Nouvelles

Mary L. Bonauto, the Civil Rights Project Director for Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, will argue before the U.S. Supreme Court on April 28, 2015, behalf of same-sex couples who are currently being excluded from marriage. She will stand on behalf of the Michigan case DeBoer c. Snyder and the Kentucky case Love v. Beshear.

Bonauto issued the following statement:

“I’m humbled to be standing up for the petitioners from Kentucky and Michigan who seek the freedom to marry, along with attorneys Carole Stanyar, Dana Nessel, Ken Mogill, and Robert Sedler, and with support from the other legal teams in OH and TN. 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. 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.”

Janson Wu, GLAD’s executive director, said, “Our community is extremely fortunate to have Mary as our advocate. To say she has deep knowledge of the issues is an understatement; it is equally an understatement to say she has a sharp legal mind, a big heart, and a generous spirit.”

Bonauto became a member of the legal team for the Michigan case DeBoer c. Snyder at the invitation of co-counsel Nessel, Stanyar, Mogill, and Sedler, and has helped to organize amicus briefs for the marriage cases. Bonauto argued GLAD’s case Goodridge c. DPH, which made Massachusetts the first state in which same-sex couples could marry in 2004. GLAD’s Defense of Marriage Act challenges Gill c. OPMet Pedersen c. OPM, spearheaded by Bonauto, also produced the first rulings from a federal court that DOMA was unconstitutional. She was also part of the legal team on Windsor v. U.S., resulting in the striking down of DOMA.

Also co-counsel on the four cases are Lambda Legal, National Center for Lesbian Rights, and the American Civil Liberties Union. And on April 28, attorney Douglas Hallward-Driemeier, on behalf of petitioners from Ohio and Tennessee, will present arguments for the question: “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?”

More information on the DeBoer case can be found at www.gladlaw.org/marriage ou www.nationalmarriagechallenge.com.

Nouvelles

Maison » National/Fédéral » Page 50

(Washington D.C. March 17, 2015) — Today counsel representing all plaintiffs from the Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee marriage lawsuits submitted a proposal to the U.S. Supreme Court requesting that argument time be divided equally among the cases from the four states.

The Court previously allocated 45 minutes each to petitioners and respondents to Question 1 (“Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?”) and 30 minutes each to petitioners and respondents to 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 proposal requests that two segments of 15 minutes each be allotted on Question 1 to plaintiffs’ counsel in the Kentucky and Michigan cases (in addition to the 15 minutes that the U.S. Solicitor General has requested on that question) and that two segments of 15 minutes each be allotted on Question 2 to plaintiffs’ counsel in the Ohio and Tennessee cases.

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

“We have an incredible wealth of talent available to argue on behalf of same-sex couples’ freedom to marry and right to have their marriages recognized in all fifty states. Each of the attorneys who argue will stand on the shoulders of thousands in the movement who worked for decades for this day to arrive and will have the best minds helping them prepare. We look forward to this historic opportunity for advocates from each case to present our compelling arguments to the Court and to share this defining moment with our entire community and the nation.”

Read more about Bourke v. Beshear et Love v. Beshear, on the ACLU’s case page here: www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights/bourke-v-beshear-freedom-marry-kentucky

Read more about Deboer v.Snyder on GLAD’s case page here: www.gladlaw.org/work/cases/deboer-v.-snyder and National Marriage Challenge’s website here: www.nationalmarriagechallenge.com

Read more about Henry v. Hodges on Lambda Legal’s case page here: www.lambdalegal.org/in-court/cases/henry-v-himes

Read more about Obergefell c. Hodges on ACLU’s case page here: www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights/obergefell-et-al-v-himes-freedom-marry-ohio

Read more about Tanco v. Haslam, on NCLR’s case page here: www.nclrights.org/cases-and-policy/cases-and-advocacy/tanco_v_haslam/

Contact:

Steve Smith, ACLU National, 212-549-2666; media@aclu.org

Carisa Cunningham, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, 617-426-1350, ccunningham@glad.org

