Nouvèl

Jodi a, nan yon moman legal ak kiltirèl enpòtan pou peyi a, Lakou Siprèm nan te deside ke koup menm sèks Ozetazini, kèlkeswa kote y ap viv, gen menm dwa legal pou marye. kòm koup diferan sèks.

“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.

"Li leve moun LGBTQ yo anlè epi li afime ke lalwa pa ka pèmèt diskriminasyon oswa esklizyon kategorik moun LGBTQ yo senpleman pou sa yo ye a. Pa gen okenn desizyon poukont li ki ka ranje prejije ak estereyotip ki te afekte bon moun pandan lontan, men sa ka ede anpil moun dekouvri limanite komen yo."

Sitasyon ki soti nan desizyon.

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.”

Nan dat 28 avril, Bonauto te diskite Kesyon 1, jan Tribinal la te formulé l la: “Èske Katòzyèm Amannman an egzije pou yon eta otorize yon maryaj ant de moun menm sèks?” Li te reprezante April DeBoer ak Jayne Rowse nan Michigan, epi li te pale pou yo ansanm ak pou koup demandè Kentucky yo, Tim Love ak Lawrence Ysunza, epi Maurice Blanchard ak Dominique James, ansanm ak koup angaje ak renmen nan tout peyi a.

Douglas Hallward-Driemeier, asosye nan kabinè avoka Ropes & Gray, te reponn kesyon 2 a, jan Tribinal la te fòmile l la: “Èske Katòzyèm Amannman an egzije pou yon eta rekonèt yon maryaj ant de moun menm sèks lè maryaj yo te legalman otorize epi li te fèt andeyò eta a?” Yo te pran yon desizyon favorab sou kesyon 2 a tou jodi a.

Ko-avoka nan kat ka yo se Lambda Legal (Ohio), National Center for Lesbian Rights (Tennessee), ak American Civil Liberties Union (maryaj nan Ohio ak rekonesans nan Kentucky), ansanm ak avoka prive talante ki soti Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, ak Tennessee.

Depi 2004, apre Massachusetts, 36 lòt eta, Distri Kolonbi, Commonwealth Pòtoriko, ak Teritwa Guam nan Etazini te pèmèt koup menm sèks yo marye legalman atravè ka tribinal, lejislasyon, ak kesyon bilten vòt. Yon fason enpòtan, an 2013, Lakou Siprèm nan te anile Lwa Defans Maryaj federal la (DOMA) nan ka Etazini Amerik kont Windsor. Desizyon sa a te louvri pòt pou yon vag desizyon siksè nan tribinal distri federal ak tribinal apèl ki te afime libète pou marye pou koup menm sèks atravè peyi a.

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.

Etazini vin 20yèm peyi nan mond lan kote koup menm sèks yo ka legalman marye sou tout teritwa nasyonal la.

Nouvèl

Lakay » Nasyonal/Federal » 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.

Nouvèl

Lakay » Nasyonal/Federal » Page 49

Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), Justice in Aging, and Foley Hoag LLP filed a motion for a preliminary injunction against the Social Security Administration (SSA) yesterday (June 17) . As the country awaits an historic Supreme Court decision in Obergefell kont Hodges that could bring marriage equality to all states, same-sex couples who are already married and living in poverty have faced extreme financial hardship because of discriminatory actions by the Social Security Administration. The parties seek to permanently stop SSA from withholding or otherwise pursuing funds from Supplemental Security Income (SSI) recipients whose same-sex marriages the agency failed to recognize after the demise of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

The filing is the next step in Held v. Colvin, a class action lawsuit filed on March 10, 2015. Well after June 2013, SSA did not recognize the marriages of same-sex couples, even in cases where SSI recipients informed SSA that they were married. SSA continued to issue benefits as if the married individuals were single. This resulted in higher payments than they would have received if their marriage were taken into account. SSA has been demanding that recipients refund the benefits they were paid as a result of the discrimination.

After the filing of Held, SSA issued an emergency directive instructing field SSI employees to put a stop to the practice going forward, but the solution is temporary.

“The agency’s directive was welcome, but inadequate,” said Gerald McIntyre, Directing Attorney for Justice in Aging. “Though SSA appears to recognize that its actions have been harmful, it continues to hold the threat of future overpayment notices over an entire class.”

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. Both Ms. Richardson-Wright and Mr. Held have been subject to extreme financial harm as a result of SSA’s discrimination.

“The emergency action doesn’t do anything to help people who have already received a notice of overpayment, or for those from whom SSA is withholding money from already small checks,” said Vickie Henry, Senior Staff Attorney for GLAD. “Until the Social Security Administration waives overpayments or the courts order that they waive overpayments, the action only delays the date of reckoning and if anything allows harm and uncertainty to mount.”

Also, on Tuesday (June 16) plaintiffs also filed a motion for class certification. According to SSA’s most recent statistical snapshot, 8.3 million people were receiving SSI benefits as of April 2015. Given that an estimated 3.5% of the population is lesbian, gay, or bisexual, and that the poverty rate in that community is higher than average, there are likely to be as many as a thousand putative class members.

“Given the nature of this class – elderly or disabled people living below the poverty level and scattered across the country– the likelihood of them having the means to file individual lawsuits is low,” said McIntyre.

