Same-Sex Marriage Update

[MsTinkerbelly]

Illinois AFL-CIO passes resolution backing marriage equality

by GoPride.com News Staff

Fri. September 27, 2013 8:12:28 AM : 0 Comments - start the discussion

Illinois Unites coalition applauds AFL-CIO for landmark support

Chicago, IL — The Illinois Chapter of American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) passed a resolution Sept. 26 supporting the freedom to marry and urged the Illinois House of Representatives to pass Senate Bill 10 – the Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act.

"As an organization, we speak out for fairness and justice where it is most needed. Gay and lesbian couples in Illinois shouldn't have to wait another moment to be afforded the tools they need to protect their families," said Michael Carrigan, President of the Illinois AFL-CIO. "It is time we pass the freedom to marry for all."

The resolution, which was passed by the Executive Board of the Illinois AFL-CIO, states "the Illinois AFL-CIO joins with leaders from the faith community, civil rights organizations, President Obama, our own unions and a growing majority of Americans in supporting marriage equality legislation that effectively protects religious freedom."

"Securing the freedom to marry for all is a defining human rights issue of our time," said Timothy Drea, Secretary Treasurer of the Illinois AFL-CIO. "We urge Illinois lawmakers to be on the right side of history and pass marriage equality."

Since the legislative session ended in May without the House considering the marriage bill, Illinois Unites for Marriage has been increasing its reach with numerous labor organizations expanding their roles in the campaign, including, AFSCME Council 31, Illinois Education Association, Illinois Federation of Teachers, Illinois Nurses Association, National Association of Social Workers - Illinois Chapter, Pride at Work Chicago, Service Employees International Union State Council, Unite Here Local 1, and United Food and Commercial Workers Local 881.

"We applaud the significant support from the AFL-CIO today. Their resolution helps us in our fight to strengthen the American family by extending the protections of marriage to gay and lesbian couples," said John Kohlhepp, Campaign Manager for Illinois Unites for Marriage.

[iamkeri1]

A judge in New Jersey has ruled that the state has to allow same-sex couples to get married since the state would be depriving same-sex couples of rights granted to them by the federal government if the state were to continue to not allow same-sex marriage, according to the New York Times.

Since the federal government recognizes same-sex marriage and doles out certain benefits to married couples Superior Court Judge Mary Jacobson ruled that by banning same-sex marriage the state was violating the state constitution by denying equal benefits to same-sex couples, according to the Wall Street Journal.

"The ineligibility of same-sex couple for federal benefits is currently harming same-sex couple in New Jersey in a wide variety of contexts," Jacobsen wrote in her decision.

Gov. Chris Christie opposes same-sex marriage and has tried to convince the court to "reserve the name of marriage for heterosexual couples." John Hoffman, the acting attorney general for New Jersey, believes that it is the federal government, not New Jersey, who is guilty of denying rights to same-sex couples by not offering the benefits to couples in a civil union, NBC News reports.

"Civil union partners who are federal employees living in New Jersey are ineligible for marital rights with regard to the federal pension system," Jacobson said. "All civil union partners who are employees working for businesses to which the Family and Medical Leave Act applies may not rely on its statutory protections for spouses, and civil union couples may not access the federal tax benefits that married couples enjoy."

Jacobsen was ruling on a lawsuit filed by six same-sex couples who argued that since the federal government will recognize same-sex marriages in states that legalize them it is unfair that the state of New Jersey only allow civil unions, according to NBC News.

"This news is thrilling," Hayley Gorenberg, Lambda Legal deputy legal director, said in a statement. "We argued that limiting lesbians and gay men to civil union is unfair and unconstitutional, and now the Court has agreed."

The ruling by the New Jersey court is the first to legalize same-sex marriage in response to the Supreme Court decision that struck down the Defense of Marriage act this past summer. State officials have been ordered to begin allowing same-sex marriage on Oct. 21, according to the Star-Ledger.

[MsTinkerbelly]

Prop. 8 Legal Team Sets Sights on Va. Marriage Ban

Ted Olson and David Boies, the bipartisan legal team that successfully argued against California's Proposition 8 at the Supreme Court, have signed on to a federal challenge to Virginia's ban on marriage equality.