Dana Nessel, 313-556-2300, Dana@NesselandKesselLaw.com

Lisa Hardaway, Lambda Legal 212-809-8585 x 266; lhardaway@lambdalegal.org

Erik Olvera, NCLR, 415-365-1324, EOlvera@NCLRights.org

Nouvelles

Maison » National/Fédéral » Page 50

Petition Asserts First Circuit Disregarded its Proper Role

Lawyers today petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court 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 DOC has denied Kosilek gender affirming surgery for decades, despite the fact that experts have deemed it medically necessary, and despite the fact the two courts have affirmed that denial constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, which is prohibited by the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The petition for certiorari asserts that the First Circuit Court of Appeals overstepped its role with a December 2014 en banc ruling that, in vacating an earlier panel decision favorable to Kosilek, retried the facts of a 2012 trial, and applied the wrong standard of legal review. The petition, which can be read here, was filed on Kosilek’s behalf by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), attorney Joseph L. Sulman, and Goodwin Procter LLP.

“The Court of Appeals looked at an incredibly thoughtful decision, written with extreme care and attention to the facts by District Court Judge Mark Wolf after a 28-day trial,” said Levi. “Instead of looking for errors of law, as it is supposed to do, the Court not only re-tried the case, it applied a standard of review no other court has ever applied to get the outcome it wanted.”

“This is a quintessentially fact-intensive case,” said Sulman. “The First Circuit found no legal error or clear factual error in Judge Wolf’s decision, which is what it must do to overturn his decision. The way the Court ran roughshod over the most basic of legal principles erodes the credibility of the judiciary. It should be alarming to every single lawyer, litigant, and defendant in a civil case.”

The petition culminates over 20 years of litigation on whether DOC officials have violated Kosilek’s 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.

There have been two decisions issued by Judge Wolf. He 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’s decision. The Commonwealth requested and was granted a rehearing of the appeal before the full bench, which overturned Judge Wolf on December 16, 2014 by a vote of 3-2.

In addition to Sulman and Levi, Kosilek is represented by Abigail K. Hemani, Michele E. Connolly, James P. Devendorf, Jaime A. Santos, and Christine Dieter of Goodwin Procter LLP.

Nouvelles

Maison » National/Fédéral » Page 50

SSA is Demanding Refunds of Benefits Paid as Result of Agency’s Discrimination

GLAD, Justice in Aging, and Foley Hoag LLP today filed a class action lawsuit, Held c. Colvin, against the Social Security Administration (SSA) on behalf of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) recipients married to someone of the same sex in or before June 2013. The suit charges that SSA discriminated against these individuals for months, and in some cases more than a year, after that discrimination was held unlawful by the Supreme Court when it struck down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in June 2013.

Lire la plainte.

Well after DOMA was struck down, SSA did not recognize the marriages of same-sex couples, even in cases where SSI recipients informed SSA that they were married. Benefits for unmarried individuals are higher than for married individuals, but SSA continued to issue benefits as if the married individuals were single.

Now, the agency is demanding that recipients refund the benefits they were paid as a result of the discrimination.

“Unfortunately for married same-sex couples in marriage recognition states, SSA was completely unprepared to implement policies required of it by law after DOMA was struck down,” says Gerald McIntyre, Directing Attorney for Justice in Aging. “The victims of that discrimination should not be the ones to pay for the agency’s mistake.”

GLAD, Justice in Aging and Foley Hoag LLP are representing Kelley Richardson-Wright of Athol, Massachusetts, who is married to Kena Richardson-Wright; and Hugh Held of Los Angeles, who is married to Orion Masters.

En savoir plus sur les plaignants.

“Basically Social Security kept making SSI payments after the fall of DOMA without considering the marriages of same sex couples, even when a recipient notified SSI of the marriage,” says Vickie Henry, Senior Staff Attorney for GLAD. “Now, 18 months later, SSA, to remedy its own unconstitutional conduct, is going after people who are both poor and aged or disabled and demanding thousands of dollars from them. That’s not fair, and it’s not right.”

Compte tenu des 8,3 millions de personnes recevant des prestations SSI en décembre 2014, du fait que 5-7% de la population est lesbienne, gay ou bisexuelle, de l'incidence globale de la pauvreté dans cette population et des dizaines de milliers de mariages de couples du même sexe avant Windsor, il y a probablement des centaines de personnes dans cette classe. Étant donné que la SSA procède à des réévaluations d’éligibilité sur une base continue, le nombre de membres putatifs de la classe augmentera au fil du temps.

