Nouvelles

Aujourd'hui, dans un moment juridique et culturel à succès pour le pays, la Cour suprême a statué que les couples de même sexe aux États-Unis, peu importe où ils vivent, ont le même droit légal de se marier en tant que couples de sexe différent.

“Today’s ruling brings joy and relief to millions of Americans and their families,” said Mary L. Bonauto, Civil Rights Project Director for GLBTQ Advocates & Defenders, who argued before the Court on behalf of couples from Michigan and Kentucky, challenging their states’ marriage bans.

« Cela valorise les personnes LGBTQ et affirme que les lois ne peuvent tolérer la discrimination ou l'exclusion catégorique des personnes LGBTQ simplement en raison de leur identité. Aucune décision ne peut à elle seule remédier aux préjugés et aux stéréotypes qui ont marqué les bonnes personnes pendant si longtemps, mais cela peut grandement contribuer à aider les gens à découvrir leur humanité commune. »

Citation de décision.

The historic decision caps over forty years of legal challenges, grassroots activism, legislative advocacy, and steady change in public opinion. In 1999, Vermont’s Supreme Court became the first to rule that the marriage exclusion violates the constitution and inaugurated civil unions. In 2004, Massachusetts became the first state in which same-sex couples could legally marry as a result of GLAD Law’s case Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, which Bonauto also argued, kicking off years of increasing marriage equality momentum.

“Arriving at this moment at this time was not inevitable,” said GLAD Law’s Executive Director Janson Wu. “It happened now because people across the country – young and old, LGBT and straight, religious people and business people – stood up for fairness and their families and friends, and worked diligently and strategically to include same-sex couples in marriage. This was a movement marked by hope, tenacity, and smarts.”

Le 28 avril, Bonauto a plaidé la question 1, formulée par la Cour : « Le Quatorzième Amendement oblige-t-il un État à autoriser un mariage entre deux personnes de même sexe ? » Elle a représenté April DeBoer et Jayne Rowse, du Michigan, et a défendu leurs intérêts, ainsi que ceux des couples plaignants du Kentucky, Tim Love et Lawrence Ysunza, et Maurice Blanchard et Dominique James, et de couples engagés et aimants de tout le pays.

Douglas Hallward-Driemeier, associé du cabinet d'avocats Ropes & Gray, a répondu à la question 2, telle que formulée par la Cour : « Le quatorzième amendement oblige-t-il un État à reconnaître un mariage entre deux personnes de même sexe lorsque leur mariage a été légalement autorisé et célébré hors de l'État ? » La question 2 a également été tranchée favorablement aujourd'hui.

Les co-conseils dans les quatre affaires sont Lambda Legal (Ohio), le National Center for Lesbian Rights (Tennessee) et l'American Civil Liberties Union (mariage dans l'Ohio et reconnaissance dans le Kentucky), ainsi que des avocats privés talentueux du Kentucky, du Michigan, de l'Ohio et du Tennessee.

Depuis 2004, après le Massachusetts, 36 autres États, le District de Columbia, le Commonwealth de Porto Rico et le Territoire américain de Guam ont autorisé les couples de même sexe à se marier légalement par le biais de procédures judiciaires, de lois et de référendums. Fait significatif, en 2013, la Cour suprême a invalidé la loi fédérale sur la défense du mariage (DOMA) dans l'affaire États-Unis d'Amérique contre Windsor. Cette décision a ouvert la voie à une vague de décisions positives des tribunaux fédéraux de district et d'appel, affirmant la liberté de mariage pour les couples de même sexe dans tout le pays.

Bonauto is a member of the legal team for the Michigan case, DeBoer v. Snyder, with co-counsel Dana Nessel, Carole Stanyar, Kenneth Mogill, and Robert Sedler. She has also consulted on strategy, organized amici briefs for numerous post-Windsor marriage cases across the country, and with WilmerHale submitted amici briefs for GLAD Law in those cases. GLAD Law’s challenges to DOMA, Gill v. OPM and Pedersen v. OPM, both spearheaded by Bonauto, also produced the first and other early rulings from three federal courts that DOMA was unconstitutional, setting the stage for Windsor.

