Same-Sex Marriage Update

[MsTinkerbelly]

Ohio’s Attorney General certifies ballot language to replace anti-gay marriage amendment
By Scottie Thomaston

Ohio’s Attorney General Mike DeWine has finally certified the ballot language for an amendment to the state constitution to repeal and replace their anti-gay amendment that currently bans gay and lesbian couples from being able to get married. The new language will state that marriage is “a union of two consenting adults.” The proposed language also clarifies that no religious institution will be required to perform or recognize marriages.

The certification comes after DeWine’s refusal last month to authorize the proposed ballot language. He suggested a few reasons for denying certification at the time:


After reviewing the submission, I conclude that I am unable to certify the summary as a fair and truthful statement of the proposed constitutional amendment for three reasons. First, the summary is longer than the text of the amendment… Second, the summary states that the amendment retains the rights contained in “Section 11 of Article XV for political subdivisions to not recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals.” However, the text of the amendment does not indicate that political subdivisions would retain these rights. Third, the summary states that the amendment retains “the portions of Title 31 that codifies this Amendment.” However, the text of the amendment does not contain any reference to Title 31.

In today’s statement, DeWine calls the new language fair and truthful:


The group re-submitted its paperwork on March 26 and DeWine today certified the proposal and a “fair and truthful” summary of the proposed amendment, he said in a news release.

“Without passing on the advisability of the approval or rejection of the measure to be referred, I hereby certify that the summary is a fair and truthful statement of the proposed constitutional amendment,” he said in a letter to the petitioners.

Yesterday, it was reported that Cleveland’s NAACP President George Forbes has joined the Freedom to Marry campaign – the group pushing the marriage initiative in Ohio. Forbes noted that he worked to clarify the religious language exempting churches from having to perform services, and said:


“The time is now to grant two loving people the Freedom to Marry,” he said in a written statement.

“Not since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has there been a more important step to achieving equality for all Americans.”

As for the next steps in the amendment process:


DeWine said in a news release that once the summary language and initial signatures are certified the Ohio Ballot Board must determine if the amendment contains a single or multiple issues. The petitioners must then collect signatures in 44 of Ohio’s 88 counties, equal to 5 percent of the total vote cast in the county for the office of governor at the last gubernatorial election.

Total signatures collected statewide must also equal 10 percent of the vote cast for the office of governor in the last gubernatorial election.

If successful it will add to the growing list of pro-marriage initiatives on statewide ballots in the upcoming election.

[MsTinkerbelly]

There are some really interesting articles over at the Prop 8 Trial Tracker Blog this morning that are way too lengthy to repost and I am link challenged.

One of the arguments to repeal DOMA is focusing not on the 14th amendment, but on the 10th which has to do with the individual States ability to decide what is right for the people of the State; and then the Government saying no, they can't have those rights.

Like I said, it's an interesting read.

[MsTinkerbelly]

California federal judge rules denial of same sex spousal benefits is discriminatory
By Scottie Thomaston

Chief Judge James Ware of the Northern District of California has issued a ruling in a case involving denial of insurance benefit to a law clerk with a same-sex spouse, deciding that the denial of benefits is discriminatory. The court has a policy that guarantees a “discrimination-free workplace.” Because he can’t force the national office to cover spouses,:he ordered the chief clerk of the San Francisco federal court to reimburse Nathan for the past and future costs of buying insurance for his husband.

But the Defense of Marriage Act complicates the issue. Courts have to comply with DOMA, and the administration itself is still enforcing it, until it’s ruled unconstitutional definitively by the Supreme Court. It puts a spotlight on the fact that courts have policies on anti-discrimination in the workplace but then are required by law to discriminate. If there is to be any change in procedure, that decision, Wieking [the clerk ordered by Ware to reimburse funds] said, “will have to be made by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.”

[MsTinkerbelly]

In Minnesota, President Obama’s campaign opposes anti-gay amendment that denies “rights and benefits to same sex couples”
By Scottie Thomaston

The president’s campaign for re-election is coming out in opposition to an attempt to put an anti-gay marriage amendment in Minnesota’s constitution, in what looks to be the administration’s new approach to discussing anti-gay ballot initiatives. Using language much like the statement released by the Obama campaign in opposition to Amendment 1 in North Carolina – and much stronger than previous statements referencing “divisive and discriminatory” laws but not addressing gays and lesbians – the campaign says:


“While the President does not weigh in on every single ballot measure in every state, the record is clear that the President has long opposed divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same sex couples,” said Kristen Sosanie, spokeswoman for the Obama for America – Minnesota campaign. “That’s what the Minnesota ballot initiative would do – it would single out and discriminate against committed gay and lesbian couples – and that’s why the President does not support it.”

