消息

今天，在该国法律和文化领域一个轰动的时刻，最高法院裁定，美国同性伴侣无论居住在哪里，都享有同等合法结婚权利作为异性伴侣。

“Today’s ruling brings joy and relief to millions of Americans and their families,” said Mary L. Bonauto, Civil Rights Project Director for GLBTQ Advocates & Defenders, who argued before the Court on behalf of couples from Michigan and Kentucky, challenging their states’ marriage bans.

它提升了LGBTQ群体的权益，并重申法律不能仅仅因为LGBTQ群体的身份而对其进行歧视或绝对排斥。任何一项裁决都无法消除长期以来困扰善良人们的偏见和刻板印象，但它可以极大地帮助人们发现彼此共同的人性。

引自决定.

The historic decision caps over forty years of legal challenges, grassroots activism, legislative advocacy, and steady change in public opinion. In 1999, Vermont’s Supreme Court became the first to rule that the marriage exclusion violates the constitution and inaugurated civil unions. In 2004, Massachusetts became the first state in which same-sex couples could legally marry as a result of GLAD Law’s case Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, which Bonauto also argued, kicking off years of increasing marriage equality momentum.

“Arriving at this moment at this time was not inevitable,” said GLAD Law’s Executive Director Janson Wu. “It happened now because people across the country – young and old, LGBT and straight, religious people and business people – stood up for fairness and their families and friends, and worked diligently and strategically to include same-sex couples in marriage. This was a movement marked by hope, tenacity, and smarts.”

4月28日，博诺托就法院提出的第1个问题进行辩论：“第十四修正案是否要求一个州批准两个同性之间的婚姻？”她代表密歇根州的艾普丽尔·德波尔和杰恩·罗斯，为他们以及原告肯塔基州夫妇蒂姆·洛夫和劳伦斯·伊松扎、莫里斯·布兰查德和多米尼克·詹姆斯以及全国忠诚相爱的夫妇发言。

Ropes & Gray律师事务所合伙人道格拉斯·霍尔沃德-德里迈尔（Douglas Hallward-Driemeier）就法院提出的第二个问题作出了回应：“第十四修正案是否要求一个州承认两个同性人士的婚姻，前提是他们的婚姻是在州外合法登记并履行的？”第二个问题今天也得到了有利的判决。

这四起案件的共同辩护律师包括 Lambda Legal（俄亥俄州）、全国女同性恋权利中心（田纳西州）和美国公民自由联盟（俄亥俄州的婚姻合法化和肯塔基州的承认合法化），以及来自肯塔基州、密歇根州、俄亥俄州和田纳西州的优秀私人律师。

自2004年以来，继马萨诸塞州之后，另有36个州、哥伦比亚特区、波多黎各联邦和美国属地关岛通过法院案件、立法和投票表决的方式，允许同性伴侣合法结婚。值得注意的是，2013年，最高法院在“美国诉温莎案”中推翻了联邦《婚姻保护法》（DOMA）。这一判决为联邦地区法院和上诉法院一系列成功的判决打开了大门，这些判决在全国范围内确认了同性伴侣的结婚自由。

Bonauto is a member of the legal team for the Michigan case, DeBoer v. Snyder, with co-counsel Dana Nessel, Carole Stanyar, Kenneth Mogill, and Robert Sedler. She has also consulted on strategy, organized amici briefs for numerous post-Windsor marriage cases across the country, and with WilmerHale submitted amici briefs for GLAD Law in those cases. GLAD Law’s challenges to DOMA, Gill v. OPM and Pedersen v. OPM, both spearheaded by Bonauto, also produced the first and other early rulings from three federal courts that DOMA was unconstitutional, setting the stage for Windsor.

美国成为世界上第20个同性伴侣可以在全国范围内合法结婚的国家。

消息

家 » 国家/联邦 » Page 49

This is a decision of enormous magnitude, one that brings great joy to millions of families – gay and straight – across this country.

So, today as we celebrate what is a landmark ruling, let us also rededicate ourselves to ensuring that all of us – all Americans — no matter who they are or where they live – have the same opportunities and freedom to live equally, safely and securely. We owe that Constitutional promise not only to one another, but to future generations as well.

With this ruling anyone who’s LGBT now knows that tomorrow – or some day, years from now – they, too, can marry the person they most love in the world. And families raising children are now equally worthy of marriage with all the respect, responsibility, and support that marriage provides.

This ruling lifts up all of us – our entire nation – in standing by the principle that we do not tolerate laws that discriminate against people because of who they are. The Constitutional promises of liberty, equality and justice for all took a giant step forward today.

Still, as tragedy after tragedy reminds us – and right now, thousands of good people are joined together in mourning in Charleston – people are still targeted for discrimination and even unspeakable violence because of who they are.

So, today as we celebrate what is a landmark ruling, let us also rededicate ourselves to ensuring that all of us – all Americans — no matter who they are or where they live – have the same opportunities and freedom to live equally, safely and securely. We owe that Constitutional promise not only to one another, but to future generations as well.