Les États-Unis deviennent le 20e pays au monde où les couples de même sexe peuvent légalement se marier à l’échelle nationale.

Nouvelles

Maison » National/Fédéral » Page 49

This is a decision of enormous magnitude, one that brings great joy to millions of families – gay and straight – across this country.

So, today as we celebrate what is a landmark ruling, let us also rededicate ourselves to ensuring that all of us – all Americans — no matter who they are or where they live – have the same opportunities and freedom to live equally, safely and securely. We owe that Constitutional promise not only to one another, but to future generations as well.

With this ruling anyone who’s LGBT now knows that tomorrow – or some day, years from now – they, too, can marry the person they most love in the world. And families raising children are now equally worthy of marriage with all the respect, responsibility, and support that marriage provides.

This ruling lifts up all of us – our entire nation – in standing by the principle that we do not tolerate laws that discriminate against people because of who they are. The Constitutional promises of liberty, equality and justice for all took a giant step forward today.

Still, as tragedy after tragedy reminds us – and right now, thousands of good people are joined together in mourning in Charleston – people are still targeted for discrimination and even unspeakable violence because of who they are.

So, today as we celebrate what is a landmark ruling, let us also rededicate ourselves to ensuring that all of us – all Americans — no matter who they are or where they live – have the same opportunities and freedom to live equally, safely and securely. We owe that Constitutional promise not only to one another, but to future generations as well.

Nouvelles

Maison » National/Fédéral » Page 49

Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), Justice in Aging et Foley Hoag LLP a déposé une requête en injonction préliminaire contre la Social Security Administration (SSA) hier (17 juin). Alors que le pays attend une décision historique de la Cour suprême Obergefell c. Hodges Alors que le projet de loi pourrait instaurer l'égalité du mariage dans tous les États, les couples de même sexe déjà mariés et vivant dans la pauvreté ont été confrontés à d'extrêmes difficultés financières en raison des mesures discriminatoires de la Sécurité sociale. Les partis cherchent à empêcher définitivement la SSA de retenir ou de poursuivre les fonds des bénéficiaires du revenu de sécurité supplémentaire (SSI) dont l'agence n'a pas reconnu les mariages entre personnes de même sexe après l'abandon de la loi sur la défense du mariage (DOMA).

Le dépôt est la prochaine étape Held c. Colvin, Un recours collectif a été intenté le 10 mars 2015. Bien après juin 2013, la SSA n'a pas reconnu les mariages de couples de même sexe, même lorsque les bénéficiaires de la SSI avaient informé la SSA de leur mariage. La SSA a continué à verser des prestations comme si les personnes mariées étaient célibataires. Cela a entraîné des versements plus élevés que ceux qu'elles auraient perçus si leur mariage avait été pris en compte. La SSA a exigé le remboursement des prestations versées par les bénéficiaires en raison de cette discrimination.

Après le dépôt de DétenuLa SSA a émis une directive d'urgence demandant aux employés de terrain de la SSI de mettre un terme à cette pratique à l'avenir, mais la solution est temporaire.

« La directive de l'agence était bienvenue, mais insuffisante », a déclaré Gerald McIntyre, avocat directeur pour la justice pour les personnes âgées. « Bien que la SSA semble reconnaître que ses actions ont été préjudiciables, elle continue de faire peser la menace de futurs avis de trop-perçu sur l'ensemble d'un groupe. »

GLAD, Justice in Aging et Foley Hoag LLP représentent Kelley Richardson-Wright, d'Athol, Massachusetts, mariée à Kena Richardson-Wright, et Hugh Held, de Los Angeles, marié à Orion Masters. Mme Richardson-Wright et M. Held ont tous deux subi un préjudice financier considérable en raison de la discrimination exercée par la SSA.

