Tag: same-sex marriage

Posted on

Alabama Marriage Equality Plaintiffs Request Clarification From Judge

Yesterday, the Probate Judges Association of Alabama declared that Friday’s same-sex marriage ruling only applies to the one couple who filed the suit. (In Alabama, probate judges – not county clerks – are tasked with issuing marriage licenses).

Today, the plaintiffs in the lawsuit that saw the marriage ban struck down have filed a motion asking the judge to clarify her ruling.

From the motion:

Clarification is necessary as the Probate Judges association in Alabama have assumed the position like George Wallace at the schoolhouse door staring defiantly upon this Court’s order reasoning that not all citizens of Alabama are entitled to the same rights and privileges afforded under the Constitution of the United States and that as Probate Judges “it is [their] duty to issue marriage licenses in accordance with Alabama law and that means [they] can not legally issue marriage licenses to same sex couples.” Alabama Probate Judges Association statement to the press on January 24, 2015.

It is respectfully submitted that this Court’s order declaring Ala. Const. Art. 1§ 36.03 (2006) and Ala. Code 1974 §30-1-19 unconstitutional for violation of the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment shall meet with immediate defiance and confusion without further clarification.

Read the full motion below:

Posted on

Alabama Probate Judges Association Pushes Back On Marriage Equality Ruling

Legal advisers for the Alabama Probate Judges Association say Friday’s ruling that struck down the state’s same-sex marriage ban only applies to the two plaintiffs, not the whole state.

Via Birmingham’s ABC affiliate reports:

The Alabama Probate Judges Association says Friday’s ruling does not open the door for the issuance of same-sex marriage licenses.

Cari Searcy and Kim McKeand are the only plaintiffs in the case that was filed against Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange. The Alabama Probate Judges Association says that is a key point in the effect that this ruling has on the duties of probate judges.

“Judge Granade’s ruling in this case only applies to the parties in the case and has no effect on anybody that is not a named party. The probate judges were not parties in this matter,” Al Agricola, attorney for the Alabama Probate Judges Association, explained. “The legal effect of this decision is to allow one person in one same-sex marriage that was performed in another state to adopt their partner’s child. There is nothing in the judge’s order that requires probate judges in Alabama to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples.”

Folks tried this tactic in Florida last month and the judge there came back with a stinging clarification.

The judgment enforcing the court’s decision is actually quite clear. The ban is unconstitutional and the Attorney General is ordered to not enforce those laws. Read the judgement below:

“ALA. CONST. ART. I, § 36.03 (2006) and ALA. CODE 1975 § 30-1-19 are hereby DECLARED to be unconstitutional because they violate they Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The defendant Luther Strange, in his capacity as Attorney General for the State of Alabama, is hereby ENJOINED from enforcing those laws.”

Here’s the local news report from WBMA:

Posted on

Alabama AG Requests Emergency Stay Of Same-Sex Marriage Ruling

Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange has predictably filed for an emergency stay request with federal Judge Ginny Granade, the same judge who struck down the ban on same-sex marriage several hours before.

From Strange’s motion:

Defendant and the State of Alabama will suffer irreparable harm if marriages are recognized on an interim basis that are ultimately determined to be inconsistent with Alabama law, resulting in confusion in the law and in the legal status of marriages.

Granting a stay will not harm the Plaintiffs, but would only maintain the status quowhile these issues are considered by the appellate courts.

Finally, a stay will serve the publicinterest by avoiding the confusion and inconsistency that will result from an on-again, off-again enforcement of marriage laws.

Interesting situation here: Judge Granade did not issue a stay in her ruling. You would imagine there was a reason for that.

IF she does denies the request, AG Strange will be forced to move on to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. However, it was just last month when that court said “no” to Florida on a similar request.

With no waiting period in Alabama, if no stay is issued before offices open on Monday morning, expect same-sex weddings to begin.

Posted on

Alabama: Federal Judge Rules State Same-Sex Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

A federal trial court judge in Alabama ruled today that the state’s ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.

From U.S. District Court Judge Callie V. S. Granade:

If anything, Alabama’s prohibition of same-sex marriage detracts from its goal of promoting optimal environments for children. Those children currently being raised by same-sex parents in Alabama are just as worthy of protection and recognition by the State as are the children being raised by opposite-sex parents. Yet Alabama’s Sanctity laws harms the children of same-sex couples for the same reasons that the Supreme Court found that the Defense of Marriage Act harmed the children of same-sex couples.