BY Sunnivie Brydum.

September 30 2013 12:48 PM ET

The so-called odd couple — a conservative lawyer who represented George W. Bush and his liberal opponent who represented Al Gore in the contested 2000 election — who helped strike down California's Proposition 8 are now taking their legal prowess to Virginia to fight that state's prohibition on marriage equality.

Ted Olson and David Boies, the bipartisan legal team who successfully argued Hollingsworth v. Perry, the Prop. 8 case, at the Supreme Court, have signed on to a pending federal case that aims to strike down Virginia's constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, the American Foundation for Equal Rights announced today.

The Virginia case, Bostic v. Rainey, was filed in the U.S. District Court for Virginia's Eastern District on behalf of two couples who contend that the Virginia Marriage Amendment, which prohibits gay and lesbian couples in Virginia from marrying, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. One of the couples, Timothy Bostic and Tony London, were denied a marriage license in July, while the secondary plaintiffs, Carol Schall and Mary Townley, married in California in 2008, have a 15-year-old daughter, and are asking Virginia to legally recognize their relationship.

The Equal Protection argument is, in part, the same logic Olson and Boies successfully advanced in the Prop. 8 case, where California voters rescinded the gay and lesbian couples' right to marry by ballot initiative in 2008. In June, the U.S. Supreme Court effectively repealed Prop. 8 on a legal technicality, deciding that the official ballot proponents had no legal standing to defend the law after two sets of California governors and attorneys general declined to do so. When AFER enlisted Boies and Olson to fight California's marriage equality ban in 2009, no other mainstream LGBT organization was willing to mount the legal challenge.

But with two landmark rulings in favor of marriage equality at the Supreme Court this summer — both the Prop. 8 case and Windsor v. U.S., which struck down a key section of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act — and 13 states and the District of Columbia with legal marriage equality in place, the winds have shifted toward equality.

Olson, who lives in Virginia, said his state is an "attractive target" for a federal challenge that he hopes will establish a federal constitutional right to marry.

In their arguments against Prop. 8, Olson and Boies often cited the 1967 Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia, which struck down bans on interracial marriage as unconstitutional. Because Virginia's marriage amendment not only bans same-sex marriage in the state but also the recognition of any legal same-sex marriages from other states, Olson said Virginia provides a good example to highlight the importance of establishing gay and lesbian Americans' to marry on a national basis.

"The more unfairly people are being treated, the more obvious it is that it's unconstitutional," Olson told the The Washington Post.

The American Civil Liberties Union and Lambda Legal also filed a request for swift judgment in another federal case challenging Virginia's ban on marriage equality — this one filed in the U.S. District Court for Western Virginia, on behalf of two lesbian couples.

[MsTinkerbelly]

Chris Christie tries to block marriage equality in New Jersey

Evan Puschak
9:59 PM on 10/01/2013


New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie wants to block the state’s upcoming legalization of same-sex marriage.

Interim state Attorney General John Jay Hoffman said in a letter to the state Supreme Court on Monday that the Christie adminstration would seek a stay on the Superior Court’s ruling. If granted, the ruling may postpone marriage equality from kicking into effect on October 21. Hoffman also expressed a wish to bypass appellate courts and take the issue directly to the New Jersey Supreme Court.

On Friday, Superior Court Judge Mary Jacobson ruled that New Jersey’s civil union laws did not provide LGBT individuals the same rights as married couples.

“The court, the legislature, and a super-majority of New Jerseyans all support the freedom to marry, but the governor seems intent on blocking New Jersey’s path to fairness, adding more delay now with his decision to appeal the trial court’s clear ruling,” Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry, told MSNBC. “The New Jersey Supreme Court should swiftly take and affirm the marriage ruling, and should let couples begin marrying Oct. 21, as the trial court ordered.”