« Cette mesure d'urgence ne fait rien pour aider les personnes ayant déjà reçu un avis de trop-perçu, ni celles dont la SSA retient l'argent sur des chèques déjà modestes », a déclaré Vickie Henry, avocate principale du cabinet GLAD. « Tant que la Sécurité sociale n'annule pas les trop-perçus ou que les tribunaux n'en ordonnent pas la suppression, cette mesure ne fait que retarder la date de calcul et, au contraire, aggraver les préjudices et l'incertitude. »

Par ailleurs, mardi 16 juin, les plaignants ont également déposé une requête en certification de recours collectif. Selon les statistiques les plus récentes de la SSA, 8,3 millions de personnes percevaient des prestations SSI en avril 2015. Étant donné qu'environ 3,51 millions de personnes sont lesbiennes, gays ou bisexuelles, et que le taux de pauvreté dans cette communauté est supérieur à la moyenne, il est probable qu'il y ait jusqu'à mille membres présumés du groupe.

« Étant donné la nature de cette classe – des personnes âgées ou handicapées vivant en dessous du seuil de pauvreté et dispersées à travers le pays – la probabilité qu’elles aient les moyens d’intenter des poursuites individuelles est faible », a déclaré McIntyre.

Les requêtes, qui ont été déposées auprès du tribunal de district américain du district central de Californie à Los Angeles, ainsi que la plainte, peuvent être lues à l'adresse suivante : www.gladlaw.org /SSI.

Outre les avocats Henry et McIntyre, les plaignants sont représentés par Mary L. Bonauto du cabinet GLAD, Denny Chan et Anna Rich du cabinet Justice in Aging, ainsi que Claire Laporte, Marco Quina, Catherine Deneke et Stephen T. Bychowski du cabinet Foley Hoag, LLP. Foley Hoag a précédemment collaboré avec GLAD pour contester la loi sur la défense du mariage.

Par le biais de litiges stratégiques, de défense des politiques publiques et d'éducation, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders travaille en Nouvelle-Angleterre et à l'échelle nationale pour créer une société juste et exempte de discrimination fondée sur l'identité et l'expression de genre, le statut VIH et l'orientation sexuelle.

Pour plus d'informations, visitez www.gladlaw.org.

Justice in Aging est une organisation nationale de défense juridique à but non lucratif qui lutte contre la pauvreté des personnes âgées par le biais du droit. Anciennement le National Senior Citizens Law Center, nous œuvrons depuis 1972 pour l'accès à des soins de santé abordables et la sécurité économique des personnes âgées aux ressources limitées, en nous concentrant particulièrement sur les populations traditionnellement privées de protection juridique, comme les femmes, les personnes de couleur, les personnes LGBTQ+ et les personnes ayant une maîtrise limitée de l'anglais. Grâce à des actions de plaidoyer ciblées, des actions en justice, ainsi que des formations et des ressources que nous proposons aux défenseurs locaux, nous garantissons l'accès aux programmes de protection sociale dont dépendent les personnes âgées démunies, notamment Medicare, Medicaid, la Sécurité sociale et le revenu de sécurité supplémentaire (SSI).

Pour plus d'informations, visitez www.justiceinaging.org.

King v. Burwell

Maison » National/Fédéral » Page 49

Victory! On June 25, 2015 the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling upholding subsidies under federal exchanges. En savoir plus

GLAD signed on to an amicus brief, principally authored by Lambda Legal, submitted in support of the respondents in King v. Burwell, heard by the United States Supreme Court in 2015 challenging the IRS regulation that makes federal tax subsidies for health insurance available to low-income individuals in all 50 states through the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

The brief argued that interpreting the ACA in the manner proposed by the petitioners would lead to a catastrophic public health result, especially in the context of HIV:

“It is well-known that access to healthcare dramatically improves the lives of individuals living with HIV. But widespread access to insurance can also lead to a precipitous decline in new infections, especially in marginalized communities. To deny these opportunities to communities most affected by the HIV epidemic would not only flout Congressional intent, but also inflict grievous and unjustifiable injury on vulnerable communities of color, which are heavily overrepresented in many states that have been resistant to implementation of the ACA.”

