Same-Sex Marriage Update

[blackboot]

Senior U.S. District Judge Alan Kay upheld today Hawaii laws banning same-sex marriages-By Ken Kobayashi-The Star-Advertiser-Hawaii-Aug 08, 2012 -

"The judge issued a 117-page decision which throws out the lawsuit filed by a lesbian couple and a gay man who contended the state laws violate the U.S. Constitution due process and equal protection provisions.

Kay ruled in favor of state Health Director Loretta Fuddy and the Hawaii Family Forum, and against the three plaintiffs and Gov. Neil Abercrombie, who contended the law violated the Constitution.

Hawaii’s marriage laws reserving marriage to a man and a woman “are not unconstitutional,” Kay said.

“Nationwide, citizens are engaged in a robust debate over this divisive social issue,” he said.

“If the traditional institution of marriage is to be restructured, as sought by plaintiffs, it should be done by a democratically-elected legislature or the people through a constitutional amendment, not through judicial legislation that would inappropriately preempt democratic deliberation regarding whether or not to authorize same-sex marriage.”

Abercrombie said he “respectfully” disagrees and will join in an appeal of the ruling.

“To refuse individuals the right to marry on the basis of sexual orientation or gender is discrimination in light of our civil unions law,” he said.

“For me this is about fairness and equality.”

John D’Amato, lawyer for the plaintiffs, said he will appeal to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The lawsuit was filed last year on behalf of Natasha Jackson and Janin Kleid, who were denied a marriage license here, and by Gary Bradley, against Abercrombie and Fuddy.

Abercrombie, however, agreed that the law violated the constitutional protections, which resulted Attorney General David Louie’s office providing one team to represent the governor and another representing Fuddy, who defended the marriage laws.

Kay earlier allowed the Hawaii Family Forum, a Christian organization, to intervene in the case and defend the laws.

He heard more than two hours of arguments in the case on July 24.

In his decision, Kay granted requests by Fuddy and the forum to immediately rule in their favor without the case going to trial. He rejected the plaintiffs’ request for a ruling declaring the marriage laws unconstitutional."

[MsTinkerbelly]

BREAKING: Federal judge agrees to hear Nevada marriage equality lawsuit
By Scottie Thomaston

A hearing was held today in Nevada on two motions in Sevcik v. Sandoval, Lambda Legal’s marriage equality lawsuit. The judge has just agreed that the case can proceed:


(Las Vegas, August 10, 2012)—The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada today agreed to hear a lawsuit brought by Lambda Legal on behalf of eight same-sex couples challenging Nevada’s law banning marriage for same-sex couples.

Gov. Brian Sandoval, joined by Carson City Clerk-Recorder Alan Glover, had moved to dismiss the case. Today, the Court agreed to hear that motion at the same time as hearing argument in the parties’ motion for summary judgment.

The two motions discussed in the hearing today were: (1) a motion to intervene by the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage, and (2) a motion to dismiss by Governor Brian Sandoval based on Baker v. Nelson. Prop 8 Trial Tracker reader Greg in SLC attended the hearing, and he noted in a comment that, “Nevada district court right now. Hearing has ended. Judge seems clearly conservative. He was skeptical of entering any expert testimony to support plaintiffs. Mary and Beverly are dear beautiful people, as are the other plaintiffs we met. Next court date on this case set for Monday after thanksgiving in Reno, NV.”

Lambda Legal’s Tara Borelli comments:


“This is an important first step in bringing the freedom to marry to Nevada,” said Lambda Legal Staff Attorney Tara Borelli. “These loving couples, burdened by the stigma of Nevada’s marriage ban, will have the chance to demonstrate in court that their relationships and their families are worthy of equal dignity and respect.”

We will have more as this story develops, and see this post for an introduction to our continuing coverage of this trial.

[MsTinkerbelly]

Democrats approve marriage equality in party platform
By Jacob Combs

This Saturday, the Democratic Party’s full platform committee, a body of around 120 Democrats, approved draft platform language that includes a full-fledged endorsement of marriage equality. The marriage language was accepted without dissent and with little debate, a sign of just how established the position has become in the party since President Obama announced his personal support of marriage equality in May.

Last Thursday, BuzzFeed’s Chris Geidner exclusively reported on the draft platform language established by the Democratic Platform Drafting Committee, which read:

We support the right of all families to have equal respect, responsibilities, and protections under the law. We support marriage equality and support the movement to secure equal treatment under law for same-sex couples. We also support the freedom of churches and religious entities to decide how to administer marriage as a religious sacrament without government interference.

We oppose discriminatory federal and state constitutional amendments and other attempts to deny equal protection of the laws to committed same-sex couples who seek the same respect and responsibilities as other married couples. We support the full repeal of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act and the passage of the Respect for Marriage Act.

Also included in the draft language (and also reported by Geidner) is an endorsement of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would prohibit hiring and firing based on sexual orientation and gender identity, and language regarding bullying and support for LGBT youth. The platform’s immigration reform section was amended as well to include new language which reads: “the administration has said that the word ‘family’ in immigration includes LGBT relationships in order to protect binational families threatened with deportation.”

The approved platform will be sent to delegates for a final vote at the Democratic National Convention, which will take place in Charlotte, North Carolina from September 3-6

[MsTinkerbelly]

South Australia likely to move towards marriage equality along with Tasmania
By Jacob Combs

Earlier this month, I wrote that Tasmania looked likely to become the first Australian state to offer equal marriage rights to gays and lesbians following a speech by Tasmanian Premier Lara Giddings to her party conference vowing to introduce marriage equality legislation in the government’s next term. This week, South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill followed Giddings’s lead, according to The Australian, telling a rally in Adelaide that he will push for marriage equality in his state:

On the steps of Parliament House, Mr Weatherill said he would support a Greens bill and allow Labor MPs a conscience vote.