As in North Carolina, state law in Minnesota already makes it illegal for gay and lesbian couples who are in love to be able to marry each other. The amendment is another in a long line of superfluous, animus-based attacks on gay and lesbian families meant to reclassify them as less valid than heterosexual relationships.

It’s good to see the administration address the problem with these amendments head on. The problem was never that laws or amendments of this sort are “divisive” or vaguely discriminate – they’re targeted at viciously attacking gay and lesbian families by placing in state constitutions the idea that one form of relationship and one sexual orientation is the only valid kind, and anyone else is inferior.

And the fact that the campaign has to keep noting that they can’t weigh in on every one of these initiatives says a lot in itself. This year the gay and lesbian community is fighting back against efforts to ban legal recognition of our relationships in some states and fighting to affirm them in other states. Even after releasing statements on North Carolina and Minnesota, there are still efforts in Maine and Maryland and Washington and New Jersey underway. When one law passes to affirm gay and lesbian relationships it always follows with immediate efforts to undermine the new law. It’s a concerted, long-term effort to deny gays and lesbians legal and societal acceptance and recognition.

[MsTinkerbelly]

Lambda Legal files marriage equality lawsuit in Nevada
By Jacob Combs

MetroWeekly’s Chris Geidner broke the news this morning that Lambda Legal is filing a new marriage equality lawsuit in Nevada on behalf of eight couples living in the state. Sevcik v. Sandoval marks the first time that Lambda Legal has sought equal marriage rights for gays and lesbians in federal court. Same-sex couples in Nevada can enter into domestic partnerships that provide many of the benefits of marriage without the title, thanks to a law passed by the legislature in 2009 over the veto of then-Governor Jim Gibbons, a Republican.

Lamdba Legal’s suit is no doubt in part inspired by the success of the American Foundation for Equal Rights in the Prop 8 case, Perry v. Brown, which led to historic rulings in favor of marriage equality in California both at the district and appellate court levels. Nevada, like California, falls under the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, so lawyers in the Sevcik case could cite the Prop 8 ruling in the Ninth Circuit as precedent. Additionally, any appeal of the eventual Sevcik ruling would end up at the Ninth Circuit just like Perry did.

Despite these similarities, the legal arguments that Lamdba Legal are pursuing in Sevcik are not quite the same as AFER’s arguments in Perry. The central complaint in the new Nevada case is an equal protection claim that domestic parternships violate the civil rights of gay and lesbian couples. In the Prop 8 case, AFER made the same equal protection claim but also argued for a fundamental right to marriage under the U.S. Constitution. Tara Borelli, a staff attorney with Lamdba, explained to MetroWeekly that the group “certainly believe[s] that the fundamental right to marry includes same-sex couples, but this court doesn’t need to answer that question to rule for the plaintiffs here. We’re convinced that our equal protection claim is so clearly correct that we want to keep the focus on that claim.”

Lambda Legal’s strategy makes the Sevcik case a more conservative one than the Prop 8 case in Perry, and would appear to be a response at least in part to the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in the Prop 8 case, which declined to address the fundamental right question and instead focused more specifically on the circumstances unique to California’s situation.

In explaining Lambda’s complaint, Borelli said, “One of the reasons that we’re suing in the state of Nevada is that this is a particular equal protection problem that this case examines. It’s the kind of problem created where a state excludes same-sex couples from marriage deems them fit for all of the rights and responsibilities of marriage through a lesser, second-class status — in this case, domestic partnership. That shows just how irrational that state’s decision is to shut same-sex couples out of marriage.”

As we wait to hear whether or not the Prop 8 trial will be heard by an 11-member en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit (a process which, unfortunately, may take several more months), it will be exciting to watch another marriage equality case start up at the district court level. Like the several lawsuits against the Defense of Marriage Act, which build upon each other and make a convincing case for that law’s inherent unfairness, the Sevcik suit is a great step forward in winning marriage equality across the country

[Nadeest]

Let's hope that they win, and quickly.

[MsTinkerbelly]

MONTANA: Supreme Court To Hear Partner Benefits Case For Same-Sex Couples

On Friday the Montana Supreme Court will hear the case of six same-sex couples who have sued to have their partners covered by their package of employee benefits.

The Montana Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case of Donaldson & Guggenheim, et al. v. State of Montana on Friday at the University of Montana. The session will start at 9:30 a.m. in the University Theatre with an introduction to the case. Hosted by the UM School of Law, the session is free and open to the public. Jan Donaldson and Mary Anne Guggenheim, along with five other same-sex couples in committed, intimate relationships, are bringing a constitutional challenge against several Montana laws under which same-sex couples cannot obtain the same public and private benefits provided to married opposite-sex couples