Blog

Maison » National/Fédéral » Page 49

Our experience in Washington, D.C. at the Supreme Court

As we eagerly await the Supreme Court’s decision, it is important that we collectively acknowledge that marriage is by no means a final step in the long road towards equality, empowerment, and justice for the LGBT community.

It has been an incredible experience to be able to work for GLAD, and with Mary Bonauto, during the exciting and busy time leading up to last week’s Supreme Court case, in which Mary expertly and brilliantly argued for marriage equality. And it was particularly meaningful for us to be in D.C. on the day of the argument. As young people, it is extraordinary that we have had the opportunity to jump whole-heartedly into this decades-long movement.

GLAD Legal Assistants Michelle Wiener, Brian Yeh, and Annie Sloan outside of the Supreme Court

As GLAD Legal Assistants, we had been eagerly learning about and preparing for the case for the past few months, and needless to say, we were full of excitement and anticipation that the day had finally come. When we arrived at the Supreme Court at 8:00 a.m., two hours before the argument started, there was already a big crowd. This, of course, was no surprise to us; people had been camped out waiting in line to get into the argument for days! We scoped out the crowd—mostly marriage equality supporters, though, also as expected, there were a fair amount of opponents as well—and spent a couple of hours handing out GLAD posters and soaking in the positive energy and optimism.

Mary has always emphasized that it is the real people behind the cases and laws that motivate and sustain her- the real people who love one another and who just want the laws of this nation to equally recognize and support them and their families. Likewise, one of our favorite parts of the day was meeting and talking with real people impacted by marriage laws who had travelled from all over the country to be there in support of the freedom to marry. We met a plaintiff couple, for example, who had actually been represented by GLAD in the 2008 case that led to marriage equality in Connecticut.

We also got to know a plaintiff couple from a Nebraska case, with whom we enjoyed waiting in line to get into the Court. Alongside our new friends, we did manage to make it into the Court for the very end of the argument, making the day that much more special for each of us. As we walked down the Supreme Court steps after the argument ended, it truly felt like we were living history. And as all of the plaintiff couples exited the Court, the crowds enthusiastically cheered for them and sought high-fives and hugs from them. Ultimately, we were cheering for their love and the equal protection under law that our Constitution ensures them.

GLAD Legal Assistants Michelle Wiener and Brian Yeh with Nebraska plaintiffs

I am in my early twenties and it is unlikely that marriage is in my near future. But growing up, it was inconceivable that gay people would even be able to marry. The discriminatory exclusion makes an impact on young people everywhere. An amicus brief submitted to the Court by Family Equality Council highlights this point by describing how limiting marriage to heterosexual couples undermines the self-worth of LGBT youth. Denying same-sex couples the right to marry stamps those relationships – and the individuals in those relationships – as less than, and I undoubtedly felt that growing up. Being at the Supreme Court last Tuesday was the opposite experience. Surrounded by decades of activists, plaintiffs, and supporters young and old, I felt supported and loved.

But as we eagerly await the Supreme Court’s decision, it is important that we collectively acknowledge that marriage is by no means a final step in the long road towards equality, empowerment, and justice for the LGBT community. In many states across the country, employment discrimination is legal on the basis of sexual orientation and/or gender identity. Here in Massachusetts, there are no public accommodation protections for transgender people. There are high rates of violence against transgender people, particularly transgender women of color. School curriculums are not LGBT inclusive. LGBT students are disproportionately punished in schools. The list goes on. And it goes on. But at GLAD, and as young people, we hope to use the momentum and national spotlight of marriage equality to fervently pursue equal justice under law for everyone.