Held c. Colvin

Maison » National/Fédéral » Page 50

Victoire ! En partie grâce à cette action en justice, la Social Security Administration (SSA) a a publié une nouvelle politique et Cela représente une victoire significative pour les personnes recevant des prestations de sécurité sociale supplémentaire (SSI) qui sont mariées à une personne du même sexe mais dont les mariages n'ont pas été reconnus par la SSA alors qu'ils auraient dû l'être. En savoir plus.

Arrière-plan:

GLAD, Justice in Aging et Foley Hoag LLP ont a déposé un recours collectif a déposé une action collective contre la Social Security Administration (SSA) au nom des bénéficiaires du Supplemental Security Income (SSI) mariés à une personne du même sexe en juin 2013 ou avant. La plainte accuse la SSA d'avoir discriminé ces personnes pendant des mois, et dans certains cas plus d'un an, après que cette discrimination ait été jugée illégale par la Cour suprême lorsqu'elle a invalidé la loi sur la défense du mariage (DOMA) en juin 2013.

Bien après l'abolition de la loi DOMA, la SSA n'a pas reconnu les mariages de couples de même sexe, même lorsque les bénéficiaires de la SSI l'avaient informée de leur mariage. Les prestations pour les personnes non mariées sont plus élevées que pour les personnes mariées, mais la SSA a continué à verser des prestations comme si les personnes mariées étaient célibataires. Et maintenant, l'agence exige que les bénéficiaires remboursent les prestations qui leur ont été versées suite à cette discrimination.

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.

Kelley (47 ans) et Kena (45 ans) sont ensemble depuis dix ans et mariées depuis sept ans. Kelley était massothérapeute jusqu'à ce que de multiples problèmes de santé la forcent à se mettre en invalidité et à percevoir la SSI. Lors de sa demande d'invalidité, elle a informé la Sécurité sociale de son mariage. Kena travaille comme coiffeuse au salaire minimum. Pour recouvrer les 4 000 $ que la SSA leur doit, la Sécurité sociale a commencé à retenir de l'argent sur son chèque mensuel, ce qui a entraîné la saisie de la voiture du couple et le risque de perdre son logement. Kelley a été hospitalisée pour une maladie liée au stress en raison de cette situation financière difficile.

Hugh Held (55 ans) et Orion Masters (56 ans) vivent à Los Angeles, en Californie. Ils sont ensemble depuis 1993 et mariés depuis 2008. M. Held perçoit le SSI en raison de son invalidité depuis 2008. À trois reprises, il a déclaré aux employés de son bureau local de la SSA qu'il était marié et a demandé quel impact l'affaire Windsor pourrait avoir sur ses prestations. On lui a d'abord répondu que cela n'aurait aucune incidence sur ses prestations, et la dernière fois, on lui a dit que cela aurait probablement un impact sur ses prestations, mais on ne savait pas comment. Puis, soudainement, en juin 2014, un an après l'annulation de la loi DOMA, ses prestations mensuelles ont été réduites de $877,40 à $308,10, sans aucune explication. Il a ensuite reçu une facture pour un trop-perçu de $6 205. Ce n'est que trois mois plus tard (en septembre 2014) qu'il a reçu une explication concernant ces changements.

En savoir plus sur les plaignants

Les plaignants sont représentés par Vickie L. Henry et Mary L. Bonauto de GLAD, Gerald McIntyre, Denny Chan et Anna Rich de Justice in Aging, et Claire Laporte, Marco Quina, Catherine Deneke et Stephen T. Bychowski du cabinet d'avocats Foley Hoag, LLP.

Fiche d'information sur l'affaire Held c. Colvin

Nouvelles

Maison » National/Fédéral » Page 50

An open letter from LGBTQ organizations in the United States regarding the epidemic violence that LGBTQ people, particularly transgender women of color, have experienced in 2015.

We appear to be in a moment of crisis in LGBTQ communities. Unfortunately, this is not new: our movement was born out of a response to violence and police raids, and trans women of color were at the forefront of this resistance. Violence remains a life or death issue for far too many in our communities.

The National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs (NCAVP) has responded to 14 LGBTQ homicides in 2015. To the best of NCAVP’s knowledge, eight of the incidents have been intimate partner, family or stalking violence-related and six have been hate or police violence-related. One homicide appears to be either hook-up violence or intimate partner violence but the facts of the case are still not clear.

