Guantanamo Hearings

In November 2001, following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Bush administration announced that it planned to try foreign terrorism suspects by special military commissions.

In January 2002 the US began sending persons apprehended in the “war on terror” to the US military base at Guantanamo Bay, and the Pentagon drafted rules to hold military commissions there. These measures were taken in part to prevent US courts from hearing claims by detainees about the legal basis for their detention or charges of mistreatment. Human Rights Watch believes that the US federal courts are fully capable of prosecuting terrorism suspects.

In June 2006, the US Supreme Court ruled that the military commissions were unlawful because they violated both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions and because the president had not sought congressional authority establishing them. In September 2006, Congress passed the Military Commissions Act, authorizing a new system of military commissions.

Now, more than six years after the commissions were first announced, no case has gone to trial, and only one person -- Australian David Hicks -- has been convicted. He agreed to plead guilty to one count of providing material support to terrorism in exchange for a nine-month sentence, which he served in Australia.

Meanwhile, the military commissions have been subjected to numerous legal challenges and come under a barrage of criticism that they do not provide fundamental fair trial rights. Last year the commissions’ chief military prosecutor resigned stating that it would be impossible for detainees to receive full, fair and open trials in the presently constituted system. Among the primary concerns are the commissions’ vulnerability to executive pressure, what looks like an effort to rush the cases to trial and the allowance of evidence obtained through abuse. Even Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has warned that commission trials at Guantanamo will have a “taint” to them.

Despite widespread concerns about the commissions raised in the United States and abroad, commission hearings are proceeding. To date, the US government has announced charges against 15 men, including six cases in which the US is seeking the death penalty.

1) Ali Abdul Aziz Ali; Nationality: Pakistani
2) Walid bin ‘Attash; Nationality: Yemeni
3) Ali Hamza al-Bahlul; Nationality: Yemeni
4) Ramzi Binalshibh; Nationality: Yemeni
5) Ahmed al-Darbi; Nationality: Saudi
6) Ahmed Ghailani; Nationality: Tanzanian
7) Salim Hamdan; Nationality: Yemeni
8) Mustafa al-Hawsawi; Nationality: Saudi
9) David Hicks; Nationality: Australian
10) Mohammed Jawad; Nationality: Afghan
11) Mohammed Kamin; Nationality: Afghan
12) Omar Khadr; Nationality: Canadian
13) Khalid Sheikh Mohammed; Nationality: Kuwaiti
14) Mohammed al-Qahtani; Nationality: Saudi
15) Ibrahim Ahmed Mahmoud al-Qosi; Nationality: Sudanese

Source: Human Rights Watch

p/s: Don't you feel something fishy is going on in the military commission? There's only one non-Muslim among the 15 charged and well, he's the only one convicted while the rest remain pending infinitely..

Cher Linn