Tin tức

Trang chủ » Quốc gia/Liên bang » Page 50

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 kiện Snyder and the Kentucky case Tình yêu 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 kiện 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 kiện DPH, which made Massachusetts the first state in which same-sex couples could marry in 2004. GLAD’s Defense of Marriage Act challenges Gill kiện OPMVà Pedersen kiện OPM, spearheaded by Bonauto, also produced the first rulings from a federal court that DOMA was unconstitutional. She was also part of the legal team on Windsor v. U.S., resulting in the striking down of DOMA.

Also co-counsel on the four cases are Lambda Legal, National Center for Lesbian Rights, and the American Civil Liberties Union. And on April 28, attorney Douglas Hallward-Driemeier, on behalf of petitioners from Ohio and Tennessee, will present arguments for the question: “Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?”

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

Tin tức

Trang chủ » Quốc gia/Liên bang » 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 kiện Beshear Và Tình yêu 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 kiện Hodges on Lambda Legal’s case page here: www.lambdalegal.org/in-court/cases/henry-v-himes

Read more about Obergefell kiện 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/

Liên hệ:

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

Carisa Cunningham, Người ủng hộ và bảo vệ quyền của người đồng tính nam và đồng tính nữ, 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

Tin tức

Trang chủ » Quốc gia/Liên bang » 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.

Đọc thêm về vụ án

Tin tức

Trang chủ » Quốc gia/Liên bang » 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 v. Colvin, chống lại Cục An sinh Xã hội (SSA) thay mặt cho những người nhận Thu nhập An sinh Bổ sung (SSI) kết hôn với người cùng giới vào hoặc trước tháng 6 năm 2013. Vụ kiện cáo buộc rằng SSA đã phân biệt đối xử với những cá nhân này trong nhiều tháng, và trong một số trường hợp là hơn một năm, sau khi Tòa án Tối cao tuyên bố hành vi phân biệt đối xử đó là bất hợp pháp khi bãi bỏ Đạo luật Bảo vệ Hôn nhân (DOMA) vào tháng 6 năm 2013.

Đọc khiếu nại.

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.

Read more about the plaintiffs.

“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.”

Với 8,3 triệu người nhận trợ cấp SSI tính đến tháng 12 năm 2014, thực tế là 5-7% dân số là người đồng tính nữ, đồng tính nam hoặc song tính, tỷ lệ nghèo đói chung trong dân số đó và hàng chục nghìn cuộc hôn nhân của các cặp đôi đồng giới trước đó Windsor, có thể có hàng trăm người trong lớp này. Vì SSA tiến hành xác định lại điều kiện đủ tư cách theo từng đợt nên số lượng thành viên nhóm được cho là sẽ tăng theo thời gian.

Held v. Colvin

Trang chủ » Quốc gia/Liên bang » Page 50

Victory! As a result, in part, of this suit, the Social Security Administration (SSA) has issued a new polic và 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. Đọc thêm.

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.

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.

Tin tức

Trang chủ » Quốc gia/Liên bang » 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^th in an apparent hate violence homicide.
Virginia: Lamia Beard was found shot to death on January 17^th in an apparent hate violence homicide.
Texas: Ty Underwood was found shot to death early Monday morning on January 26^th 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^th in an apparent hate violence homicide.
Florida: Kristina Gomez Reinwald was found unresponsive in her home on February 15^th 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^th 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^th.
Massachusetts: Lisa Trubnikova was allegedly killed on February 5^th in an apparent stalking homicide.
Colorado: Jessie Hernandez đã từng là killed by the police on January 26^th.
Georgia: Ashley Belle was killed on January 26^th and her partner was charged with the crime in an apparent intimate partner violence homicide.
New York: Cassandra Keels was killed on January 18^th 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 Và 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.

Đã ký,

Hãy tin lớn tiếng
BiNet Hoa Kỳ
Center For Black Equity, Inc.
CenterLink: Cộng đồng các Trung tâm LGBT
Liên đoàn Bình đẳng
Hội đồng Bình đẳng Gia đình
FORGE
Người ủng hộ và bảo vệ quyền của người đồng tính nam và đồng tính nữ
GetEqual
VUI VẺ
GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing LGBT Equality
GLSEN
Chiến dịch Nhân quyền
Bình đẳng nhập cư
International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC)
Lambda Legal
Movement Advancement Project.
Liên minh Công lý Da đen Quốc gia
Trung tâm Quốc gia về Quyền của Người đồng tính nữ
National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs (NCAVP)
National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce®
Lực lượng đặc nhiệm LGBTQ quốc gia
Liên minh Người đồng tính Châu Á Thái Bình Dương Quốc gia (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)

Những người ủng hộ công bằng và bình đẳng tại nơi làm việc
Pride at Work, AFL-CIO
SAGE
Southerners on New Ground (SONG)
The Consortium of Higher Education LGBT Resource Professionals
The Pride Network
Quỹ Giáo dục và Bảo vệ Pháp lý Người chuyển giới
True Colors Fund

Tin tức

Trang chủ » Quốc gia/Liên bang » 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. Hoa Kỳ 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 kiện Bộ Y tế Công cộng (2003) made Massachusetts the first U.S. state in which same-sex couples could legally marry.

