Nouvèl

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 kont Snyder and the Kentucky case Lanmou kont 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 kont 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 kont DPH, which made Massachusetts the first state in which same-sex couples could marry in 2004. GLAD’s Defense of Marriage Act challenges Gill kont OPMepi Pedersen kont 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/mariaj oubyen www.nationalmarriagechallenge.com.

Nouvèl

Lakay » Nasyonal/Federal » 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 kont Beshear epi Lanmou kont 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 kont Hodges on Lambda Legal’s case page here: www.lambdalegal.org/in-court/cases/henry-v-himes

Read more about Obergefell kont 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/

Kontakte:

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

Nouvèl

Lakay » Nasyonal/Federal » 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.

Nouvèl

Lakay » Nasyonal/Federal » 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 kont 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.

Li plent lan.

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.

Li plis bagay sou moun ki pote plent yo.

“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.”

Etandone 8.3 milyon moun ki t ap resevwa benefis SSI an Desanm 2014, lefèt ke 5-7% nan popilasyon an se lesbyèn, omoseksyèl, oswa biseksyèl, ensidans jeneral povrete nan popilasyon sa a, ak plizyè dizèn milye maryaj koup menm sèks anvan Windsor, gen pwobableman plizyè santèn moun nan klas sa a. Piske SSA fè redetèminasyon kalifikasyon sou yon baz kontinyèl, kantite manm gwoup swadizan yo ap ogmante avèk tan.

Held kont Colvin

Lakay » Nasyonal/Federal » Page 50

Viktwa! Kòm rezilta, an pati, nan pwosè sa a, Administrasyon Sekirite Sosyal la (SSA) te pibliye yon nouvo politik y sa bay yon viktwa enpòtan pou moun k ap resevwa benefis Revni Sekirite Siplemantè (SSI) ki marye ak yon moun menm sèks men ki gen maryaj yo pa t rekonèt pa SSA alòske yo te dwe rekonèt li. Li plis.

Kontèks:

GLAD, Justice in Aging ak Foley Hoag LLP genyen depoze yon pwosè aksyon kolektif te depoze yon pwosè aksyon kolektif kont Administrasyon Sekirite Sosyal (SSA) sou non moun k ap resevwa Revni Sekirite Siplemantè (SSI) ki te marye ak yon moun menm sèks nan oswa anvan jen 2013. Pwosè a akize SSA kòm moun ki te diskrimine kont moun sa yo pandan plizyè mwa, e nan kèk ka plis pase yon ane, apre Lakou Siprèm nan te jije diskriminasyon sa a ilegal lè li te anile Lwa Defans Maryaj (DOMA) an jen 2013.

Byen apre yo te fin anile DOMA a, SSA pa t rekonèt maryaj koup menm sèks yo, menm nan ka kote moun ki te resevwa SSI te enfòme SSA ke yo te marye. Benefis pou moun ki pa marye yo pi wo pase pou moun ki marye yo, men SSA te kontinye bay benefis kòmsi moun ki marye yo te selibatè. Epi kounye a, ajans lan ap egzije pou moun ki resevwa yo ranbouse benefis yo te resevwa kòm rezilta diskriminasyon an.

GLAD, Justice in Aging ak Foley Hoag LLP ap reprezante Kelley Richardson-Wright nan Athol, Massachusetts, ki marye ak Kena Richardson-Wright; ak Hugh Held nan Los Angeles, ki marye ak Orion Masters.

Kelley (47) ak Kena (45) gen dizan ansanm epi yo marye pandan sèt an. Kelley te yon terapis masaj jiskaske plizyè pwoblèm medikal te fòse l pran andikap epi kòmanse resevwa SSI. Nan moman li te aplike pou andikap la, li te enfòme Administrasyon Sekirite Sosyal la ke li te marye. Kena travay kòm yon kwafè pou salè minimòm. Pou rekipere $4,000 SSA di Kelley dwe yo a, Sekirite Sosyal la te kòmanse kenbe lajan nan chèk mansyèl li a, sa ki te lakòz yo sezi machin koup la, epi riske pou yo pèdi lojman yo. Kelley te entène lopital ak yon maladi ki gen rapò ak estrès akoz gwo presyon finansye a.

