Notícias

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 v. Snyder and the Kentucky case Amor 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 v. 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 v. DPH, which made Massachusetts the first state in which same-sex couples could marry in 2004. GLAD’s Defense of Marriage Act challenges Gill v. OPMe Pedersen v. 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/casamento ou www.nationalmarriagechallenge.com.

Notícias

Lar » Nacional/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 v. Beshear e Amor 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 v. 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/

Contato:

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

Carisa Cunningham, Defensora e defensora de gays e lésbicas, 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

Notícias

Lar » Nacional/Federal » Page 50

Petição afirma que o Primeiro Circuito desconsiderou seu papel adequado

Advogados entraram hoje com uma petição na Suprema Corte dos EUA para ouvir um recurso em nome de Michelle Kosilek, uma mulher transgênero a quem foi negado atendimento médico essencial enquanto cumpria pena de prisão sob custódia do Departamento de Correções de Massachusetts (DOC). O DOC negou a Kosilek a cirurgia de afirmação de gênero por décadas, apesar de especialistas a considerarem clinicamente necessária e apesar de os dois tribunais terem afirmado que a negação constitui punição cruel e incomum, proibida pela Oitava Emenda da Constituição dos EUA.

A petição de certiorari afirma que o Tribunal de Apelações do Primeiro Circuito excedeu o seu papel com uma decisão de dezembro de 2014 em banco decisão que, ao anular uma decisão anterior do painel favorável a Kosilek, reconsiderou os fatos de um julgamento de 2012 e aplicou o padrão errado de revisão legal. A petição, que pode ser leia aqui, foi arquivado em nome de Kosilek pelos Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), advogado Joseph L. Sulman e Goodwin Procter LLP.

“O Tribunal de Apelações analisou uma decisão incrivelmente ponderada, escrita com extremo cuidado e atenção aos fatos pelo Juiz do Tribunal Distrital Mark Wolf após um julgamento de 28 dias”, disse Levi. “Em vez de procurar erros de direito, como deveria fazer, o Tribunal não apenas reconsiderou o caso, como também aplicou um padrão de revisão que nenhum outro tribunal jamais aplicou para obter o resultado desejado.”

“Este é um caso essencialmente baseado em fatos”, disse Sulman. “O Primeiro Circuito não encontrou nenhum erro jurídico ou erro factual claro na decisão do Juiz Wolf, e é isso que precisa fazer para anular a decisão. A forma como o Tribunal ignorou os princípios jurídicos mais básicos corrói a credibilidade do Judiciário. Isso deveria ser alarmante para todos os advogados, litigantes e réus em um processo civil.”

A petição é o ápice de mais de 20 anos de litígio sobre se os funcionários do DOC violaram os direitos de Kosilek ao não fornecer cuidados adequados para seu transtorno de identidade de gênero grave (TIG), uma condição que todas as partes concordam ser uma "necessidade médica séria". Como resultado da negação de tratamento, Kosilek se automutilou e tentou suicídio duas vezes.

O Juiz Wolf emitiu duas decisões. Ele concluiu que o Departamento de Justiça (DOC) se envolveu em um padrão de "pretensão, pretexto e prevaricação" para negar o tratamento. A Comunidade de Massachusetts recorreu e, em 17 de janeiro de 2014, um painel de três juízes do Tribunal de Apelações confirmou a decisão do Juiz Wolf. A Comunidade solicitou e obteve uma nova audiência do recurso perante o plenário, que anulou a decisão do Juiz Wolf em 16 de dezembro de 2014 por 3 votos a 2.

Além de Sulman e Levi, Kosilek é representado por Abigail K. Hemani, Michele E. Connolly, James P. Devendorf, Jaime A. Santos e Christine Dieter da Goodwin Procter LLP.

Saiba mais sobre o caso

Notícias

Lar » Nacional/Federal » Page 50

SSA exige reembolso de benefícios pagos como resultado de discriminação da agência

GLAD, Justice in Aging e Foley Hoag LLP entraram hoje com uma ação coletiva, Held v. Colvin, contra a Administração da Previdência Social (SSA) em nome de beneficiários da Renda de Segurança Suplementar (SSI) casados com alguém do mesmo sexo em ou antes de junho de 2013. O processo alega que a SSA discriminou esses indivíduos por meses e, em alguns casos, mais de um ano, depois que essa discriminação foi considerada ilegal pela Suprema Corte quando revogou a Lei de Defesa do Casamento (DOMA) em junho de 2013.

Leia a reclamação.