Christie’s move to appeal is just the latest step in his back-and-forth with gay rights advocates over the issue of same-sex marriage. Back in February, Christie vetoed a bill passed by the New Jersey legislature that legalized same-sex marriage. Personally against marriage equality, the governor was willing to let the matter go to a state referendum in November, yet unwilling to let “an issue of this magnitude and importance” be decided by elected officials.

Instead, Christie appointed an official to oversee same-sex couples’ complaints that civil union laws were not affording them all the legal rights and benefits of married couples. For gay rights advocates, this measure did not go far enough to ensure equality.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in June to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act gave the same-sex marriage movement in New Jersey new life. The majority’s ruling in that case, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, stated that same-sex married couples deserved the same benefits as any other married couple, but was confined to legal marriages. This primed New Jersey for the challenge to its system that led to Judge Jacobson’s ruling Friday.

The other factor in the ruling was a New Jersey Supreme Court ruling from 2006 (Lewis v. Harris), which required the state to extend all the rights of heterosexual unions to same sex unions, but stopped short of legalizing same-sex marriage.

“The issue of whether the state must act to change its statutory structure for civil unions and marriages is purely a legal one that depends upon the interaction of the Windsor [DOMA] decision with the mandates established by the New Jersey Supreme court in Lewis,” wrote Jacobson in her 53-page opinion, illuminating the crux of the issue.

The plaintiffs in the case, six same-sex couples represented by Garden State Equality and Lambda Legal, said that Windsor and Lewis don’t work in sync for gay couples. As NJ.com reported, over 1,000 tax and inheritance benefits extended by the DOMA decision to same-sex married couples were withheld from those couples in New Jersey, trapped behind civil union laws.

The attorneys argued that such civil union laws made same-sex couples “second class” citizens, and Judge Jacobson agreed. “Same-sex couples must be allowed to marry in order to obtain equal protection of the law under the New Jersey constitution,” she wrote.

Though they don’t agree with Christie’s appeal, New Jersey Democrats urged the state Supreme Court to fast-track the case, per the administration’s wishes. If the court decides quickly in favor of Jacobson’s ruling, same-sex couples won’t have to wait longer than October 21st to enjoy full marriage equality.

It’s unclear to what degree Gov. Christie’s repeated moves against same-sex marriage are politically motivated, intended to bolster his conservative credentials.

“Within the Republican universe, he’s actually pretty far out there already on gay marriage, saying he wants a referendum and that he’d honor the result if voters pass it,” said MSNBC’s Steve Kornacki. “In terms of positioning for the 2016 GOP race, that alone puts him on shaky ground, so if a court moves to legalize it, he risks giving opponents on the right ammunition if he does anything but challenge it.”

[MsTinkerbelly]

Judge Says New Jersey Can Begin Allowing Same-Sex Marriages in Two Weeks

By KATE ZERNIKE

Published: October 10, 2013

A judge on Thursday cleared the way for same-sex marriages to start in New Jersey in two weeks, dismissing the state’s request to prevent the weddings until after an appeal of the court decision allowing them is completed.


“There is no ‘public interest’ in depriving a class of New Jersey residents their constitutional rights while appellate review is pursued,” wrote Judge Mary C. Jacobson of State Superior Court in Mercer County, who also wrote the decision last month that ordered the state to allow same-sex marriages. “On the contrary, granting a stay would simply allow the State to continue to violate the equal protection rights of New Jersey same-sex couples, which can hardly be considered a public interest.”

The state immediately requested that the appellate division grant a stay. It had already asked the New Jersey Supreme Court to hear the appeal on an expedited basis; the court has not said yet whether it will do so.

Judge Jacobson said in her opinion that the state had not demonstrated that its appeal was likely to be successful. And she denied the state’s argument that New Jersey would suffer “irreparable harm” if marriages began happening, ruling instead that the people harmed would be the same-sex couples who would have to wait even longer to gain access to the federal benefits that the United States Supreme Court guaranteed them in a decision in June.

Judge Jacobson noted that “until some indeterminate time when appeals have been resolved,” same-sex couples would remain ineligible for federal tax and retirement benefits and for spousal coverage under Medicare. And if one member of the couple was a noncitizen, the other would not be able to sponsor him or her for residency, forcing them to live apart.