Blog

Trang chủ » Quốc gia/Liên bang » 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: Bình đẳng hôn nhân tại Tòa án Tối cao

Trang chủ » Quốc gia/Liên bang » 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 không phải là sự khởi đầu hay kết thúc của câu chuyện. GLAD Law, will continue to fight to protect marriage equality for all families.

For more information visit Bình đẳng hôn nhân: Tại sao nó quan trọng, chúng ta đã chiến thắng như thế nào và con đường phía trước.

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

Bảo vệ Hôn nhân và Gia đình LGBTQ+ của Bạn

Paths to Parentage Security

Ngày 26 tháng 6 năm 2015: Chiến thắng!

Hôn nhân đồng giới được hợp pháp hóa ở Hoa Kỳ khi nào?

Vào ngày 26 tháng 6 năm 2015, trong một khoảnh khắc văn hóa và pháp lý chấn động của đất nước, Tòa án Tối cao đã ra phán quyết rằng các cặp đôi đồng giới tại Hoa Kỳ, bất kể họ sống ở đâu, đều có quyền kết hôn hợp pháp như các cặp đôi khác giới. Quyết định mang tính đột phá này đã đánh dấu một cột mốc quan trọng trong cuộc đấu tranh cho quyền bình đẳng của cộng đồng LGBTQ+. Tìm hiểu thêm về phản ứng của chúng tôi trước thời khắc lịch sử này.

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 và Jayne Rowse trong trường hợp Michigan DeBoer kiện Snyder và Timothy Love, Lawrence Ysunza, Maurice Blanchard và Dominique James trong vụ án Kentucky Tình yêu v. Beshear (kết hợp với Bourke kiện Beshear) và các cặp đôi đồng giới trên khắp đất nước bị cấm kết hôn.

Douglas Hallward-Driemeier, đối tác tại Ropes & Gray LLP, đại diện cho những người nộp đơn yêu cầu công nhận hôn nhân của họ. Tìm hiểu thêm đây.

The Supreme Court ruling came in consideration of several combined marriage cases. Kentucky petitioners Timothy Love và Lawrence Ysunza Và Maurice Blanchard và Dominique James được đại diện bởi ACLU và Phòng tư vấn kiện tụng Tòa án tối cao của Trường Luật Stanford, Clay Daniel Walton & Adams và Văn phòng luật Fauver. Tìm hiểu thêm đây.

GLAD Law was co-counsel in DeBoer kiện Snyder, cùng với các luật sư Michigan Carole Stanyar, Dana Nessel của Nessel & Kessel Law, Kenneth Mogill của Mogill, Posner & Cohen và Giáo sư Luật Robert Sedler của Đại học Wayne State. Tìm hiểu thêm về April và Jane và thách thức của họ đối với lệnh cấm kết hôn của Michigan đây Và đây.

Obergefell kiện Hodges Và Henry kiện Hodges được đưa ra bởi Lambda Legal và cố vấn tư nhân tại Ohio; và Tanco kiện Haslam, được NCLR và luật sư tư nhân tại Tennessee đưa ra.

Vào ngày 14 tháng 11, luật sư của cặp đôi người Michigan April DeBoer và Jayne Rowse đã đệ đơn thỉnh cầu Tòa án Tối cao Hoa Kỳ xét xử vụ án của họ, nhằm lật ngược phán quyết của Tòa Phúc thẩm Khu vực Sáu, vốn duy trì lệnh cấm kết hôn đối với các cặp đồng giới ở Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio và Tennessee. April DeBoer và Jayne Rowse đều là y tá và là mẹ của bốn đứa trẻ mà họ đã nuôi dưỡng và nhận làm con nuôi, và đang nuôi dưỡng đứa thứ năm. Họ hết lòng vì nhau, vì con cái, và họ nên được phép kết hôn.

Thẩm phán Tòa án Quận Hoa Kỳ Bernard Friedman đã phán quyết vào tháng 3 năm 2014 rằng luật của Michigan cấm các cặp đôi đồng giới kết hôn là vi hiến, sau phiên tòa kéo dài hai tuần, trong đó có lời khai của các chuyên gia từ các nhà tâm lý học, xã hội học, chuyên gia phúc lợi trẻ em và sử gia hàng đầu của quốc gia.

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

Bình đẳng hôn nhân tác động và mang lại lợi ích cho toàn bộ cộng đồng trên khắp đất nước. Một cách chúng ta có thể bảo vệ bình đẳng là thông qua các cuộc trò chuyện về lý do tại sao hôn nhân lại quan trọng đối với chúng ta và với người khác.

Cho dù bạn là một cặp vợ chồng, có cha mẹ LGBTQ+, là anh chị em ruột, cha mẹ, ông bà, thành viên gia đình, bạn bè, đồng nghiệp hay hàng xóm, chúng tôi đều rất muốn biết về trải nghiệm của bạn. Share your story today.

Tin tức

Trang chủ » Quốc gia/Liên bang » 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