Bem depois da revogação da DOMA, a SSA não reconhecia os casamentos de casais do mesmo sexo, mesmo nos casos em que os beneficiários do SSI informavam à SSA que eram casados. Os benefícios para pessoas solteiras são maiores do que para pessoas casadas, mas a SSA continuou a conceder benefícios como se as pessoas casadas fossem solteiras.

Agora, a agência está exigindo que os beneficiários reembolsem os benefícios que receberam como resultado da discriminação.

“Infelizmente para casais do mesmo sexo em estados com reconhecimento de casamento, a SSA estava completamente despreparada para implementar as políticas exigidas por lei após a revogação da DOMA”, afirma Gerald McIntyre, Advogado Diretor da Justice in Aging. “As vítimas dessa discriminação não deveriam ser as únicas a pagar pelo erro da agência.”

GLAD, Justice in Aging e Foley Hoag LLP representam Kelley Richardson-Wright de Athol, Massachusetts, que é casada com Kena Richardson-Wright; e Hugh Held de Los Angeles, que é casado com Orion Masters.

Saiba mais sobre os demandantes.

“Basicamente, a Previdência Social continuou a fazer pagamentos do SSI após a queda da DOMA, sem considerar os casamentos entre pessoas do mesmo sexo, mesmo quando o beneficiário notificou o SSI sobre o casamento”, afirma Vickie Henry, Advogada Sênior da GLAD. “Agora, 18 meses depois, a SSA, para remediar sua própria conduta inconstitucional, está perseguindo pessoas pobres, idosas ou com deficiência, exigindo milhares de dólares delas. Isso não é justo e não está certo.”

Considerando os 8,3 milhões de pessoas que recebiam benefícios do SSI em dezembro de 2014, o fato de que 5-7% da população é lésbica, gay ou bissexual, a incidência geral de pobreza nessa população e as dezenas de milhares de casamentos de casais do mesmo sexo antes de Windsor, provavelmente há centenas de pessoas nesta classe. Como a SSA realiza reavaliações de elegibilidade de forma contínua, o número de possíveis membros da classe aumentará ao longo do tempo.

Held v. Colvin

Lar » Nacional/Federal » Page 50

Victory! As a result, in part, of this suit, the Social Security Administration (SSA) has issued a new polic e that provides a significant win for individuals receiving Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits who are married to someone of the same sex but whose marriages were not recognized by SSA when they should have been. Ler mais.

Background:

GLAD, Justice in Aging and Foley Hoag LLP have filed a class action lawsuit filed a class action lawsuit 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.

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

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.

Kelley (47) and Kena (45) have been together for ten years and married for seven. Kelley was a massage therapist until multiple medical issues forced her to go on disability and start receiving SSI.At the time she applied for disability, she informed the Social Security Administration that she was married. Kena works as a hair stylist for minimum wage.To recover the $4,000 SSA says that Kelley owes them, Social Security has started withholding money from her monthly check, resulting in the repossession of the couple’s car, and the risk that they will lose their housing. Kelley was hospitalized with a stress-related illness as a result of the extreme financial strain.

Hugh Held (55) and Orion Masters (56) live in Los Angeles, CA. They have been together since 1993 and have been married since 2008. Mr. Held has been receiving SSI on the basis of disability since 2008. On three separate occasions, he told workers at his local SSA office that he was married and asked how the Windsor case might affect his benefits. At first he was told that it would not affect his benefits and the last time he was told it probably would affect his benefits, but they didn’t know how. Then, suddenly, in June 2014, one year after DOMA was struck down, his monthly benefit was reduced to $308.10 from $877.40, with no explanation. He then received a bill for overpayment of $6,205. It was not until three months later (September 2014) that he received an explanation for the changes.

Saiba mais sobre os demandantes

The plaintiffs are being represented by Vickie L. Henry and Mary L. Bonauto of GLAD, Gerald McIntyre, 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.

Held v. Colvin Fact Sheet

Notícias

Lar » Nacional/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^º in an apparent hate violence homicide.
Virginia: Lamia Beard was found shot to death on January 17^º in an apparent hate violence homicide.
Texas: Ty Underwood was found shot to death early Monday morning on January 26^º 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^º in an apparent hate violence homicide.
Flórida: Kristina Gomez Reinwald was found unresponsive in her home on February 15^º 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^º 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^º.
Massachusetts: Lisa Trubnikova was allegedly killed on February 5^º in an apparent stalking homicide.
Colorado: Jessie Hernandez era killed by the police on January 26^º.
Georgia: Ashley Belle was killed on January 26^º and her partner was charged with the crime in an apparent intimate partner violence homicide.
New York: Cassandra Keels was killed on January 18^º 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 e 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.

