Tag: SCOTUS

Posted on

HRC & Roberta Kaplan Launch “The People’s Brief”

The Human Rights Campaign joins with attorney Robbie Kaplan to launch an unprecedented “People’s Brief” to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Kaplan, leading civil rights litigator who won a landmark Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Windsor striking down Section 3 of the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act in 2013, is the author and lead counsel on the brief.

The historic effort, joined by Edie Windsor as first signer, gives every American a chance to share their view on marriage equality with the Supreme Court.

Sign today at www.thepeoplesbrief.com

Posted on

U.S. Supreme Court DENIES Alabama Extension On Marriage Ruling

The U.S. Supreme Court has denied a request by the state of Alabama to extend a stay on the ruling by a federal judge which struck down the state’s ban on same-sex marriage.

Take that, Roy Moore.

Forward!

UPDATE – Luther Strange, Attorney General for Alabama issued this statement:

“I regret the Supreme Court’s decision not to stay the federal district court’s ruling until the high court finally settles the issue this summer. In the absence of a stay, there will likely be more confusion in the coming months leading up to the Supreme Court’s anticipated ruling on the legality of same-sex marriage. With the lifting of the 14-day stay on February 9, 2015, the U.S. District Court order remains in effect, enjoining me from enforcing Alabama’s laws against same-sex marriage in my official capacity as Attorney General. To clarify my authority in this matter, the Alabama Attorney General’s Office does not issue marriage licenses, perform marriage ceremonies, or issue adoption certificates. The Chief Justice has explained in a public memorandum that probate judges do not report to me. I advise probate judges to talk to their attorneys and associations about how to respond to the ruling. Furthermore, I encourage any state agencies with questions about the ruling in Searcy and Strawser to contact the Governor’s Office.”

You’ll note the only “confusion” here is Strange’s advisement to look to the Governor’s office or to Chief Justice Roy Moore for advice on the ruling. Strange knows full well what the ruling means and that marriage equality has come to Alabama.

The only folks “confused” in Alabama are the haters.

Read the order from SCOTUS below:

Alabama

Posted on

Alabama Updates Marriage Forms In Advance Of Monday Deadline

As the state of Alabama (and more) awaits a decision by SCOTUS whether or not to extend a stay on the ruling which struck down the state’s same-sex marriage ban, the Alabama Department of Health is prepping for marriage equality to begin on February 9th.

From AL.com:

The department today will send new marriage forms to probate judges in 67 counties. Instead of listing “bride” and “groom,” the new forms include “first listed spouse” and “second listed spouse.”

Catherine Donald, the state registrar and director of the Center for Health Statistics, said there are a few other minor changes that have made the marriage certificate slightly longer. For instance, it now asks for the gender of each spouse, which will allow the state to track how many marriage licenses are issued to gay couples.

Meanwhile, we wait for SCOTUS.

Posted on

John Boehner: House Republicans Will Not Weigh In On SCOTUS Review Of Marriage Equality

Speaker of the House John Boehner

In a departure from previous positions on marriage equality, Speaker of the House John Boehner says House Republicans will not be filing amicus briefs or other official positions on the upcoming SCOTUS review of same-sex marriage laws.

From the Washington Blade:

U.S. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) on Thursday declined to offer his hopes for litigation seeking marriage rights for same-sex couples before the U.S. Supreme Court, but said he doesn’t expect House Republicans will weigh in a legal capacity.

“I don’t expect that we’re going to weigh in on this,” Boehner said. “The court will make its decision and that’s why they’re there, to be the highest court in the land.”

Boehner, an opponent of same-sex marriage, made the remarks in response to a question from the Washington Blade at his weekly news conference the month after the Supreme Court agreed to hear the lawsuits, which includes a lawsuit challenging the state law in Boehner’s own state of Ohio.

Methinks Mr. Boehner and company sees the writing on the wall regarding the tide of history.

Finally.

Posted on

Alabama To SCOTUS: States Are Not In Business “To Regulate Love”

Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange filed his appeal to the U. S. Supreme Court last night in a last-ditch attempt to have the stay placed on the recent ruling striking down the state’s ban on same-sex marriage extended indefinitely.

As seen before, Strange assumes marriage laws are only about procreation. Tell that to the straight married couples who cannot or choose to not have children; or, to the senior couples who marry after child birth years.

From the AG’s appeal:

The interests supported by opposite-sex marriage are, at the very least, rational. States are not in the marriage business “to regulate love.” Instead, state marriage laws link children to their biological parents (and link these biological parents to each other) by imposing a package of privileges and obligations—such as presumptions of paternity—that make less sense in the context of same-sex relationships. It is not irrational or malicious for state laws to reflect an “awareness of the biological reality that couples of the same sex do not have children the same way as couples of opposite sexes.” It is instead the background against which the institution of marriage has developed over the last several thousand years.

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

Legal Eagle Chris Geidner – SCOTUS Has Been Prepping The Country For Marriage Equality

Chris Geidner, writing for Buzzfeed, feels confident that SCOTUS will definitely rule in favor of marriage equality.

In fact, says Geidner, SCOTUS has been preparing the country for this outcome:

The justices, on Oct. 6, 2014, denied five states’ requests for the court to hear their cases and reverse the appeals court decisions that struck down marriage bans. That decision to deny those writs of certiorari meant same-sex couples began marrying in those states, as well as in six other states within those appeals court circuits.

Then, the Supreme Court refused to issue stays (or holds) of lower court rulings in Idaho and later Alaska while the states attempted to appeal the rulings. Those orders, which came with no reasoning, followed the decision of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to strike down Idaho and Nevada’s bans. Because there already was an appeals court ruling in favor of marriage equality that applied to those states, the orders were seen as being similar to the court’s Oct. 6 decision.

But then, on Dec. 19, 2014, the Supreme Court denied a stay during Florida’s appeal of the federal marriage case challenging its ban. In Florida, unlike in any of the other states where the justices allowed same-sex couples to begin marrying, the appeals court for that circuit had not ruled on the issue.

This decision by a majority of the justices to allow same-sex couples to marry while appeals are ongoing — and before the Supreme Court has resolved the issue itself — means that a majority of the court is comfortable with that reality becoming the default.

More than that, the decision to allow same-sex couples to marry before the Supreme Court has decided the issue creates more legitimacy for an eventual decision striking down the bans by increasing the number of states where same-sex couples already can marry. At this point, a decision striking down such bans nationwide only changes the situation in 15 states. Before the justices started down this path on Oct. 6, 2014, it would have meant changing the law of more than 30 states.

I highly recommend reading Chris’ entire essay. It lays out a LOT of the rationale for how and why we got to “here” regarding same-sex marriage.

Posted on

Fox News’ Shepard Smith: States Opposing Same-Sex Marriage Are Many Of The Same Who Opposed Integration

Mediaite shares this clip of Fox News anchor Shepard Smith announcing the news that SCOTUS will take up the issue of same-sex marriage.

Apparently, Tea Baggers are up in arms that Smith points out some of the strongest opposition to marriage equality comes in the same states that opposed integration.

“Not in every case, but in most cases, the same states which were fighting integration are fighting this as well,” Smith said. “Those states which always seem to be behind the curve for reasons which are explainable and understandable. Those are the places where this is going to turn out to be the most difficult, especially if the Supreme Court stays with what has seemed to be a trend toward inclusion and away from discrimination.”

Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck…

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.”