Tag: same-sex marriage

Posted on

Wisconsin’s domestic partnerships ruled constitutional by state supreme court

Lambda Legal announced today via press release that Wisconsin’s Domestic Partnership registry has been found to be constitutional by the state supreme court, thus ending an almost two year legal fight over the limited protections:

Today the Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld the state’s domestic partnership registry as constitutional, bringing a joyful end to a long legal battle by Lambda Legal on behalf of Fair Wisconsin and five intervening defendant couples.

“We’re thrilled that Wisconsin same-sex couples can keep the limited but very important protections that the domestic partnership registry grants them,” said Christopher Clark, Counsel for Lambda Legal. “The statute is clearly constitutional, and the Supreme Court of Wisconsin agreed with us. Gay and lesbian couples in Wisconsin no longer have to fear that the protections they have will be taken away by unnecessary anti-gay legal action.

Throughout the fight for marriage equality, we often hear that there’s no animus towards LGBT folks regarding these rights.  It’s just the word “marriage.”

And yet, even with the limited rights provided by domestic partnerships in Wisconsin, the haters attempted to take away those protections.

So, when you hear “I have nothing against gays” – be warned.

The 7th Circuit Appeals Court originally assigned a date of August 13 to hear arguments regarding overturning Wisconsin’s same-sex marriage ban, but promptly cancelled the arguments with no comment.

Posted on

Together 50 years: Henry & George Vassos for Marriage Ohio

After 50 years together, Henry and George traveled to New York City to legally wed.

But once they crossed the state lines to return to their home state of Ohio, the legally married couple was treated as nothing more than legal strangers.

Nearly half a century of love and commitment — and they want nothing more than to be respected in the state they call home.

(from Marriage Ohio)

Posted on

Mark Joseph Stern gets to the root of same-sex marriage opposition

Over at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern has written a disarmingly direct essay on the truth behind same-sex marriage opposition, and it goes something like this: We just don’t like the idea of gays.

The problem here, of course, is that an honest answer—“your honor, we believe gay people will destroy the marital institution altogether” — would undermine the supposedly secular, animus-free nature of these arguments. In developing them, anti-gay activists began with a conclusion — gay people don’t deserve the rights that we straight people have — then worked backward, camouflaging each prejudiced premise with a supposedly neutral talking point. Under any kind of scrutiny, these theories instantly fall apart, revealing their bigoted, constitutionally impermissible core.

That’s what happened on Monday, when the 4th Circuit held that “apprehension and inertia” lie behind resistance to marriage equality. It’s what happened when Pennsylvania and Nevada’s Republican governors gave up on their states’ gay marriage bans, and when North Carolina, Oregon, Kentucky, Illinois, California, and Virginia’s attorneys general did the same. A good lawyer knows when she’s on the losing side of an argument. And stripped of their conservative Christian underpinnings, these arguments are blindingly, blatantly hollow.

And yet the inanity continues full-throttle, because gay marriage opponents have backed themselves into the corner they’ve always dreaded. They can’t give up their quest now — but they’re barred from citing the explanations that they truly believe, deep down, to be correct. The result is the current tailspin of idiocy, a shifting argument with rootless standards roaming from rationale to rationale in a desperate attempt to find shelter from the storm of progress swirling around it. It’s a pathetic display, but not an unpleasant one to witness. Stripped of all logic and reason, the argument against gay marriage has been reduced to gibberish. Enjoy the babbling while it lasts.

The entire essay gets to the root of what LGBT advocates have known for a long time: that once you remove laws based on animus against gays (unconstitutional) and laws based on “we think gay sex is icky” (unconstitutional), you don’t have anything left.

I encourage you to read the entire article at Slate.

Posted on

Colorado Supreme Court orders Boulder County Clerk to cease issuance of same-sex marriage licenses

The Colorado Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered Boulder County Clerk Hillary Hall to stop issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples after more than a month of doing so. In that time, at least 199 licenses were issued to gay or lesbian couples.

Colorado Attorney General has spent weeks attempting to stop Hall from issuing licenses through his own directives and lower state courts, to no avail.

The Boulder County Clerk began issuing same-sex marriage licenses on June 25, when the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Utah’s ban on same-sex couples’ marriages as being unconstitutional.

As the state of Colorado is also under jurisdiction of the 10th Circuit Court, Hall began issuing licenses that day, after consulting her county attorney.

Posted on

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott uses failed “procreation” tactic in 5th Circuit Court appeal

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott says marriage should only be about procreation

Despite the fact that two federal appeals courts have rejected procreation as a legal reason to deny same-sex couples the right to marry, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has chosen to use that very argument (creative) in his filing to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

From the Statesman:

“By recognizing and encouraging the lifelong commitment between a man and woman — even when they do not produce offspring — the state encourages others who will procreate to enter into the marriage relationship,” Abbott said in the state’s first brief, filed late Monday at the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Promoting opposite-sex marriages “increases the likelihood that children will be born into stable environments where they are raised by their mother and their father,” Abbott argued.

Such family structures are good for the children’s well being and good for the state because they increase the likelihood that parents, not society, “will bear the cost of raising these children,” the brief said.

“Because same-sex relationships do not naturally produce children, recognizing same-sex marriage does not further these goals to the same extent that recognizing opposite-sex marriage does,” Abbott said.

The legal landscape has significantly changed since February, when U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia ruled that the Texas ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional because it relegates gay couples to “second-tier status” and demeans their dignity for no legitimate reason.