Such a law “humiliates [ ] thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.” Windsor, 133 S.Ct. at 2694. Alabama’s prohibition and non-recognition of same-sex marriage “also brings financial harm to children of same-sex couples.” id. at 2695, because it denies the families of these children a panoply of benefits that the State and the federal government offer to families who are legally wed.

Additionally, these laws further injures those children of all couples who are themselves gay or lesbian, and who will grow up knowing that Alabama does not believe they are as capable of creating a family as their heterosexual friends. For all of these reasons, the court finds that Alabama’s marriage laws violate the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The ruling seems to have declared the state amendment and statutes involved to be unconstitutional in regard to recognition of out-of-state marriages and marriages that are performed in Alabama.

In the judgment enforcing the court’s decision, Granade wrote,

“ALA. CONST. ART. I, § 36.03 (2006) and ALA. CODE 1975 § 30-1-19 are hereby DECLARED to be unconstitutional because they violate they Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The defendant Luther Strange, in his capacity as Attorney General for the State of Alabama, is hereby ENJOINED from enforcing those laws.”

Judge Granade did NOT include a stay in her ruling. This means the ruling is effective immediately. And there is no waiting period in Alabama.

Of note: Judge Granade was nominated by President George W. Bush.

Update via AL.com:

The Alabama Attorney General’s Office indicated it would continue to fight the case.

“We are disappointed and are reviewing the Federal District Court’s decision,” spokesman Mike Lewis said via email. “We expect to ask for a stay of the court’s judgment pending the outcome of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling which will ultimately decide this case.”

Posted on

Colin Farrell: I Support Marriage Equality In Ireland “With Every Fiber Of My Being”

Appearing on national broadcast television in Ireland last night, actor Colin Farrell passionately announced his support for the upcoming May referendum to legalize same-sex marriage.

During his statement, he referenced his gay brother who had to travel to Canada to marry his partner.

Via Gay Star News:

‘To see them every day live their lives as a happily married couple is an amazing thing, and to think that they had to leave their own country to do that is sad and disappointing and just grossly unfair, I feel,’ he said.

Farrell also responded to concerns about gay couples becoming parents.

‘It’s too easy for heterosexuals to be parents, if you want the truth. It’s too easy. There are too many of us who find it too easy to have a kid,’ he said.

‘Too many parents around the world don’t parent their kids, because it was a five-minute thing… and there it is.’

The anti-gay bully campaigner then gave his full support to the national referendum on gay marriage confirmed for May.

‘I carry Ireland with me everywhere I go, and I love my country deeply,’ he said.

‘This is my “coming out of the closet,” as it were, publicly and saying that I support this vote with every fiber of my being’

Watch his remarks below:

Posted on

Quote Of The Day: Evan Wolfson

Freedom To Marry‘s Evan Wolfson to Washington Post reporter Jonathan Capehart on why same-sex marriage will prevail at the U.S. Supreme Court:

“The bottom line answer to your question is that while states regulate marriage, they do so under the Constitution. There is a floor below which the states may not go, and that floor is the Constitution’s guarantee of the freedom to marry and equal protection under the law.”

“Loving v. Virginia and other important freedom to marry cases have affirmed both of those guarantees, the very guarantees nearly 60 state and federal courts have invoked in the waves of rulings in favor of the exclusion of gay couples from marriage.”

Posted on

Marriage News Watch – January 19, 2015

This week in Marriage Equality from the American Foundation for Equal Rights:

• Florida has finally legalized driving while gay.

• Bills to discriminate against gay couples are rapidly multiplying in Texas.

• Multiple states are still wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars to try to reverse marriage equality.

Posted on

Ted Olsen Debates Hate Group Leader Tony Perkins On Upcoming SCOTUS/Marriage Equality Case

Anti-gay hate group leader Tony Perkins attempted to debate former Solicitor General under Bush Ted Olsen today on Fox News Sunday in anticipation of the upcoming review of same sex marriage at SCOTUS announced this week.

Perkins was not a match for Olsen, an experience attorney who has argued before the U.S. Supreme Court many times.  Time and again Olsen brought the discussion back to facts, and not hysterics.