Nouvelles

Maison » National/Fédéral » Page 49

The U.S. Supreme Court declined today to hear an appeal on behalf of Michelle Kosilek, a transgender woman who has been denied essential health care while serving a prison sentence in the custody of the Massachusetts Department of Correction (DOC). The denial marks the end of the road legally in Kosilek’s lengthy struggle to receive appropriate care while in prison.

“This is a terrible and inhumane result for Michelle,” said Jennifer Levi, director of the Transgender Rights Project for GLAD. “But it is just a matter of time before some prison somewhere is required to provide essential surgery, meeting the minimal Constitutional obligations of adequate medical care for transgender people in prison.”

GLAD, attorney Joseph L. Sulman, and Goodwin Procter LLP filed a petition for certiorari in March after an en banc decision by the First Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse two lower court decisions in Kosilek’s favor. The petition asserted that the First Circuit Court of Appeals overstepped its role with its December 2014 en banc ruling that retried the facts of a 2012 trial, and applied the wrong standard of legal review. The petition can be read here. Goodwin Procter attorneys working on the case Abigail K. Hemani, Michele E. Connolly, James P. Devendorf, Jaime A. Santos, and Christine Dieter.

“The treatment of Michelle has been cruel and unusual, according to two lengthy, thoughtful, and closely reasoned judgements,” said Sulman. “The DOC’s behavior has been abominable as they have repeatedly defied their own experts in their eagerness to deny her desperately needed medical attention.”

The cert denial is the culmination of over 20 years of litigation on whether DOC officials have violated Kosilek’s 8^ème Amendment rights by failing to provide adequate care for her severe gender identity disorder (GID), a condition that all parties agree is a “serious medical need.” As a result of being denied treatment, Kosilek has self-mutilated and has attempted suicide twice.

The district court decision, written by Judge Mark L. Wolf, found that the DOC engaged in a pattern of “pretense, pretext, and prevarication” to deny her treatment. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts appealed, and on January 17, 2014, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals upheld Judge Wolf. The Commonwealth requested and was granted a rehearing of the appeal before the full bench, which then overturned Judge Wolf on December 16, 2014 by a vote of 3-2.

Nouvelles

Maison » National/Fédéral » Page 49

It’s time to end the legal bans that single out same-sex couples for disrespect,
and instead allow them to make the unique promise of marriage to one another
and provide greater protection and security for their families.
– Mary Bonauto

What is at stake?

The case marks a significant legal and cultural moment for the country, capping nearly twenty-five years of legal challenges, grassroots activism, legislative advocacy, and steady change in public opinion in favor of the freedom to marry for same-sex couples.

Thirty-seven states and the District of Columbia currently allow loving, committed same-sex couples to marry. The Supreme Court has been asked in this case to consider the constitutionality of laws in four states that bar same-sex couples from marrying, or prevent a marriage they lawfully entered into in another state from being recognized at home.

The Court has requested to hear arguments about each of these questions – the issuing of marriage licenses and the recognition of marriages – together on April 28.

The petitioners argue that the equal protection and liberty guarantees of the 14th Amendment make such marriage bans unconstitutional on both questions. If the Court agrees, it would mean no state would be permitted to refuse to recognize marriages or to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

In short, this case could resolve the question of marriage equality across the country once and for all.

What are the cases being argued?

The Court is hearing consolidated cases from four states, under the official name Obergefell c. Hodges:

Kentucky: Bourke v. Beshear et Love v. Beshear

Michigan: DeBoer c. Snyder

Ohio: Obergefell c. Hodges et Henry v. Hodges

Tennessee: Tanco v. Haslam

Who are the petitioners?

The petitioners are same-sex couples – many of whom are raising children – and widowers, who are seeking to have their relationships and families protected and respected by being able to legally marry or have their existing marriages recognized in the state they call home.