Hugh Held (55) ak Orion Masters (56) ap viv nan Los Angeles, Kalifòni. Yo ansanm depi 1993 epi yo marye depi 2008. Mesye Held ap resevwa SSI sou baz andikap depi 2008. Nan twa okazyon diferan, li te di travayè nan biwo SSA lokal li a ke li te marye epi li te mande kijan ka Windsor la ta ka afekte benefis li yo. Okòmansman, yo te di l ke sa pa t ap afekte benefis li yo epi dènye fwa a yo te di l ke li pwobableman t ap afekte benefis li yo, men yo pa t konnen kijan. Epi, toudenkou, an jen 2014, yon ane apre yo te anile DOMA, benefis mansyèl li te redwi a $308.10 soti nan $877.40, san okenn eksplikasyon. Apre sa, li te resevwa yon bòdwo pou twòp peman $6,205. Se pa t jiskas twa mwa apre (septanm 2014) ke li te resevwa yon eksplikasyon pou chanjman yo.

Li plis bagay sou moun ki pote plent yo

Demandan yo ap reprezante pa Vickie L. Henry ak Mary L. Bonauto nan GLAD, Gerald McIntyre, Denny Chan ak Anna Rich nan Justice in Aging, epi Claire Laporte, Marco Quina, Catherine Deneke, ak Stephen T. Bychowski nan kabinè avoka Foley Hoag, LLP.

Fèy Enfòmasyon sou Held kont Colvin

Nouvèl

Lakay » Nasyonal/Federal » 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^yèm in an apparent hate violence homicide.
Virginia: Lamia Beard was found shot to death on January 17^yèm in an apparent hate violence homicide.
Texas: Ty Underwood was found shot to death early Monday morning on January 26^yèm 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^yèm in an apparent hate violence homicide.
Florida: Kristina Gomez Reinwald was found unresponsive in her home on February 15^yèm 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^yèm 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.
Masachousèt: Omar Mendez was found stabbed to death in his home in an apparent intimate partner violence homicide on February 15^yèm.
Masachousèt: Lisa Trubnikova was allegedly killed on February 5^yèm in an apparent stalking homicide.
Colorado: Jessie Hernandez te killed by the police on January 26^yèm.
Georgia: Ashley Belle was killed on January 26^yèm and her partner was charged with the crime in an apparent intimate partner violence homicide.
New York: Cassandra Keels was killed on January 18^yèm 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 epi 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.

Siyen,

Believe Out Loud
BiNet USA
Center For Black Equity, Inc.
CenterLink: The Community of LGBT Centers
Federasyon Egalite
Family Equality Council
FORGE
Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders
GetEQUAL
GLAAD
GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing LGBT Equality
GLSEN
Kanpay Dwa Moun
Immigration Equality
International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC)
Lambda Legal
Movement Advancement Project.
National Black Justice Coalition
Sant Nasyonal pou Dwa Lesbyèn yo
National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs (NCAVP)
National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce®
Gwoup Travay Nasyonal 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
Transgender Legal Defense & Education Fund
True Colors Fund

Nouvèl

Lakay » Nasyonal/Federal » 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 kont Etazini 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 kont Depatman Sante Piblik la (2003) made Massachusetts the first U.S. state in which same-sex couples could legally marry.

Blog

Lakay » Nasyonal/Federal » 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 kont Hodges: Egalite Maryaj nan Lakou Siprèm nan

Lakay » Nasyonal/Federal » 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 pa t ni kòmansman ni fen istwa a. GLAD Law, will continue to fight to protect marriage equality for all families.

Pou plis enfòmasyon vizite Egalite nan Maryaj: Poukisa li enpòtan, kijan nou te genyen, ak chemen ki devan nou an.