The motions, which were filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in Los Angeles, along with the complaint, can be read at www.gladlaw.org /SSI.

In addition to attorneys Henry and McIntyre, the plaintiffs are being represented by Mary L. Bonauto of GLAD, Denny Chan and Anna Rich of Justice in Aging, and Claire Laporte, Marco Quina, Catherine Deneke, and Stephen T. Bychowski of the law firm Foley Hoag, LLP. Foley Hoag previously partnered with GLAD on its challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act.

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.

Pou plis enfòmasyon, vizite www.gladlaw.org.

Justice in Aging is a national non-profit legal advocacy organization that fights senior poverty through law. Formerly the National Senior Citizens Law Center, since 1972 we’ve worked for access to affordable health care and economic security for older adults with limited resources, focusing especially on populations that have traditionally lacked legal protection such as women, people of color, LGBT individuals, and people with limited English proficiency. Through targeted advocacy, litigation, and the trainings and resources we provide to local advocates, we ensure access to the social safety net programs that poor seniors depend on, including Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and Supplemental Security Income (SSI).

Pou plis enfòmasyon, vizite www.justiceinaging.org.

King v. Burwell

Lakay » Nasyonal/Federal » Page 49

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

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

Lakay » Nasyonal/Federal » 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.

Nouvèl

Lakay » Nasyonal/Federal » 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^yèm 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.

Nouvèl

Lakay » Nasyonal/Federal » 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 kont Hodges:

Kentucky: Bourke kont Beshear epi Lanmou kont Beshear

Michigan: DeBoer kont Snyder

Ohio: Obergefell kont Hodges epi Henry kont Hodges

Tennessee: Tanco kont 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 kont Beshear/Lanmou kont 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)

Avril DeBoer ak Jayne Rowse

Obergefell kont Hodges (Ohio)

Jim Obergefell, David Michener and Robert Grunn

Henry kont Hodges (Ohio)

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

Tanco kont 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.

Nouvèl

Lakay » Nasyonal/Federal » Page 49

Lakou Siprèm Etazini an pral tande agiman jodi a nan kat ka egalite maryaj yo ke yo rele ansanm Obergefell kont Hodges.

A 10è dimaten, Mary L. Bonauto, Direktè Pwojè Dwa Sivil pou Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, pral reponn Kesyon 1, jan Tribinal la te formulé a, “Èske Katòzyèm Amannman an egzije yon eta pou li otorize yon maryaj ant de moun menm sèks?” Li reprezante April DeBoer ak Jayne Rowse nan Michigan, ansanm ak koup Kentucky yo Tim Love ak Lawrence Ysunza, epi Maurice Blanchard ak Dominique James.

Douglas Hallward-Driemeier, asosye nan kabinè avoka Ropes & Gray, pral reponn kesyon 2, jan Tribinal la te fòmile l la, “Èske Katòzyèm Amannman an egzije pou yon eta rekonèt yon maryaj ant de moun menm sèks lè maryaj yo te legalman otorize epi li te fèt andeyò eta a?”

Ko-avoka nan kat ka yo se Lambda Legal, Sant Nasyonal pou Dwa Lesbyèn, ak Inyon Ameriken pou Libète Sivil, ansanm ak anpil avoka prive.

Agiman oral yo make yon moman legal ak kiltirèl enpòtan pou peyi a, ki fini prèske vennsenk ane defi legal, aktivis nan baz la, defans lejislatif, ak chanjman konstan nan opinyon piblik la an favè libète pou marye pou koup menm sèks yo. An 2004, Massachusetts te vin premye eta kote koup menm sèks yo te kapab marye legalman grasa ka GLAD la. Goodridge kont Depatman Sante Piblik la, ke Bonauto te diskite epi li te genyen.

Depi 2004, 36 lòt eta ak Distri Kolonbi a pèmèt koup menm sèks marye legalman atravè ka tribinal, lejislasyon, ak kesyon sou bilten vòt. Yon bagay enpòtan, an 2013, Lakou Siprèm nan te anile Lwa Defans Maryaj federal la (DOMA) nan ka a Windsor kont Etazini nan AmerikDesizyon sa a te louvri pòt pou yon vag desizyon siksè nan tribinal distri federal ak tribinal apèl ki konfime libète pou marye pou koup menm sèks atravè peyi a.

Bonauto se yon manm ekip legal la pou ka Michigan an. DeBoer kont Snyder, avèk ko-avoka Dana Nessel, Carole Stanyar, Kenneth Mogill, ak Robert Sedler. Li te ede tou òganize dosye amicus curiae pou plizyè ka maryaj atravè peyi a. Defi GLAD yo kont DOMA, Gill kont OPM epi Pederson kont OPM, toulede dirije pa Bonauto, te pwodui tou premye desizyon yon tribinal federal ki te deklare ke DOMA te kont konstitisyon an, sa ki te prepare teren an pou Windsor.

Yon desizyon nan Obergefell espere nan fen mwa jen an.

Ou ka jwenn plis enfòmasyon nan www.gladlaw.org/mariaj.

Nouvèl

Lakay » Nasyonal/Federal » 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/mariaj oubyen 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/

Nouvèl

Lakay » Nasyonal/Federal » Page 49