Taking Marriage Over the Finish Line

GLAD Civil Rights Project Director Mary L. Bonauto argued before the U.S. Supreme Court April 28, 2015 on behalf of same-sex couples challenging their states’ marriage bans. She stood on behalf of petitioners Эйприл Дебур и Джейн Роуз в случае Мичигана Дебур против Снайдера and Timothy Love, Lawrence Ysunza, Maurice Blanchard and Dominique James in the Kentucky case Лав против Бешира (вместе с Бурк против Бешира) and same-sex couples across the country.

26 июня 2015 г.: Победа! In a blockbuster legal and cultural moment for the country, the Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples in the United States, no matter where they live, have the same legal right to marry as different-sex couples. Читать далее

Читать далее

Background: GLAD’s work for marriage in New England and beyond

GLAD won the first marriage state in Massachusetts in 2003 with our Гудридж case, and took part in winning every New England state by every conceivable method – ballot, legislation, и litigation. We laid the groundwork for the defeat of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in our cases Gill и Pedersen.

We developed unparalleled expertise in winning marriage, and helped our colleagues across the nation do the same. Since the Supreme Court struck down DOMA in June 2013 (Виндзор), GLAD has remained steadfast in its commitment to ending marriage discrimination nationwide.

AMICUS WORK

GLAD also helped movement colleagues and private attorneys with their amicus strategies:

  • GLAD wrote an друг brief at the request of the National Center for LGBTQ Rights and the ACLU on behalf of New Mexico civil rights groups in the case Griego v. Oliver in the New Mexico Supreme Court in September 2013.
  • GLAD led coordination of the друг briefs in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals after trial court wins in Utah and Oklahoma. GLAD’s work in the 10th Circuit, the first federal appeals court to hear marriage cases post-Виндзор, has streamlined the process for amici curiae filings in all of the other cases pending at a U.S. Court of Appeals.
  • GLAD has also played an extensive role in coordinating друзья filings in the 4th (Virginia, Bostic v. Shaefer), 5th (Texas, DeLeon v. Perry), 6th (Michigan, DeBoer v. Snyder; Ohio, Obergefell v. Himes, Henry v. Himes; Tennessee, Танко против Хаслама; Kentucky, Бурк против Бешира) and 11th (Florida, Grimsley v. Scott и Brenner v. Armstrong) circuits.

GLAD’s Own Amici Трусы

In virtually every federal appeal, GLAD filed its own друг brief discussing “rational basis review.”

These briefs reinforce the government’s guarantee of equal protection and its promise of even-handedness when the rights of persons are at stake. We set forth the two elements of rational basis review:

  1. the government’s actions in classifying who can and cannot marry must be for “legitimate” reasons rather than because of stereotypes, prejudice or favoritism; and
  2. the classification system – who is in and who is out – must have a relationship to the government’s claimed objectives.

Under these standards, GLAD’s briefs demolish each rationale advanced by the states defending their marriage bans and the друг briefs supporting the state’s positions.

GLAD’s briefs were authored with Wilmer Hale attorneys Paul Wolfson, Mark Fleming, Alan Schoenfeld, Felicia Ellsworth and Dina Mishra.

See our briefs in the 10th Circuit (Китчен против Герберта); the 4th Circuit (Bostic v. Shaefer); the 6th Circuit ) Obergefell v. Himes, Henry v. Himes, Дебур против Снайдера, Бурк против Бешира, Танко против Хаслама); the 7th Circuit (Baskin v. Bogan); and the 5th Circuit (DeLeon v. Perry).
CONSULTING

GLAD consulted with attorneys around the nation about legal arguments and strategy in marriage and marriage recognition cases in both state and federal courts.

For example, we were on the ground when the Michigan case Дебур против Снайдера went to trial, identifying and prepping expert witnesses and providing trial support to the legal team of private attorneys (Carole Stanyar, Kenneth Mogill, Dana Nessel and Robert Sedler).

The judge found in favor of the couple, and the case was then heard on appeal (on August 6, 2014) at the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently issued a decision upholding bans on marriage for same-sex couples in Michigan as well as Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee. The Supreme Court has now agreed to review all four cases this Term.