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

Pwoteje Maryaj ak Fanmi LGBTQ+ ou

Paths to Parentage Security

26 jen 2015: Viktwa!

Kilè yo te legalize maryaj omoseksyèl Ozetazini?

Nan dat 26 jen 2015, nan yon moman legal ak kiltirèl ki te make yon gwo siksè pou peyi a, Lakou Siprèm nan te deside ke koup menm sèks Ozetazini, kèlkeswa kote y ap viv, gen menm dwa legal pou marye ak koup diferan sèks. Desizyon transfòmatè sa a te make yon gwo etap enpòtan nan lit pou egalite LGBTQ+ la. Aprann plis bagay sou repons nou an fas ak moman istorik sa a.

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 Avril DeBoer ak Jayne Rowse nan ka Michigan an DeBoer kont Snyder ak Timothy Love, Lawrence Ysunza, Maurice Blanchard ak Dominique James nan ka Kentucky a Lanmou kont Beshear (ansanm ak Bourke kont Beshear) ak koup menm sèks atravè peyi a ki te eskli nan maryaj.

Douglas Hallward-Driemeier, asosye nan Ropes & Gray LLP, te reprezante petisyonè k ap chèche rekonesans maryaj yo. Aprann plis isit la.

The Supreme Court ruling came in consideration of several combined marriage cases. Kentucky petitioners Timothy Love ak Lawrence Ysunza epi Maurice Blanchard ak Dominique James te reprezante pa ACLU a ak Klinik Litij Tribinal Siprèm Lekòl Dwa Stanford, Clay Daniel Walton & Adams, ak Biwo Avoka Fauver. Aprann plis isit la.

GLAD Law was co-counsel in DeBoer kont Snyder, ansanm ak avoka Michigan yo Carole Stanyar, Dana Nessel nan Nessel & Kessel Law, Kenneth Mogill nan Mogill, Posner & Cohen ak pwofesè dwa nan Wayne State University Robert Sedler. Aprann plis bagay sou April ak Jane ak defi yo kont entèdiksyon maryaj Michigan an. isit la epi isit la.

Obergefell kont Hodges epi Henry kont Hodges te pote pa Lambda Legal ak yon avoka prive nan Ohio; epi Tanco kont Haslam, te mennen pa NCLR ak yon avoka prive nan Tennessee.

Nan dat 14 novanm, avoka koup April DeBoer ak Jayne Rowse ki soti Michigan te depoze yon petisyon pou mande Lakou Siprèm Etazini pou tande ka yo a, pou chèche ranvèse desizyon Lakou Apèl Sizyèm Awondisman an ki te konfime entèdiksyon maryaj pou koup menm sèks nan Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio ak Tennessee. April DeBoer ak Jayne Rowse toulede se enfimyè epi yo se manman kat timoun yo te pran an chaj epi adopte, epi y ap pran an chaj yon senkyèm. Yo devwe youn ak lòt, yo devwe pitit yo, epi yo ta dwe kapab marye.

Jij Tribinal Distri Etazini Bernard Friedman te deside an mas 2014 ke lwa Michigan ki entèdi koup menm sèks marye yo kont Konstitisyon an, apre yon pwosè de semèn kote yo te tande temwayaj ekspè nan men pi gwo sikològ, sosyològ, pwofesyonèl byennèt timoun ak istoryen nan peyi a.

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

Egalite maryaj touche epi benefisye kominote antye atravè peyi a. Yon fason nou ka pwoteje egalite se atravè konvèsasyon sou poukisa maryaj enpòtan pou nou ak pou lòt moun.

Kit ou fè pati yon koup marye, ou gen paran LGBTQ+, ou se yon frè oswa yon sè, yon paran, yon granparan, yon manm fanmi, yon zanmi, yon kòlèg travay, oswa yon vwazen, nou ta renmen konnen eksperyans ou. Share your story today.

Nouvèl

Lakay » Nasyonal/Federal » 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.

Li plis:

Joint statement from GLAD and NCLR