Garcia, who also tossed out Texas’ ban on recognizing same-sex marriages legally performed in other states, was the fourth federal judge to make a similar ruling since late December, following jurists in Utah, Oklahoma and Virginia.

Federal judges in 10 other states have overturned same-sex marriage bans saying the laws violate the US Constitution.

Plus, two federal appeals courts have upheld such rulings. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling yesterday that Virginia’s ban prohibited same-sex couples “from participating fully in our society.” And the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed in similar rulings for Utah and Oklahoma.

Both the 4th Circuit and the 10th Circuit specifically addressed the issue that procreation is no justification for discriminating against gays and lesbians.

Posted on

West Virginia in holding pattern on marriage equality for now

After yesterday’s ruling by the Fourth Circuit Court declaring Virginia’s same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional, North Carolina’s Attorney General announced the state would no longer defend their marriage ban since North Carolina is also in the Fourth Circuit’s jurisdiction and the outcome at this point is predictable.

However, West Virginia’s AG seemed to indicate his office will take a “wait and see” attitude.

The writing is on the table, kids.

Forward.

(h/t JMG)

Posted on

North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper announces the state will not oppose same-sex marriage cases

North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper

In light of the Fourth Circuit Court’s ruling which found Virginia’s marriage ban is unconstitutional, North Carolina’s attorney general said he will stop defending his state’s ban in court:

“After reviewing the 4th Circuit decision and consulting with attorneys here, I have concluded that the State of North Carolina will not oppose the cases moving forward.

“In addition, the State of North Carolina will acknowledge the 4th Circuit opinion that marriage is a fundamental right and that our office believes that the judges are bound by this 4th Circuit decision.

“In all these cases challenging state marriage laws, our office along with other attorneys general and state attorneys across the country have made about every legal argument imaginable.

“Since the US Supreme Court ruled in the Windsor case, all the federal courts have rejected these arguments each and every time. So it’s time for the State of North Carolina to stop making them.” – North Carolina State Attorney General, Roy Cooper

Today’s Virginia ruling sets precedent for not only that state, but all states in the court’s jurisdiction which includes North Carolina.

South Carolina’s AG, Alan Wilson, issued a statement saying he intends to continue defending his state’s same-sex marriage ban.

(via Advocate.com)

Posted on

Virginia: Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals rules same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional

This began in February when U.S. District Judge Arenda Wright Allen ruled that Virginia’s same-sex marriage ban violates equal protection and due process guarantees, and therefore unconstitutional.

Two circuit court clerks whose duties include issuing marriage licenses appealed.

Now, a three-judge panel at the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld that ruling.

From the American Foundation for Equal Rights:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has affirmed that Virginia’s marriage ban is unconstitutional because it violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Today’s decision sends the message that loving couples like our plaintiffs – Tim Bostic & Tony London and Carol Schall & Mary Townley – are entitled to the same basic rights and protections as every other American.

Hollingsworth v. Perry, the AFER-led challenge to California’s Proposition 8, was the first lawsuit in which a federal court of appeals ruled in favor of marriage equality.

Today’s decision is monumental as it also paves the way for West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina to strike down their marriage bans as those states fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

This ruling sets a high-court precedent, meaning that judges who hear subsequent marriage challenges in North Carolina, South Carolina and West Virginia (the other states covered by the Fourth Circuit) should apply the precedent.

Marriage equality has been legal in Maryland, the fifth state in the Fourth Circuit, since January, 2013.

This marks the 29th court ruling in favor of marriage equality since SCOTUS struck down Section 3 of DOMA in June of 2013.

Freedom To Marry issued this statement:

“It was in a case out of Virginia that the Supreme Court ended race discrimination in marriage. And today, in another Virginia marriage case, a federal circuit court ruled against discrimination in marriage, affirming the freedom to marry for loving and committed gay couples.

“The Fourth Circuit’s ruling echoes what over 25 other federal and state courts have held: same-sex couples deserve the dignity of marriage, and anti-marriage laws are indefensible.

“Every day of denial is a day of injustice and tangible harms. It’s time for the Supreme Court to bring the country to national resolution and secure the freedom to marry for all.”

Posted on

Marriage News Watch – July 28, 2014

This week in marriage equality:

• Colorado sees new rulings on marriage from multiple courts
• New polls show growing support for equality in western states, but multiple Attorneys General have filed new briefs to stop gay and lesbian couples from marrying
• Another Republican member of Congress has come out in favor of the freedom to marry.

Posted on

Arizona: Lawyers argue banning same-sex marriage doesn’t come from malice

The state of Arizona has engaged the services of lawyers from the antigay organization, the Alliance Defending Freedom, to defend the marriage ban in two lawsuits.

The organization has led unsuccessful defenses in other marriage cases in Oklahoma and Virginia, so why not hire the team that loses?

And what is their fabulous argument against gays and lesbians having equal right? That never winning hand – “it’s all about procreation.”

From the Arizona Republic:

The ADF lawyers say the marriage bans reinforce the strength of marriages for straight couples, and their children. The lawyers’ arguments claim the state “regulates marriage for the primary purpose of protecting relationships that would produce children, and let those children grow up with a biological mother and father,” The Republic reports.

“That’s been the understood definition of marriage,” Caleb Dalton of the ADF said to The Repubilc. “The recent laws that the plaintiffs have challenged didn’t change anything. They merely reaffirmed that definition.”

This is the exact approach that has failed in over 20 legal arguments.  But hey, if at first you don’t succeed.  Keep using the same broken argument.

You’ll note that the legal team does’t also argue against seniors who marry or infertile couples who can’t bear children.

Just the gays.

But, no animus intended. None at all.

Right?