Tag: marriage equality

Posted on

Texas: Federal judge to hear oral arguments in marriage equaltiy lawsuit today

Big day in Texas for the LGBT community. A federal judge will hear oral arguments regarding the legality of the state’s ban on marriage equality.

Via Lone Star Q:

Two same-sex couples are seeking a preliminary injunction in their lawsuit challenging the state’s marriage bans on grounds they violate their right to equal protection under the U.S. Constitution. The Texas Legislature banned same-sex marriage by statute in 1997 and again in 2003, and Texas voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman in 2005.

U.S. District Judge Orlando L. Garcia, a President Bill Clinton appointee, could rule from the bench today on the injunction or issue a decision later. If Garcia grants the injunction, it’s likely his decision will be stayed and immediately appealed to the conservative 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals by Republican Attorney General Greg Abbott. Experts say it’s unlikely there would be any window for same-sex marriages to occur.

The hearing will begin at 9:30AM today in San Antonio.

UPDATE: No decision was announced today.

https://twitter.com/lsqnews/status/433652140850941952
Posted on

NOM president Brian Brown cries over Nevada’s decision to not defend anti-gay marriage law in court

Brian Brown, NOM president, crying as he watches his very reason for being (and earning a living) slip away.

Via press release :

“In the end, this is simply an act of cowardice, with these officials bending to the false narrative of ‘inevitability’ projected by the radicals determined to impose marriage redefinition nationwide.”

Today’s whine is due to the state of Nevada deciding, due to a recent ruling in the Ninth Circuit of Appeals, to not defend the state’s ban on marriage equality.

Forward, kids.  Forward.

Posted on

Missouri: ACLU will file lawsuit this week challenging same-sex marriage ban

It looks as though Missouri will be next to join the current crop of states being challenged in court over the freedom to marry.

From News-Leader.com:

Couples from Kansas City, St. Louis, mid-Missouri and Springfield are included in the suit, which will be filed in state court in Kansas City.

The litigation comes less than a month after a federal judge struck down Oklahoma’s ban on same-sex marriage. The ban is similar to Missouri’s prohibition on same-sex marriage.

Missouri voters approved the ban in 2004 — 71 percent to 29 percent — the same year Oklahoma approved its ban. The bans in both states are amendments to the state constitutions.

Posted on

Nevada: Attorney General asks to withdraw state’s defense of marriage ban in Ninth Circuit Court

Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto is withdrawing her previously filed brief in defense of the state’s constitutional ban on marriage equality in a federal appeals court.

Gov. Brian Sandoval a statement saying he agreed, and that it’s clear the state’s arguments are no longer defensible in court.

From Buzzfeed:

In a statement, the attorney general explained the decision, saying that another recent decision of the court “sets a new standard of review for cases in the Ninth Circuit.”

In that case, involving jury selection, the 9th Circuit held that “heightened scrutiny” would be given to constitutional challenges to government classifications based on sexual orientation — a decision Cortez Masto determined, as had most legal commentators, would apply to the challenge to Nevada’s marriage amendment.

“After thoughtful review and analysis, the State has determined that its arguments grounded upon equal protection and due process are no longer sustainable,” Cortez Masto said in Monday’s statement.

Lambda Legal released this statement:

“In the wake of the Ninth Circuit ruling in SmithKline Beecham v. Abbott Laboratories, the Governor has recognized that the writing is on the wall, and that arguments seeking to perpetuate discrimination are becoming extremely difficult to justify. Denying marriage to same-sex couples serves no legitimate state interest and is intended solely to perpetuate discrimination. As the Governor himself recognized, the heightened scrutiny standard that the Ninth Circuit’s SmithKline ruling now requires be applied to discriminatory classifications based on sexual orientation renders arguments supporting the marriage ban no longer tenable, and the Governor frankly made the only call he could.”

In Sevcik v. Sandoval, Lambda Legal, joined by pro bono co-counsel from O’Melveny & Myers LLP and Snell & Wilmer LLP, represents eight same-sex couples challenging Nevada’s law banning marriage for same-sex couples. The lawsuit argues that barring same-sex couples from marriage violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. A U.S. District Court judge granted Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit in November 2012, and Lambda Legal appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit. The State submitted its brief supporting the marriage ban to the Ninth Circuit on the same day as the Court’s ruling in SmithKline.

Posted on

Indiana: State Senate committee moves anti-gay marriage amendment to full Senate by vote of 8+4

As expected, the Indiana state Senate Rules and Legislative Procedure Committee approved HJR-3, the current legislation which would allow for a statewide referendum to write a ban on marriage equality into the state’s constitution.

All eight Republicans voted for the measure, all four Democrats voted against.  From IndyStar.com:

The decision came with no discussion by committee members about whether to restore the amendment’s second sentence, which would also ban civil unions and similar arrangements. The House removed that provision before sending the amendment to the Senate.