Lawrence S. Lustberg, who argued the case before Judge Jacobson on behalf of Garden State Equality and six gay and lesbian couples and their children, praised the ruling.

“We’re very pleased with not just the ruling, but the opinion, which makes clear how our clients are being harmed by not being able to marry, and compares that with the lack of harm that’s experienced by the state if they can marry,” he said. “The harms to our clients are real. The harm to the state is theoretical.”

The couples had asked the court to hear their case on an expedited basis after the United States Supreme Court’s decision in June striking down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which denied federal benefits to couples in same-sex marriages.

The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that the state had to grant same-sex couples the same rights and protections as heterosexual couples, but left it to the Legislature to decide how to do so. The Legislature passed a law allowing civil unions, but the couples sued again, arguing that civil unions did not give the same benefits as marriage.

The United States Supreme Court said its ruling extending federal benefits to same-sex couples was limited to legal marriages. Judge Jacobson ruled in September that for that reason, the state had to offer marriages, not simply civil unions, to allow same-sex couples equal benefits.

She ruled that the state had to start allowing marriages on Oct. 21. Mr. Lustberg said couples would begin applying for licenses that day, and marriages would take place after the state’s three-day waiting period. But first, the plaintiffs will have to respond to the state’s request to appeal the decision on the stay, by Tuesday.

Meanwhile, a parallel strategy is moving through the Democratic-led Legislature, which passed a new bill allowing same-sex marriage last year. It was vetoed by Gov. Chris Christie, a Republican who is considered a leading candidate for his party’s nomination for president in 2016.

The Legislature has until January to override that veto, and state and national gay rights groups have flooded the state with money and activists to help the override vote succeed. The bill includes a provision that would allow religious leaders to decline to perform same-sex marriages by citing a moral exception. Democrats have argued that if the court decides the issue, it would not allow such an exception, so it would be better to have the Legislature move first to establish same-sex marriage.

The Democrats need Republican votes to win the override, and many Republicans have been wary of crossing Mr. Christie. But in recent weeks, two Republicans who did not vote on the original bill said they would support the override, and one who voted against same-sex marriage said he would vote for it.

“At any moment, the court can step in and put a halt to all this, temporarily or permanently,” said Mike Premo, the campaign manager for New Jersey United for Marriage, which is leading the push for the override. “The safest, surest, quickest route to marriage equality still remains with the Legislature.”

[MsTinkerbelly]

Mich. judge expected to rule today on gay-marriage ban
Tresa Baldas, Detroit Free Press 12:45 p.m. EDT October 16, 2013
Lawsuit began as challenge to Michigan ban on adoption by unmarried couples.

DETROIT — A federal judge is expected to decide the fate Wednesday of Michigan's ban on gay marriage, either giving two women the right to pursue their dream of having a family or upholding the state's position that only men and women can marry and have children.

The issue has landed in the hands of U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman, who in June refused to toss out a lesbian couple's lawsuit challenging the state's ban on adoption by unmarried couples. Friedman, citing the June U.S. Supreme Court decision that recognized legally married gay couples, concluded the plaintiffs are "entitled to their day in court and they shall have it."

That day is today.

At 2:30 p.m., a hearing on the matter is scheduled before Friedman, who is expected to decide on the constitutionality of Michigan's ban on gay marriage and determine whether or not the state is unlawfully discriminating against two nurses who want to get married and adopt each others' children.

If Friedman lifts the ban without issuing a stay, same-sex marriage would be legal in Michigan until, and unless, a higher court overturns it. If he doesn't, the status quo remains: no gay marriage in Michigan.

"We're cautiously optimistic that a ruling will come," said Dana Nessel, one of four lawyers representing the plaintiffs. "When you have waited this long for some semblance of equality, you kind of want it right now. You don't want to wait any longer."

Whatever Friedman decides, an appeal will follow from either side. The state has vowed a vigorous fight to uphold the 2004 voter-approved constitutional amendment that defined marriage as "the union of one man and one woman."