Best line of the segment:

“The Supreme Court of the United States, 15 times over the last 120 years, has said that marriage is a fundamental right,” Olsen responded, also pointing out that numerous states had decided via ballot or legislature to legalize the practice. “Never once in any of those cases did it say it had to be between a man and woman. 15 times it said it was a matter of privacy, liberty, association, dignity and respect for the individual. That’s what the constitution’s all about.”

Perkins, in woeful defense, tried to interrupt, “Marriage – but not same-sex marriage.”

Olsen swatted that away without a shrug.

Weak, Tony. Very, very weak.

Posted on

Mexico: First Same-Sex Wedding In Baja California

With cheers of “yes we could, yes we could” filling the air, Mexicali residents Victor Fernando Urias Amparo, 37, and Victor Manuel Aguirre Espinoza, 43, were finally able to exchange their wedding vows before an enthusiastic crowd of media and supporters outside Mexicali City Hall.

Three times before the couple had tried to marry at city hall after a court order from Mexico’s Supreme Court cleared the way last June. But time after time, bureaucratic blockades were placed in their way. The last attempt was halted after a volunteer leveled the accusation that the men “suffer from madness.”

The result was a social media campaign with the hashtag #MisDerechosNoSonLocura, or “my rights are not madness.”

However, it seem the fourth time is the charm sometimes.

On Saturday, the crowd of protesters began to gather about 9:30 a.m. at the government complex, and many in the crowd of about 500 snapped up T-shirts being sold for 50 pesos each that included the Twitter hashtag and a picture of two grooms.

The crowd marched around the plaza with a giant rainbow flag and listened to speeches.

At one point, the couple, their lawyer and a swarm of media went into City Hall. The couple and their lawyer met behind closed doors in the civil registry office, then went upstairs into the mayor’s office.

They emerged with smiles about 30 minutes later and announced the marriage was on.

The ceremony was performed under a canopy in front of City Hall, with the grooms seated on one side of a table and a gaggle of cameras surrounding them.

Their vows complete, the husbands exchanged kisses, and a bottle of Champagne was popped to cheers and applause.

Video via Rex Wockner:

Posted on

Lambda Legal Answer The Question: What If Marriage Equality Loses At SCOTUS?

LGBT advocates and legal experts seem cautiously optimistic that SCOTUS will rule in favor of marriage equality this June.

BUT – folks want to know, what if they don’t?

Jon Davidson, legal director for Lambda Legal, spells it out via email:

“If the Supreme Court were to rule in the cases in which it today granted review that the U.S. Constitution does not protect same-sex couples’ right to marry and does not require states to respect marriages same-sex couples lawfully have entered in other jurisdictions, a number of issues would arise.

“With respect to same-sex couples who already have married as a result of court rulings, Lambda Legal strongly believes — as a federal district court in Michigan ruled just yesterday with respect to marriages entered in that state before the 6th Circuit’s adverse ruling — that those marriages will remain valid and will need to continue to be respected by the states in which those marriages were entered. Nonetheless, the validity of those couples’ marriages may be challenged and those couples may want to take additional steps (such as executing wills, durable health care powers of attorney, and securing second parent adoptions) to provide them and their families extra peace of mind and security.

“With respect to whether same-sex couples would be able to marry and would have their marriages respected in other states, that would vary from state to state. States in which marriage equality was achieved by a ruling under the state’s constitution, by legislative reform, or at the ballot box, would be unaffected. Unmarried same-sex couples in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee (the states whose marriage laws the Supreme Court today agreed to review) would be forced to seek reform through the political process. States in which a final judgment has been obtained in federal court would be required to continue to allow same-sex couples to marry and to respect out-of-state marriages entered by same-sex couples unless and until someone with standing makes a motion to reopen the judgment and that motion is granted (unless stays are properly obtained before then). In some states, there may be no one with standing interested in seeking to set aside the existing judgment. Same-sex couples in states in which a judgment is on appeal or can still be appealed whose judgments have not been stayed should be able to continue to marry and to have their out-of-state marriages honored by the state until the existing judgment is stayed or reversed.

“There’s no question that it would be a mess. This is one additional reason why the Supreme Court should reverse the 6th Circuit’s aberrant decision and hold that same-sex couples, like all other couples, share the fundamental right to marry and that it violates federal guarantees of equality and liberty to refuse to allow them to marry or to deny recognition to the marriages they lawfully have entered in other states.”