Tag: gay marriage

Posted on

West Virginia: Judge says marriage equality lawsuit can proceed

Federal Judge Robert C. Chambers has ruled that the lawsuit brought by Lambda Legal against West Virginia’s same-sex marriage ban may proceed.

However, the judge said without plaintiffs legally married out-of-state, that specific aspect of the suit must be amended.

None of the couples named as plaintiffs in the lawsuit has an out-of-state marriage license, so they don’t have legal standing to challenge the fact West Virginia won’t recognize them, U.S. District Judge Robert C. Chambers said in his order Wednesday.

Chambers gave the plaintiffs – three same-sex couples from West Virginia — until Feb. 12 to amend their complaint.

Karen Loewy, attorney for Lambda Legal, said the issue is being considered but the team is leaning against adding new plaintiffs.

The judge also required that more defendants be added to the lawsuit or explain why suing only two county clerks would affect law in the entire state.

Posted on

Tenth Circuit of Appeals sets date for oral arguments for Utah gay marriage appeal

The Salt Lake Tribune is reporting that April 10th will be the day the 10th Circuit of Appeals will hear oral arguments on marriage equality in Utah:

On Wednesday, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals announced oral arguments in the state’s appeal will take place April 10.

The case will be decided by a panel of three judges, who will be randomly assigned about 10 days before the hearing.

The 10th Circuit has agreed to let the same panel handle an appeal from Oklahoma, where a lower court struck down a similar ban on same-sex marriage.

The court also will allow amicus briefs to be filed jointly in the Utah and Oklahoma cases.

Posted on

Indiana House passes anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment 57-40

The Indiana House on Tuesday approved a proposal to change the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage. The vote on House Joint Resolution 3 was 57-40.

The bill now moves to the Senate, which must approve the amended language. Yesterday, a sentence that banned ANY legal relationship that is “identical or substantially similar” to marriage was removed from the amendment.

If the Senate approves the bill as passed today, it will not go to the ballot in 2014.

A constitutional amendment needs to pass two consecutive, separately-elected General Assemblies and be approved by a voter majority in a public referendum before becoming part of the constitution.

Posted on

Bryan Fischer: Having same-sex parents is “child abuse”

Predictably, hate group leader Bryan Fischer was not happy about this year’s Grammy Awards show.

Regarding the Macklemore/Madonna/Queen Latifah “Same Love” segment near the end of the telecast, Fischer calls the marriage ceremony an “abomination.”

He goes on to say “If you care about children,” Fischer said, “this thing ought to appall you because gay marriage is bad for children. In fact, same-sex parenting – I’m going to be very direct here – same-sex parenting is a form of child abuse.”

(via Right Wing Watch)

Posted on

Nevada: Carson City withdraws opposition to marriage equality appeal in Ninth Circuit

Carson City is withdrawing its opposition to the marriage equality lawsuit currently being appealed in the Ninth Circuit of Appeals due to the recent ruling on “heightened scrutiny” for gays and lesbians.

From Carson City District Attorney Neil A. Rombardo:

Carson City filed its brief on January 21, 2014. That same day, the Ninth Circuit issued a decision in the SmithKline case. In that case, the Ninth Circuit ruled that sexual orientation receives “heightened scrutiny” under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution.

“The SmithKline decision holds Carson City to a higher standard then originally believed. As a result, I advised Carson City that it is no longer obligated to defend this case, and I recommended the withdrawal of Carson City’s brief,” said District Attorney Neil A. Rombardo in a released statement.

Carson City filed a notice of pertinent authorities today referencing the SmithKline case, and it will file the appropriate paperwork to withdrawal its opposition brief and file a notice of non-opposition to appellants’ opening brief.

(via KTVN.com)

Posted on

Indiana House changes anti-gay marriage bill language possibly postponing vote on civil rights in 2014

Today, the Indiana House changed the language of anti-gay marriage House Joint Resolution 3 by a 52-43 vote. Amending the language of the bill could very well prevent state lawmakers from sending the constitutional ban on same-sex marriage to the ballot in 2014.

As was being contemplated last week, the change removed the second sentence of the amendment, which would have banned any recognition of legal status for same-sex couples like domestic partnerships or civil unions. Some lawmakers had expressed concern that such an extreme law could inhibit companies from being able to attract the best and the brightest if such benefits were legally banned from being extended at corporations or universities, for example.

Should HJR 3 pass the House its new form, it cannot be sent to voters this year. Amendments to the Indiana State Constitution must pass in the same exact form in two consecutive legislative sessions before being sent to the ballot box.

HJR 3 was first passed in 2011, but it now becomes a new amendment, which — presuming the new form passes the House and then the Senate — must itself be approved in a second legislative session, meaning the earliest voters would see it on the ballot is probably 2016.

Originally passed in 2011, with this amendment HJR 3 theoretically becomes a new amendment which would then have to be passed in the next legislative session. That timeline makes 2016 the soonest voters might possibly see this on the ballot.

If you factor in rapidly changing sentiment on the issue of marriage equality PLUS the fact that at least three states – Nevada, Oklahoma and Utah – may see same-sex marriage cases land in the US Supreme Court, it’s very possible this could signal Indiana’s last gasp at marriage equality bigotry.

Freedom to Marry‘s Evan Wolfson issued this statement:

Today’s vote to remove some of the extremist language in the proposed constitutional ban on marriage in Indiana is a welcome step back from the brink. This offers the possibility that Indiana’s families will not be subjected to a harsh campaign and offensive ballot-measure that would add cruel and unconstitutional language to Indiana’s state constitution.

