Last month the predominantly gay and lesbian San Diego Democratic Club (SDDC) voted to endorse Vince Hall in the campaign for the 76th District Assembly seat, which Chris Kehoe will be vacating. Due to time constraints, Hall was unable to speak during the April meeting, so he asked to address the club at a meeting held Thursday, May 22, in order to thank them for their support.

“My loyalties to this club, my promises to this club, my commitment to the issues that are the foundation of this club are sincere,” Hall stated. “Six years from now, if we have an Assemblymember Vince Hall retirement party, you will be proud of this endorsement and the stance you have taken and the commitment you have shown. We have a lot of good Democrats in San Diego who have a lot of commitment to the issues, but in the end, when you get to the legislature everyone has to choose to focus on certain areas of emphasis. My commitment is to more than a good vote; I’m going to be a champion of civil rights for the GLBT community.”

Hall emphasized the value of the SDDC endorsement and thanked the SDDC for kicking an already good campaign into high gear, noting that since receiving the endorsement he had also been endorsed by councilmember Toni Atkins and eight state legislators.

“I’m looking forward to a very, very aggressive campaign,” he added. “We’re going to be working extremely hard. To that end, we’re going to be having our first fundraising event on June 18 — you all would think I wasn’t being aggressive if I didn’t mention that,” he concluded with a laugh.

The focus of the meeting was a discussion of civil liberties and the possible outcomes of the Lawrence and Garner v. Texas case currently under consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court. The case concerns a gay couple who were interrupted by policemen, who broke into their apartment in response to an erroneous burglary report, only to instead arrest the two men for “deviate sexual intercourse.” The two were removed from their home and, since they were unable to raise bail immediately, forced to spend the night in jail. They sued to have the Texas law overturned.

Brian Wildenthal, a professor of Constitutional Law at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, noted that oral and anal sex, referred to as “deviate sexual intercourse,” between any two people was considered a felony in Texas until 1973, when the Texas legislature legalized oral and anal intercourse between two people of the opposite sex, along with adultery, fornication, and even bestiality.

“Deviate sexual intercourse” between two people of the same sex remains a misdemeanor punishable by a fine.

Although it is widely thought that the Supreme Court is likely to strike down the Texas law, there is a great deal of debate over whether it will be struck down under the due process or equal protection argument.

According to Wildenthal, there is a line of Supreme Court case law that protects certain private, intimate decisions and behaviors under the concept of liberty, basically saying that individuals cannot be deprived of these rights without due process of law.

The biggest problem in striking down the Texas law under the due process argument is that in 1986 the Supreme Court upheld Georgia’s discriminatory sodomy law in Bowers v. Hardwick, rejecting the argument that there was a constitutional liberty interest to private, consensual, adult gay sexual activity. In order to strike down the Texas law, the Court would have to overrule their prior decision in Bowers v. Hardwick.

Under the equal protection argument the court would be able to ignore Bowers v. Hardwick since the law only applies to same-sex couples and is therefore demonstrably unequal. Traditionally the Supreme Court did not consider sexual orientation grounds for judging equal protection until 1996, when they struck down Colorado’s Amendment Two, which denied the right of state and local government to protect gays and lesbians from discrimination. The Supreme Court ruled that this violated the equal protection clause, saying that sheer animus (or disapproval) was not a reasonable basis for discrimination.

Wildenthal said that the Supreme Court would likely use the same argument in deciding the Texas case.

“I think the court will quite likely say there simply is no reason for this differential treatment that isn’t stark, raving loony,” he said. “Hence it will be an irrational unequal protection law and they will strike it down.… That means that they would be further entrenching the idea that sexual orientation discrimination is discrimination.… The bottom line result would be the Court, twice in a row now, will be striking down a law that discriminates against gays and lesbians.”

“We must be court-watchers, because we’re all concerned about civil liberties and our freedom,” added Marilyn Ireland, a professor at California Western School of Law. “Roe v. Wade, that was a win alright, for women’s right to control their own bodies, but it also had political repercussions — the complete redefinition of the Republican Party and a desperate swing to the right.

“We’ve been framing our entire agenda around equality rather than autonomy,” she continued. “I can only say for myself that I do not want to be equally oppressed. And the way it looks right now, civil liberties are not strong for anyone.… I hope the Supreme Court decides in our favor, and I hope it decides [on the basis of] equal protection and due process. I think the due process grounds are extremely important, and I’m worried that they will be reluctant to overturn Bowers v. Hardwick.”

Club announcements included mention that Barbara Lee of Oakland, the only Congressmember who voted against the Patriot Act, will be in San Diego, June 14, while Presidential hopeful Howard Dean, who, as Governor of Vermont, passed the United States’ first civil unions law, will speak at Trolley Barn Park at 9:00 a.m. Friday, June 27.

An announcement was also made that San Diego City Councilmember Michael Zucchet is opening his 2006 reelection campaign fund early, in order to help cover any legal expenses he may incur due to the current FBI investigation of three councilmembers, reportedly being carried out under the Ricoh Act. Due to campaign finance laws, Zucchet is prohibited from establishing a legal defense fund.

The next San Diego Democratic Club meeting will be held at 6:30 p.m. Thursday, June 26, at the Joyce Beers Uptown Community Center. For more information, call (858) 496-3312.