Seven of these were homicides of transgender women of color:

Kentucky: Papi Edwards, a transgender woman of color, who was shot on January 9^ème in an apparent hate violence homicide.
Virginia: Lamia Beard was found shot to death on January 17^ème in an apparent hate violence homicide.
Texas: Ty Underwood was found shot to death early Monday morning on January 26^ème in an apparent hate violence homicide.

California: Yazmin Vash Payne was discovered fatally stabbed to death on Saturday, January 31^St, in an apparent intimate partner violence homicide; Payne’s boyfriend, Ezekiel Dear, has been arrested and booked for suspicion of murder in connection with her death.
California: Taja Gabrielle de Jesus was discovered stabbed to death on a stairwell in San Francisco’s Bayview District on Sunday, February 1^St in an apparent hate violence homicide.
Louisiana: Penny Proud was found fatally shot on February 10^ème in an apparent hate violence homicide.
Florida: Kristina Gomez Reinwald was found unresponsive in her home on February 15^ème and police are investigating this as an intimate partner violence homicide.

One of these homicides involved a person with as yet an unconfirmed sexual orientation and gender identity:

Ohio: An individual with the last name Golec was allegedly stabbed by their father on February 13^ème in an apparent family violence homicide.

Six of these homicides involved lesbian, gay or queer identified people:

New York: Randy J. Bent was found stabbed and set on fire in an apparent pick up violence homicide on March 8, 2015.
Massachusetts: Omar Mendez was found stabbed to death in his home in an apparent intimate partner violence homicide on February 15^ème.
Massachusetts: Lisa Trubnikova was allegedly killed on February 5^ème in an apparent stalking homicide.
Colorado: Jessie Hernandez était killed by the police on January 26^ème.
Georgia: Ashley Belle was killed on January 26^ème and her partner was charged with the crime in an apparent intimate partner violence homicide.
New York: Cassandra Keels was killed on January 18^ème in an apparent intimate partner violence homicide and her girlfriend has been arrested.

In NCAVP’s most recent Hate Violence Report, almost 90% of all homicide victims were people of color. Further, almost three-quarters (72%) of these homicide victims were transgender women, and more than two-thirds (67%) were transgender women of color. In NCAVP’s most recent Intimate Partner Violence Report, LGBTQ and HIV-affected people of color made up the majority of survivors – and have for the past three years. The 2013 report also found that LGBTQ and HIV-affected people of color were more likely to experience IPV incidents in public spaces, perhaps an indication that LGBTQ people of color’s lives are more policed and harassed in the public sphere.

Violence is complex, and requires multiple strategies to prevent and end it. This includes prevention and awareness efforts to change our culture, more social support for transgender people, and addressing poverty, discrimination, housing instability, criminalization, family separation, unemployment, and trauma. It is no longer simply enough to say “transphobic, biphobic, and homophobic violence and homicides are wrong.”

If vulnerability to violence occurs at the intersections of people’s identities, so, then, should our responses that will prevent this violence. We cannot expect a singular response to address or prevent this violence. Our responses must be multi-dimensional and contemporaneous. We, the undersigned organizations, are committed to the safety and self-determination of LGBTQ people from all communities, and to dismantling the conditions that support violence in all its forms.

We believe the following actions must be taken to stop this violence:

Public officials, community leaders, and the public at large must acknowledge LGBTQ lives are valuable, and that transgender women of color exist, and must speak out against violence when it occurs.
Public officials and policymakers should act swiftly to address the day-to-day discrimination that LGBTQ people, particularly transgender people of color, experience, and the impact this discrimination has, including increased rates of poverty, housing instability, unemployment and trauma.
Law enforcement and media must respectfully and accurately identify victims of violence with names and pronouns in line with their current gender identity.
Law enforcement and the media must stop criminalizing LGBTQ people, particularly transgender women of color, in their deaths by reporting on past alleged criminal activity or showing pictures that suggest criminality.