The support that we saw today from Indiana legislators—including Republicans—and the success in achieving this vote reflected the growing momentum for the freedom to marry the person you love, and a repudiation of the effort to strip gay Hoosiers and their families of all legal protection and respect.

(source)

Posted on

What’s it like to get married in front of millions at the Grammy Awards?

After last night’s Grammy Awards ceremony, during which 33 couples were married on-air, one of the newly-wed couples joined HuffPost Live to share their unforgettable night. Deondray and Quincy Gossfield explained how they were selected for the ceremony, clarified the legality of their union and even dished on a memorable moment they shared with Katy Perry and Paul McCartney.

On keeping the ceremony under wraps:

Quincy: “Oh gosh, it was the worst secret ever because you want to share it with your friends and family. And our family is spread across the country so we had to devise ways to get people to watch the grammy’s without telling them we were getting married. But they knew that we were engaged. It was extremely difficult. We were not allowed to tell.”

On the legality of their marriage:

Deondray: “Yes, [we are officially married]. We went through the entire process… We got married.”

Quincy: “[Queen Latifah] came backstage after the grammy’s and she signed, with the state officials, everybody’s marriage certificate.”

On the most memorable part of the evening:

Deondray: “It was pretty surreal… during the ceremony, I caught eyes with Katy Perry and I was pretty good. I was pretty good. I said I wasn’t going to cry. And she looked at me and she put her hand on her mouth and tears just flowed out of her face.”

Quincy: “I tried to look away from [my husband] and I catch eyes with Paul McCartney. And Paul McCartney puts his hand over his heart and he smiles at me and nods his head and I lost it, which is the screengrab that everybody is posting all over the internet, #uglycry.”

(via HuffPost Live)

Posted on

Indiana House members split on legislation to ban marriage equality

The Indianapolis Star has polled the members of the Indiana House and it looks like the vote, which could come as early as Monday, is much tighter than anyone imagined.

Of the 100 House members, 38 plan to vote for the measure, while 38 plan to vote against it. The other 24 said they were undecided (13) or declined to comment (11).

That gives opponents a better shot than most anyone expected just weeks ago, but they still need to woo 13 non-committed lawmakers — including at least 11 Republicans — to kill the ban.

“Everyone assumed it would be closer this time than in 2011,” said Andy Downs, director of the Mike Downs Center for Indiana Politics at Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne. “But this is a lot closer than I think people would have expected.

“If I were leadership at this time,” he said, “I’d be pretty nervous right now.”

One tactic to help get the bill over the goal line would be to delete the second sentence of the legislation, which also would ban civil unions and other similar arrangements.

That sentence looks to be a a bridge too far for many lawmakers.

Rep. Kevin Mahan, R-Hartford City, who voted yes in 2011, said the second sentence, “gives me heartburn and gives many of my constituents heartburn.”

Rep. Dan Leonard, R-Huntington, who plans to vote “no” because of the sentence, said he would be surprised if any Republican proposes a change, given the pressure from the leadership to pass it as is.

Social conservatives don’t want any changes to the resolution because it would require another, separately elected legislature to approve the revised amendment and would delay a public vote for at least another year.

Read more at IndyStar.

Posted on

Nevada Attorney General to readdress marriage equality argument in light of 9th Circuit Court’s ruling on “heightened scrutiny” for LGBT

Those in the Nevada LGBT community were disheartened to read Nevada State Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto’s brief submitted to the ongoing Lambda Legal case trying to overturn the state’s ban on same-sex marriage.

In a section of the brief titled “Marriage Defined,” Masto laid out “What marriage is” and “What marriage is not.” In turning her attention to describing “What marriage is not,” Cortez Masto placed bigamy and incest as definitive exclusions, along with marriage between same-sex couples.

The ruling could have broad implications outside of the case. In the unanimous decision, the court held that discrimination based on sexual orientation is subject to heightened scrutiny.

It turns out Cortez Masto may have to readdress her arguments now that the Ninth Circuit has ruled that potential jurors may not be removed from a trial during jury selection solely because of sexual orientation.  This extends to gays and lesbians a civil right that the U.S. Supreme Court has previously promised only women and racial minorities. 

Via press release from Lambda Legal:

Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto late yesterday issued a statement declaring that her office was reconsidering the State’s arguments in Lambda Legal’s lawsuit challenging Nevada’s discriminatory marriage ban, Sevcik v. Sandoval, in light of the recent U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in GlaxoSmithKline v. Abbott Laboratories.

Lambda Legal Senior Attorney Tara Borelli issued the following statement:

“While we are confident that Nevada’s discriminatory marriage ban would be found unconstitutional under any level of scrutiny, it is even clearer after the GlaxoSmithKline v. Abbott Laboratories decision. The Ninth Circuit ruling in the GlaxoSmithKline case is a game-changer and cannot help but compel reconsideration of all arguments supporting discriminatory marriage bans such as Nevada’s.

“We have long argued that discriminatory classifications based upon sexual orientation must at least meet the same standard of review as those based upon sex – they should be presumed to be unconstitutional. In the GlaxoSmithKline decision the Ninth Circuit has agreed, ruling that heightened judicial scrutiny must be applied to such discriminatory classifications. We are glad the Nevada Attorney General is reconsidering the issue.”

The Nevada legislature is currently in the middle of setting up a statewide vote to repeal the ban on marriage equality.

 In last spring’s legislative session, both houses approved a measure that would put a repeal vote before voters. The same procedure must occur in the next session in 2015 for the initiative to appear on the 2016 ballot.