“People should be entitled to express their own identity in any way they wish and the law shouldn’t become a barrier to prevent them from doing that,” he said.”So, from my perspective, it’s a simple question of the dignity of the individual.

“People should be entitled to express their identity in any way they wish and the law shouldn’t get in the way.”

Also this week, Prime Minister Julia Gillard surprised Australia’s LGBT community by agreeing to deliver the keynote speech at a national meeting of the Australian Christian Lobby, an anti-gay group that has made statements in the past comparing gays and lesbians to pedophiles and Nazis.

Marriage equality at the national level in Australia faces a major hurdle in Prime Minister Gillard, who opposes equal marriage rights even though her majority Labor Party changed its platform last year to include marriage equality. Because of Australia’s parliamentary system, it is incredibly difficult for marriage legislation to pass without Gillard’s stamp of approval, which is why state-level governments are stepping in to be at the forefront of LGBT equality in the country.

[MsTinkerbelly]

Tasmania’s lower house passes marriage equality, New Zealand bill survives first vote
By Jacob Combs

While marriage equality may be on hold at the federal level in Australia right now, the issue is moving apace in a few of the state legislatures. Sky News reports today that the Same-Sex Marriage Bill 2012 “sailed” through Tasmania’s lower house, the Legislative Assembly, paving the way for an upper house vote to allow full marriage equality in the state. From Sky News:

Labor and Greens members and onlookers, including Australian Marriage Equality chief Alex Greenwich, erupted into applause as the bill was passed.

Liberal Leader Will Hodgman was the lone voice against the bill, saying his team was united in believing marriage was between a man and a woman, and a matter for the commonwealth.

For the first time in the state’s history, a bill in the lower house was co-sponsored, by Ms Giddings and Greens Leader Nick McKim.

‘I do not believe that the personal moral disapproval that some individuals may feel towards same-sex marriage is a valid reason to allow discrimination to continue in the 21st century,’ Ms Giddings said.

The bill’s fate in Tasmania’s upper house is uncertain: 13 of the 15 independents in the chamber have not yet taken a position on it. Intriguingly, Tasmania was the last state in Australia to decriminalize homosexuality, which it did in 1997. Legislators in South Australia look likely to make it the next state after Tasmania to make a move towards full marriage equality.

Meanwhile, in New Zealand, legislators passed a marriage equality in the first of three votes by an overwhelming margin of 80 to 40. The bill needed only a simple majority, so the AP notes that the numbers are a good sign of the bill’s future success. A poll of lawmakers just this week found only a slim majority of 61 members said they would vote for the bill. Notably, politicians in New Zealand cited President Obama’s May announcement in support of marriage equality as a reason for moving forward with legislation in their country:

The proposed changes can be directly traced to Obama’s declaration in May in support of gay marriage. That prompted center-right Prime Minister John Key to break his long silence on the issue by saying he was “not personally opposed” to the idea. Then lawmaker Louisa Wall, from the opposition Labour Party, put forward a bill she had previously drafted.

“If I’m really honest, I think the catalyst was around Obama’s announcement, and then obviously our prime minister came out very early in support, as did the leader of my party, David Shearer,” Wall told The Associated Press. “The timing was right.”

[MsTinkerbelly]

BREAKING: Prop 8, DOMA cases have been distributed for September 24 conference at the Supreme Court
By Scottie Thomaston

The Supreme Court docket page for Hollingsworth v. Perry, the Prop 8 case, has a new notice that the case has been “DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 24, 2012.” The September 24 conference is the first time this term that the Justices will meet privately and look at petitions for certiorari to decide which cases they will accept for review. Usually, the Court announces its orders from conferences on the Monday following the conferences, however if they do take up the Prop 8 case on September 24, they could announce as early as the next day whether the full Court will review the case. It takes four votes to grant review.
If the Court denies the petition, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision stands, and Proposition 8 will be invalidated, though the case won’t set a nationwide precedent. If they decide to review the case, they’ll reach a final decision on the merits at the end of June 2013.

The Court could also potentially ‘relist’ the case for a later conference. This would mean instead of making a decision at the September 24 conference, the case would be held and listed for a subsequent one.

Also distributed for the September 24 conference is Windsor v. USA, challenging Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act. Windsor was petitioned to the Supreme Court for review before judgment at the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, where oral arguments are currently scheduled for September 27.

SCOTUSBlog lists the Golinski v. OPM and all of the Massachusetts DOMA petitions as distributed for the September 24 conference, however, the Supreme Court docket page for those cases does not reflect this yet

[iamkeri1]

Ms T
I don't understand why Prop 8 would not have national significance if SCOTUS lets the decision stand. Didn't the challenge to the law come from a 14th amendment perspective? Equal justice under the law and all that? If SCOTUS refuses to overturn the 9th district position, why would that not have national ramifications? Is there something so specific about Prop 8's wording that the decision could only apply to Prop 8 and not to ALL laws banning same sex marrriage?

But aside from that, I'm realy excited about this coming before the supreme court. Since we now know that money equals free speech it seems only reasonable that marriage vows would also equal free speech and that same sex couples be able to have the freedom to speak their vows of marriage to each other. A different way of looking at it, an appeal with back up from two constitutional amendments.

Can you tell I'm anxious for this to happen? Freedom for my peeps!!!!

As always, thanks so much for the update and the good feelings you give me as we take each little teensy step toward equality.

Smooches,
Keri