We also need to take action to address this violence. Public awareness ads, such as AVP’s Born to Be Campaign, can show positive, affirming images of transgender and gender non-conforming folks. The National Black Justice Coalition (NBJC) 100 Black LGBTQ/SGL Emerging Leaders to Watch Campaign is working to empower young Black leaders to mobilize in their communities to make positive changes throughout the nation. Programs like Audre Lorde Project’s TransJustice et Safe OUTSide the System Collective in New York City, Casa Ruby in Washington, DC, and BreakOUT! in New Orleans, and the Translatina Coalition, to name a few, lift up the voices of trans women of color and respects and supports their leadership. Non-discrimination protections, in employment, housing, public accommodations and other areas are critical to protecting LGBT people legally.

We commit, as LGBTQ organizations throughout the United States, to take on this work. We commit to holding public leaders and institutions accountable for their response to this violence. We commit to keep speaking the names of the victims – and those of the survivors – and encourage and support the leadership of transgender women of color as those most impacted by this violence. We commit to doing everything we can to end this violence.

Signed,

Believe Out Loud
BiNet États-Unis
Center For Black Equity, Inc.
CenterLink: The Community of LGBT Centers
Fédération pour l'égalité
Family Equality Council
FORGE
Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders
GetEQUAL
GLAAD
GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing LGBT Equality
GLSEN
Campagne pour les droits de l'homme
Immigration Equality
International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC)
Lambda Legal
Movement Advancement Project.
National Black Justice Coalition
Centre national pour les droits des lesbiennes
National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs (NCAVP)
National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce®
Groupe de travail national LGBTQ
National Queer Asian Pacific Islander Alliance (NQAPIA)
NCAVP Movement Building Committee:

API Chaya
BreakOUT!
BSEEDZ
Casa Ruby
Colorado Anti-Violence Program
Disability Justice Collective
LaGender Inc.
Native Youth Sexual Health Network
Racial Justice Action Center
Ruth Ellis Center
Solutions NOT Punishment Coalition
Trans(forming)

Out & Equal Workplace Advocates
Pride at Work, AFL-CIO
SAGE
Southerners on New Ground (SONG)
The Consortium of Higher Education LGBT Resource Professionals
The Pride Network
Fonds de défense juridique et d'éducation des personnes transgenres
True Colors Fund

Nouvelles

Maison » National/Fédéral » Page 50

Washington, D.C., January 16, 2015 – The U.S. Supreme Court today agreed to review a federal appeals court decision upholding Michigan’s ban on marriage for same-sex couples. By granting the petition filed by Michigan couple April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse, the Court will be considering Michigan’s ban on marriage as well as those in the other states still denying marriage licenses to gay couples. Today’s move means the high Court will rule on the issue of marriage equality by the end of June 2015. The court has also agreed to hear cases from Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee.

Friends who supported each other through nursing school and now a committed couple for more than 10 years, DeBoer and Rowse are both hospital nurses and the parents of four special-needs children whom they fostered and then adopted. They originally challenged Michigan’s adoption code so that they could adopt their children jointly rather than as “single” individuals, and provide them the security of having two legal parents. They later challenged the state’s marriage ban since it keeps April and Jayne, as well as the children, from being legally recognized as a family and from the protections other families enjoy. They argue that state laws banning marriage equality violate the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection and due process.

“We are now that much closer to being fully recognized as a family, and we are thrilled,” said DeBoer. “This opportunity for our case to be heard by the Supreme Court gives us and families like ours so much reason to be hopeful.”

The DeBoer-Rowse family is represented by Michigan attorneys Carole M. Stanyar; Dana Nessel of Nessel and Kessel Law; Kenneth Mogill of Mogill, Posner & Cohen; Wayne State University Law Professor Robert Sedler; and Mary Bonauto of the Boston-based Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD).

“By choosing to hear the DeBoer case, the Court now has the opportunity to end the injustices facing gay families in Michigan and so many other states, and to ensure that same-sex couples nationwide are free to move for work, school, or to care for elderly parents without jeopardizing their family’s security,” said Nessel.

“Our families, communities and the schools all see us as a family, said Rowse. “We juggle our jobs and a houseful of children and wouldn’t have it any other way. Soon, we hope to have the same recognition and share the same protections and responsibilities as all other families.”