Bourke v. Beshear/Love v. Beshear (Kentucky)

Gregory Bourke and Michael Deleon, Paul Campion and Randy Johnson, Kim Franklin and Tammy Boyd, Jimmy Meade and Luke Barlowe, Timothy Love and Lawrence Ysunza, and Dominique James and Rev. Maurice “Bojangles” Blanchard

Deboer v.Snyder (Michigan)

April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse

Obergefell c. Hodges (Ohio)

Jim Obergefell, David Michener and Robert Grunn

Henry v. Hodges (Ohio)

Brittani Henry and LB Rogers, Kelly Noe and Kelly McCracken, Nicole and Pam Yorksmith, and Joseph Vitale and Robert Talmas

Tanco v. Haslam (Tennessee)

Dr. Valeria Tanco and Dr. Sophy Jesty, Ijpe DeKoe and Thom Kostura, and Matthew Mansell and Johno Espejo

When is the argument?

April 28, 2015. The argument begins at 10 a.m. and is scheduled to last two and a half hours.

What are the two questions?

Question 1: Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?

Question 2: Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

Who is arguing?

Question 1:

Mary Bonauto, Civil Rights Project Director at Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), will argue on behalf of same-sex couples seeking the freedom to marry; she has been allotted 30 minutes.

Donald Verilli Jr., U.S. Solicitor General, will also have 15 minutes to support the argument for a constitutional right to marry for same-sex couples.

John Bursch, Michigan Special Assistant Attorney General, will defend the state bans on marriage for same-sex couples; he has been allotted 45 minutes.

Mary Bonauto will also have a short amount of time at the end of the argument for rebuttal or clarification.

Question 2:

Douglas Hallward-Driemeier, who leads the Appellate and Supreme Court Practice at Ropes & Gray, will argue that a state must recognize marriages of same-sex couples entered into outside of the state; he has been allotted 30 minutes.

Joe Whalen, Associate Solicitor General in the Tennessee Attorney General’s Office, will defend state bans on recognition of marriages legally entered into by same-sex couples in other jurisdictions.

Douglas Hallward-Driemeier will also have a short amount of time at the end of the argument for rebuttal or clarification.

Will the Argument be Streamed or Televised?

The argument will not be streamed or televised. The Court will post audio and a transcript of the argument later that afternoon. Sign up for GLAD email alerts to get the link once it’s posted:

When can we expect a decision?

The decision is expected at the very end of the Court’s session, likely the end of June.

Nouvelles

Maison » National/Fédéral » Page 49

The United States Supreme Court will hear arguments today in the four marriage equality cases collectively known as Obergefell c. Hodges.

At 10 a.m. Mary L. Bonauto, Civil Rights Project Director for Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, will address Question 1, as formulated by the Court, “Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?” She is representing April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse of Michigan, as well as Kentucky couples Tim Love and Lawrence Ysunza, and Maurice Blanchard and Dominique James.

Douglas Hallward-Driemeier, partner in the law firm Ropes & Gray, will address Question 2, as formulated by the Court, “Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?”

Co-counsel on the four cases are Lambda Legal, National Center for Lesbian Rights, and the American Civil Liberties Union, as well as many private attorneys.

The oral arguments mark a significant legal and cultural moment for the country, capping nearly twenty-five years of legal challenges, grassroots activism, legislative advocacy, and steady change in public opinion in favor of the freedom to marry for same-sex couples. In 2004, Massachusetts became the first state in which same-sex couples could legally marry as a result of GLAD’s case Goodridge c. Ministère de la Santé publique, which Bonauto argued and won.

Since 2004, 36 more states and the District of Columbia have enabled same-sex couples to legally marry through court cases, legislation, and ballot questions. Significantly, in 2013, the Supreme Court struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in the case Windsor v. United States of America. That decision opened the door to a wave of successful federal district and appellate court decisions affirming the freedom to marry for same-sex couples across the nation.

Bonauto is a member of the legal team for the Michigan case, DeBoer c. Snyder, with co-counsel Dana Nessel, Carole Stanyar, Kenneth Mogill, and Robert Sedler. She has also helped to organize amicus briefs for numerous marriage cases across the country. GLAD’s challenges to DOMA, Gill c. OPM et Pederson v. OPM, both spearheaded by Bonauto, also produced the first rulings from a federal court that DOMA was unconstitutional, setting the stage for Windsor.