Assinado,

Believe Out Loud
BiNet USA
Center For Black Equity, Inc.
CenterLink: The Community of LGBT Centers
Federação da Igualdade
Conselho de Igualdade Familiar
FORGE
Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders
GetEQUAL
FELIZ
GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing LGBT Equality
GLSEN
Campanha de Direitos Humanos
Igualdade na Imigração
International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC)
Lambda Legal
Movement Advancement Project.
National Black Justice Coalition
Centro Nacional para os Direitos Lésbicos
National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs (NCAVP)
National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce®
Força-Tarefa Nacional 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)

Defensores do ambiente de trabalho Out & Equal
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

Notícias

Lar » Nacional/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 v. Estados Unidos 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 v. Departamento de Saúde Pública (2003) made Massachusetts the first U.S. state in which same-sex couples could legally marry.

Blogue

Lar » Nacional/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 v. Hodges: Igualdade no Casamento na Suprema Corte

Lar » Nacional/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 was neither the beginning nor the end of the story. GLAD Law, will continue to fight to protect marriage equality for all families.

For more information visit 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:

Protegendo seu casamento e família LGBTQ+

Paths to Parentage Security

26 de junho de 2015: Vitória!

Quando o casamento gay foi legalizado nos EUA?

Em 26 de junho de 2015, em um momento jurídico e cultural de grande sucesso para o país, a Suprema Corte decidiu que casais do mesmo sexo nos Estados Unidos, independentemente de onde vivam, têm o mesmo direito legal de se casar que casais de sexos diferentes. Essa decisão transformadora representou um marco importante na luta pela igualdade LGBTQ+. Saiba mais sobre nossa resposta a esse momento histórico.

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 e Jayne Rowse no caso de Michigan DeBoer v. Snyder e Timothy Love, Lawrence Ysunza, Maurice Blanchard e Dominique James no caso de Kentucky Amor v. Beshear (juntou-se com Bourke v. Beshear) e casais do mesmo sexo em todo o país que foram excluídos do casamento.

Douglas Hallward-Driemeier, sócio do escritório Ropes & Gray LLP, representou requerentes que buscavam o reconhecimento de seus casamentos. Saiba mais aqui.

The Supreme Court ruling came in consideration of several combined marriage cases. Kentucky petitioners Timothy Love e Lawrence Ysunza e Maurice Blanchard e Dominique James foram representados pela ACLU e pela Clínica de Contencioso da Suprema Corte da Faculdade de Direito de Stanford, Clay Daniel Walton & Adams e pelo Escritório de Advocacia Fauver. Saiba mais aqui.

GLAD Law was co-counsel in DeBoer v. Snyder, juntamente com os advogados de Michigan Carole Stanyar, Dana Nessel, da Nessel & Kessel Law, Kenneth Mogill, da Mogill, Posner & Cohen, e o professor de Direito da Wayne State University, Robert Sedler. Saiba mais sobre April e Jane e seu desafio à proibição de casamento em Michigan. aqui e aqui.

Obergefell v. Hodges e Henry v. Hodges foram apresentados pela Lambda Legal e por um advogado particular em Ohio; e Tanco v. Haslam, foram movidos pela NCLR e por um advogado particular no Tennessee.

Em 14 de novembro, os advogados do casal de Michigan, April DeBoer e Jayne Rowse, entraram com uma petição solicitando à Suprema Corte dos EUA que ouça o caso deles, buscando anular a decisão do Tribunal de Apelações do Sexto Circuito que manteve a proibição do casamento entre pessoas do mesmo sexo em Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio e Tennessee. April DeBoer e Jayne Rowse são enfermeiras e mães de quatro crianças que acolheram e adotaram, e estão acolhendo uma quinta. Elas são dedicadas uma à outra, aos filhos, e deveriam poder se casar.

O juiz distrital dos EUA, Bernard Friedman, decidiu em março de 2014 que as leis de Michigan que proíbem casais do mesmo sexo de se casarem são inconstitucionais, após um julgamento de duas semanas no qual foram ouvidos depoimentos de especialistas dos principais psicólogos, sociólogos, profissionais de bem-estar infantil e historiadores do país.

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

A igualdade no casamento afeta e beneficia comunidades inteiras em todo o país. Uma maneira de proteger a igualdade é por meio de conversas sobre por que o casamento é importante para nós e para os outros.

Quer você seja casado, tenha pais LGBTQ+, seja irmão, pai, avô, avô, parente, amigo, colega de trabalho ou vizinho, adoraríamos saber sobre sua experiência. Share your story today.

Notícias

Lar » Nacional/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.

Read more:

Joint statement from GLAD and NCLR