The state argues it has "legitimate state interests" in defining marriage as such.

“When you have waited this long for some semblance of equality, you kind of want it right now. You don't want to wait any longer.”
— Dana Nessel, lawyer representing the same-sex plaintiffs
"Michigan supports natural procreation and recognizes that children benefit from being raised by parents of each sex who can then serve as role models of the sexes both individually and together in matrimony," the state has argued in court documents.

The state also argues that Michigan voters have spoken on the issue of gay marriage and that their decision should stand.

"There is no fundamental right to marry a person of the same sex, and nothing in the U.S. Constitution requires or permits federal courts to invalidate a state's decision defining civil marriage as the union of one man and one woman," the state wrote in court documents.

The case involves April DeBoer, 42, and Jayne Rowse, 48, who in January 2012 challenged the state's ban on same-sex adoption. They later decided also to take on the the state's ban on gay marriage, which 59% of voters approved in 2004.

The plaintiffs argue the ban unlawfully violates their right under the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution to get married and adopt each others' children. Rowse has two preschool-aged boys; DeBoer has a 3-year-old girl. They also argue the state has no rational basis for denying them the right to get married and adopt kids.

Meanwhile, Nessel believes that gay and lesbian community in Michigan has suffered long enough from discrimination. She believes a ruling favoring her clients could trigger long overdue positive changes for gays and lesbians the state that she contends has among the worst records for gay and lesbian rights.

"You can't go lower than what we have," Nessel said. "This is why it's so important for us to have a federal court ruling on this because the Legislature is not doing anything to protect this very vulnerable population of people

“One Detroit lawyer in a black robe doesn't have the legitimate constitutional or moral authority to overturn the will of millions of Michigan voters.”
— Gary Glenn, American Family Association of Michigan
"It's very critical that we have a federal court step in and say, 'No, you cannot use your laws to discriminate against what has historically been an unpopular segment of society," she said.

To date, 14 states have legalized gay marriage, according to ProCon.org, a nonprofit and nonpartisan group that researches controversial issues. Another 35 states, including Michigan, have gay marriage bans through either laws or constitutional amendments. Only one state, New Mexico, has no law legalizing or banning same-sex marriage.

The New Jersey Supreme Court said it will soon decide whether gays can marry there, and a Utah federal judge in December will hear arguments about that state's ban.

In June, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two landmark same-sex marriage rulings: one directed the federal government to provide equal treatment to same-sex spouses, the other allowed gay marriages in California to resume.

In a 5-4 ruling, the nation's highest court struck down the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which denied federal benefits to gay couples married under state law. The court found that gay couples married in states where it's legal must receive the same health, tax, and other benefits offered to their heterosexual counterparts.

However, the high court rulings haven't deterred Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette from fighting to uphold the state's constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between one man and one woman.

"The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that states retain the constitutional authority to define marriage," said Schuette spokeswoman Joy Yearout. "We will continue to aggressively defend Michigan's Constitution in this case."

Gary Glenn, who leads the conservative American Family Association of Michigan, said it would be a mistake for a judge to extinguish a law on the books for nearly a decade.

"One Detroit lawyer in a black robe doesn't have the legitimate constitutional or moral authority to overturn the will of millions of Michigan voters," Glenn said.

In Ann Arbor, the Washtenaw County clerk's office said judges and clergy will be available at the local courthouse if Friedman allows same-sex marriage. The county will waive the typical three-day waiting period to get a license, at least on Thursday.

"There's obviously a lot of emotion, and a lot of people have been waiting a long time," said Ed Golembiewski, chief deputy clerk.

Bishop Jerry Brohl of Blessed John XIII Community, a church for Christians of all stripes in Wyandotte, near Detroit, said he's eager to bless same-sex marriages, even if he doesn't know the couple.

"Under normal circumstances, I'd want to spend a bit more time with a couple," he said. "But under these circumstances, I feel I need to make an exception. You have two mature persons who are committing themselves to a relationship based on love.

[MsTinkerbelly]

The judge has decided to take the issue to trial on February 25th, so nothing until then.