DeBoer et al v. Snyder was the only case to go to trial among dozens decided or pending nationwide since the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Windsor c. États-Unis in June 2013. In a nine-day trial in February and March of 2014, Michigan District Court Judge Bernard A. Freidman heard expert testimony from the nation’s leading psychologists, sociologists, child welfare professionals, and historians. In a ruling on March 21, Judge Freidman struck down Michigan’s ban on marriages and “any similar union,” concluding the state “may no longer impair the rights of their children and the thousands of others now being raised by same-sex couples” and “the guarantee of equal protection must prevail.” The state immediately filed an appeal, but in the interim, hundreds of couples in Michigan were legally married.

Multiple other court rulings since Windsor have established marriage equality as the governing law. In October 2014, the Supreme Court declined to review rulings by the Fourth, Seventh and Tenth Circuits that all found state marriage bans unconstitutional.

On November 6, 2014, two judges of the three-member panel in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Friedman’s decision and those of courts in Ohio, Tennessee and Kentucky. Within weeks, attorneys for DeBoer and Rowse filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court.

“Families like April and Jayne’s have been deprived of the status, dignity, security, and stability that marriage brings for far too long,” said Stanyar. “This Court should hold that prohibiting same-sex couples from joining in marriage violates our nation’s most cherished and essential guarantees.”

Bonauto reflected on the long struggle for marriage equality in the United States, asserting “In the 10-plus years since same-sex couples started marrying in Massachusetts, thousands more have been able to marry across the United States, bringing them happiness and security — and harming no one,” said Bonauto. “It is time to end the legal bans that single out same-sex couples for disrespect and instead allow them to make this unique promise to one another and provide greater protection and security for their families.”

To download the original petition filed in the Supreme Court please visit http://nationalmarriagechallenge.com/the-case/court-docs/

About National Marriage Challenge

National Marriage Challenge, formerly Michigan Marriage Challenge, is a non-profit organization run by local Michigan residents committed to marriage equality in Michigan and across the country. National Marriage Challenge is an accredited 501(c)(3) formed for the purpose of supporting the DeBoer-Rowse Family in their legal effort. 100% of contributions to National Marriage Challenge go towards litigation and education expenses on DeBoer v Snyder. For more information about the case, or to contribute, please visit www.NationalMarriageChallenge.com.

About Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders

Through strategic litigation, public policy advocacy, and education, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders works in New England and nationally to create a just society free of discrimination based on gender identity and expression, HIV status, and sexual orientation. GLAD’s litigation in Goodridge c. Ministère de la Santé publique (2003) made Massachusetts the first U.S. state in which same-sex couples could legally marry.

Blog

Maison » National/Fédéral » Page 50

To download the original petition filed in the Supreme Court please visit http://nationalmarriagechallenge.com/the-case/court-docs/

About National Marriage Challenge

About Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders

Obergefell v. Hodges: Marriage Equality at the Supreme Court

Maison » National/Fédéral » Page 50

Updated on August 12, 2025:

At GLAD Law, we recognize the feelings of unease that arise as a result of Kim Davis’ case filing asking the Supreme Court to reconsider Obergefell. There is however good reason for the Supreme Court to deny review in this case given the extremely narrow scope of Davis’ claim.

Kim Davis’ case is extremely narrow, and her arguments have already been rejected by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals more than once. This matter arose because ten years ago as a county government official, she instructed her entire office to deny same-sex couples marriage licenses rather than follow the law as her job required. The lower courts ultimately granted emotional distress damages to a couple who were repeatedly denied a license. Davis’ legal team is attempting to shoehorn an opportunity to relitigate Obergefell into the very narrow legal question of whether that couple was entitled to those damages. Earlier this year, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against her on the same claims, and then the whole court denied her petition to rehear her case. People from all walks of life and across the political spectrum support or have a live-and-let-live approach to marriage equality and want to focus on other issues. There’s good reason for the Supreme Court to deny review in this case rather than unsettle something so positive for couples, children, families, and the larger society as marriage equality
Mary Bonauto, Senior Director of Civil Rights and Legal Strategies, GLAD Law, one of the lawyers that argued in Obergefell v Hodges

Marriage provides profound protection for couples and their families. It allows them to plan a life together, including, if they choose, raising children. This year marked ten years of nationwide marriage equality. The win in Obergefell was neither the beginning nor the end of the story. GLAD Law, will continue to fight to protect marriage equality for all families.