A decision in Obergefell is expected near the end of June.

More information can be found at www.gladlaw.org/marriage.

Nouvelles

Maison » National/Fédéral » Page 49

CONTACT:
Crystal Cooper, ACLU National, 212-519-7894, ccooper@aclu.org
Carisa Cunningham, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, 617-426-1350, ccunningham@glad.org
Lisa Hardaway, Lambda Legal 212-809-8585 ext. 266, lhardaway@lambdalegal.org
Erik Olvera, NCLR, 415-365-1324, eolvera@nclrights.org

WASHINGTON – Counsel for plaintiffs from the Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee marriage lawsuits today announced that Mary L. Bonauto and Doug Hallward-Driemeier will represent the plaintiffs at the cases’ scheduled April 28 arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Bonauto will present arguments for question 1: “Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?,” and Hallward-Driemeier for question 2: “Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?.”

The American Civil Liberties Union, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, Lambda Legal and the National Center for Lesbian Rights and private counsel partners representing couples and surviving spouses from Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee issued the following statement:

“We are thrilled to announce that Mary and Doug will make the case for our clients and for the millions of Americans whose fundamental rights hang in the balance. Mary Bonauto crafted and argued the case that made Massachusetts the first state with full marriage equality and she won the first rulings in federal court that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional. She helped launch the marriage movement and will now help bring it across the finish line. Doug Hallward-Driemeier brings an impressive Supreme Court litigation background to the team, having argued before the Court fourteen times and filed more than 150 briefs in the Court, serving as Assistant to the Solicitor General in the U.S. Department of Justice, and providing pro bono representation in a number of other LGBT rights cases. As the legal team and advocates who have brought our community and our nation to this historic moment, we are proud to stand behind Mary and Doug, with all of our clients and all of the same-sex couples in this country who seek the freedom to marry and to have their marriages respected. ”

“I’m humbled to be standing up for the petitioners from Kentucky and Michigan who seek the freedom to marry, along with the Michigan team of Carole Stanyar, Dana Nessel, Ken Mogill, and Robert Sedler, and with support from the other legal teams in Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee,” said Mary L. Bonauto, Civil Rights Project Director at Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders. “The road that we’ve all travelled to get here has been built by so many people who believe that marriage is a fundamental right for all people. Same-sex couples should not be excluded from the joy, the security, and the full citizenship signified by that institution. I believe the Court will give us a fair hearing, and I look forward to the day when all LGBT Americans will be able to marry the person they love.”

Said Doug Hallward-Driemeier: “It is an incredible honor to represent these devoted couples, who have already been lawfully married and established new families, in arguing to vindicate their right to have the states respect their marriages. The plaintiffs in these cases reflect the broad array of couples, from those together for three decades to those just starting young families, and the many instances in which married couples must cross state lines to work for a new employer, give birth at the nearest hospital, or seek out new opportunities. These couples deserve the same respect and stability that states grant other married couples and their families throughout every phase of life.”
The petitioner couples’ letter to the Court identifying the advocates for the April 28 argument can be found here.

More information about Bourke v. Beshear and Love v. Beshear, on the ACLU’s case page here: https://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights/bourke-v-beshear-freedom-marry-kentucky
More information about Deboer v.Snyder on GLAD’s case page here: www.gladlaw.org/marriage ou http://www.nationalmarriagechallenge.com/

More information about Henry v. Hodges on Lambda Legal’s case page here: http://www.lambdalegal.org/in-court/cases/henry-v-himes
More information about Obergefell v. Hodges on ACLU’s case page here: https://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights/obergefell-et-al-v-himes-freedom-marry-ohio
More information about Tanco v. Haslam, on NCLR’s case page here: http://www.nclrights.org/cases-and-policy/cases-and-advocacy/tanco_v_haslam/

Nouvelles

Maison » National/Fédéral » Page 49