Instead, the Senate will likely take up the question of whether to restore the second sentence when the measure comes up for second reading before the full 50-member Senate. That could happen as early as Thursday.

The “second sentence” issue adds complications for the legislation as constitutional amendments have to be passed in their original form in two successive state legislatures. By changing the language of the original resolution, the second sentence must either be restored before going to voters for 2014 OR must be voted on by the next state congress before heading to voters in 2016.

Considering the quickly changing landscape of marriage equality, the longer it takes to get to voters – where polls show the electorate split – the tougher it will be for anti-gay marriage proponents to see their amendment passed.

Posted on

Marriage News Watch – February 10, 2014

From the American Foundation for Equal Rights:

• A Virginia court finally hears arguments in AFER’s marriage case.

• A clearer picture of how Utah will fight to keep its marriage ban in place.

• A new lawsuit hits Wisconsin, with life-or-death stakes for one couple.

• This could be the week that we finally learn the fate of Indiana’s marriage ban.

Posted on

El Salvador fails to pass constitutional ban on marriage equality

El Salvador’s Legislative Assembly saw a proposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriage fail miserably by a vote of 19-65.

From On Top Magazine:

According to Spanish news agency EFE, only 19 out of 84 lawmakers on Friday voted in favor of the ban.

The measure, which cleared the chamber in 2012, defines marriage as between a man and a woman and their children. It also seeks to prohibit El Salvador from recognizing the foreign marriages of gay couples and bans gays from adopting children.

A constitutional amendment requires the approval of two consecutive legislatures; a simple majority (43 votes) during the first reading followed by a supermajority (56).

El Salvador is the only Central American country that allows gays to serve openly in its armed forces.

(via JMG)

Posted on

Ohio: FreedomOhio gathers 2x necessary petition signatures for same-sex marriage ban repeal

Ohio’s pro-marriage equality group FreedomOhio has gathered almost twice as many signatures as they need to qualify for the 2014 or 2016 ballot, but they aren’t stopping there:

The Columbus Dispatch reports:

The group pushing to overturn Ohio’s 12-year-old constitutional amendment limiting marriage to a man and a woman says it has 650,000 signatures on a petition to put a gay-marriage measure on the statewide ballot. FreedomOhio’s goal: a million signatures by this summer’s filing deadline for the November election. Only 385,247 valid signatures are needed. “We see strongest support amongst women, single moms, minority and youth voters, which is also termed the ‘rising American electorate,'” said the group’s leader, Ian James. “At FreedomOhio, we call these folks ‘the base.'”

But even if the group gets the million names, the decision on whether to go to the ballot in 2014 or 2016 remains up in the air. It will depend, James said, on “having the resources to identify and mobilize majority support.”

The most recent poll shows a slight edge in support for the freedom to marry,  48%-44%.

Posted on

US Attorney General Holder to announce expanded recognition of same-sex marriage

At the Human Rights Campaign’s New York City gala event Saturday night, US Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. is expected to announce a directive expanding government recognition of same-sex marriages to all federal courtrooms and prisons, and some federal benefits programs.

The Blade notes some of the biggest policy changes:

• The Justice Department will recognize that same-sex spouses of individuals involved in civil and criminal cases have the same legal rights as straight married couples, including the right to decline to give testimony that might incriminate a spouse.

This new rule applies in non-marriage equality states. The government won’t object to couples in same-sex marriages invoking this right if they marry in another state, but their current jurisdiction doesn’t recognize their union.

• In bankruptcy cases, the U.S. Trustee Program will take the position that same-sex married couples should be treated in the same manner as opposite-sex married couples. Consequently, same-sex married couples will be eligible to file for bankruptcy jointly; certain debts to same-sex spouses or former spouses will be excepted from discharge; and domestic support obligations should include debts, including alimony, owed to a former same-sex spouse.

• Federal inmates in same-sex marriages will be entitled to the same rights and privileges as inmates in opposite-sex marriages. These rights include spousal visitation; inmate furloughs to be present during a crisis involving a spouse; escorted trips to attend a spouse’s funeral; correspondence with a spouse; and compassionate release or reduction in sentence if an inmate’s spouse is incapacitated.

• The Justice Department will recognize same-sex couples for the purposes of a number of benefits programs it administers, such as the Radiation Exposure Compensation Program and the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund.

Also among these programs is the Public Safety Officers’ Benefits Program, which provides death benefits to surviving spouses of public safety officers, such as law enforcement officers and firefighters, who suffer catastrophic or fatal injuries while on duty.

These new rules governing same-sex spouses cover all those married in states and cities with marriage equality, even if they don’t live in places that legalized same-sex marriage.

Posted on

Interactive map of the US covering current marriage equality rights

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/same-sex-marriage/

The Washington Post has created an interactive map where you can click on each state to see it’s current status regarding marriage equality rights  Plus you can click to see all the states that support or oppose those rights as well as those states that offer limited LGBT civil protections.

Click on over to see where your state currently stands on same-sex marriage.