Pour plus d'informations, visitez Marriage Equality: Why it Matters, How We Won, and the Road Ahead.

If you are looking for information to provide additional security for your family, visit our guides:

Protéger votre mariage et votre famille LGBTQ+

Paths to Parentage Security

June 26, 2015: Victory!

When Was Gay Marriage Legalized in the US?

On June 26, 2015, in a blockbuster legal and cultural moment for the country, the Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples in the United States, no matter where they live, have the same legal right to marry as different-sex couples. This transformative decision marked a major milestone in the fight for LGBTQ+ equality. Learn more about our response to this historic moment.

GLAD Law Civil Rights Project Director Mary L. Bonauto argued before the U.S. Supreme Court April 28, 2015 on behalf of same-sex couples who are challenged their states’ marriage bans. She stood on behalf of petitioners April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse in the Michigan case DeBoer c. Snyder and Timothy Love, Lawrence Ysunza, Maurice Blanchard and Dominique James in the Kentucky case Love v. Beshear (joined with Bourke v. Beshear) and same-sex couples across the country who were excluded from marriage.

Douglas Hallward-Driemeier, partner at Ropes & Gray LLP, represented petitioners seeking recognition of their marriages. Learn more ici.

The Supreme Court ruling came in consideration of several combined marriage cases. Kentucky petitioners Timothy Love and Lawrence Ysunza et Maurice Blanchard and Dominique James were represented by the ACLU and the Stanford Law School Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, Clay Daniel Walton & Adams, and Fauver Law Office. Learn more ici.

GLAD Law was co-counsel in DeBoer c. Snyder, along with Michigan attorneys Carole Stanyar, Dana Nessel of Nessel & Kessel Law, Kenneth Mogill of Mogill, Posner & Cohen and Wayne State University Law Professor Robert Sedler. Learn more about April and Jane and their challenge to Michigan’s marriage ban ici et ici.

Obergefell c. Hodges et Henry v. Hodges were brought by Lambda Legal and private counsel in Ohio; and Tanco v. Haslam, were brought by NCLR and private counsel in Tennessee.

On November 14, attorneys for Michigan couple April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse filed a petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear their case, seeking to overturn the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision upholding bans on marriage for same-sex couples in Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee. April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse are both nurses and are the mothers of four children they fostered and adopted and are fostering a fifth. They are devoted to each other, to their kids, and they should be able to marry.

U.S. District Court Judge Bernard Friedman ruled in March 2014 that Michigan’s laws prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying are unconstitutional, following a two-week trial in which expert testimony was heard from the nation’s leading psychologists, sociologists, child welfare professionals, and historians.

In a departure from nearly 50 pro-marriage decisions across the U.S. since June 2013, a three-member panel of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals’ issued its opinion on November 6, 2014 reversing Judge Friedman’s ruling, along with similar rulings from Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee.

April and Jayne with three of their children

L'égalité du mariage touche et profite à des communautés entières à travers le pays. Une façon de protéger cette égalité est de discuter des raisons pour lesquelles le mariage est important pour nous et pour les autres.

Que vous fassiez partie d'un couple marié, que vous ayez des parents LGBTQ+, que vous soyez un frère ou une sœur, un parent, un grand-parent, un membre de la famille, un ami, un collègue ou un voisin, nous aimerions connaître votre expérience. Share your story today.

Nouvelles

Maison » National/Fédéral » Page 50

Today, the United States Supreme Court declined to hear pending cases from five states where circuit courts had upheld the freedom to marry and equal treatment of marriages

GLAD’s interim executive director and legal director Gary Buseck issued the following statement:

“Today’s Supreme Court action is fantastic news for the 11 states where same sex couple will soon be able to legally marry. Couples in 30 states will soon be able to marry and know the joy and security of marriage, and those who are married will be respected as the married people that they are.

“It also means that we must keep working to achieve a national resolution to this issue, whether circuit by circuit or by the Supreme Court’s acceptance of a different case. GLAD will continue its work to bring marriage equality to every state and every couple.”

One of the cases whose writ of certiorari was denied is Herbert v. Kitchen, the Utah case in which GLAD was counseling, along with private attorney Peggy Tomsic, the National Center for Lesbian Rights and Hogan Lovells.

En savoir plus:

Joint statement from GLAD and NCLR