消息

家 » 国家/联邦 » Page 49

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

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

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

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

GLAD, Justice in Aging and Foley Hoag LLP are representing Kelley Richardson-Wright of Athol, Massachusetts, who is married to Kena Richardson-Wright; and Hugh Held of Los Angeles, who is married to Orion Masters. Both Ms. Richardson-Wright and Mr. Held have been subject to extreme financial harm as a result of SSA’s discrimination.

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

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

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

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

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

Through strategic litigation, public policy advocacy, and education, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders works in New England and nationally to create a just society free of discrimination based on gender identity and expression, HIV status, and sexual orientation.

欲了解更多信息，请访问 www.gladlaw.org.

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

欲了解更多信息，请访问 www.justiceinaging.org.

King v. Burwell

家 » 国家/联邦 » Page 49

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

GLAD signed on to an amicus brief, principally authored by Lambda Legal, submitted in support of the respondents in King v. Burwell, heard by the United States Supreme Court in 2015 challenging the IRS regulation that makes federal tax subsidies for health insurance available to low-income individuals in all 50 states through the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

The brief argued that interpreting the ACA in the manner proposed by the petitioners would lead to a catastrophic public health result, especially in the context of HIV:

“It is well-known that access to healthcare dramatically improves the lives of individuals living with HIV. But widespread access to insurance can also lead to a precipitous decline in new infections, especially in marginalized communities. To deny these opportunities to communities most affected by the HIV epidemic would not only flout Congressional intent, but also inflict grievous and unjustifiable injury on vulnerable communities of color, which are heavily overrepresented in many states that have been resistant to implementation of the ACA.”

博客

家 » 国家/联邦 » Page 49

Our experience in Washington, D.C. at the Supreme Court

As we eagerly await the Supreme Court’s decision, it is important that we collectively acknowledge that marriage is by no means a final step in the long road towards equality, empowerment, and justice for the LGBT community.

It has been an incredible experience to be able to work for GLAD, and with Mary Bonauto, during the exciting and busy time leading up to last week’s Supreme Court case, in which Mary expertly and brilliantly argued for marriage equality. And it was particularly meaningful for us to be in D.C. on the day of the argument. As young people, it is extraordinary that we have had the opportunity to jump whole-heartedly into this decades-long movement.

GLAD Legal Assistants Michelle Wiener, Brian Yeh, and Annie Sloan outside of the Supreme Court

As GLAD Legal Assistants, we had been eagerly learning about and preparing for the case for the past few months, and needless to say, we were full of excitement and anticipation that the day had finally come. When we arrived at the Supreme Court at 8:00 a.m., two hours before the argument started, there was already a big crowd. This, of course, was no surprise to us; people had been camped out waiting in line to get into the argument for days! We scoped out the crowd—mostly marriage equality supporters, though, also as expected, there were a fair amount of opponents as well—and spent a couple of hours handing out GLAD posters and soaking in the positive energy and optimism.

Mary has always emphasized that it is the real people behind the cases and laws that motivate and sustain her- the real people who love one another and who just want the laws of this nation to equally recognize and support them and their families. Likewise, one of our favorite parts of the day was meeting and talking with real people impacted by marriage laws who had travelled from all over the country to be there in support of the freedom to marry. We met a plaintiff couple, for example, who had actually been represented by GLAD in the 2008 case that led to marriage equality in Connecticut.

We also got to know a plaintiff couple from a Nebraska case, with whom we enjoyed waiting in line to get into the Court. Alongside our new friends, we did manage to make it into the Court for the very end of the argument, making the day that much more special for each of us. As we walked down the Supreme Court steps after the argument ended, it truly felt like we were living history. And as all of the plaintiff couples exited the Court, the crowds enthusiastically cheered for them and sought high-fives and hugs from them. Ultimately, we were cheering for their love and the equal protection under law that our Constitution ensures them.

GLAD Legal Assistants Michelle Wiener and Brian Yeh with Nebraska plaintiffs

I am in my early twenties and it is unlikely that marriage is in my near future. But growing up, it was inconceivable that gay people would even be able to marry. The discriminatory exclusion makes an impact on young people everywhere. An amicus brief submitted to the Court by Family Equality Council highlights this point by describing how limiting marriage to heterosexual couples undermines the self-worth of LGBT youth. Denying same-sex couples the right to marry stamps those relationships – and the individuals in those relationships – as less than, and I undoubtedly felt that growing up. Being at the Supreme Court last Tuesday was the opposite experience. Surrounded by decades of activists, plaintiffs, and supporters young and old, I felt supported and loved.

But as we eagerly await the Supreme Court’s decision, it is important that we collectively acknowledge that marriage is by no means a final step in the long road towards equality, empowerment, and justice for the LGBT community. In many states across the country, employment discrimination is legal on the basis of sexual orientation and/or gender identity. Here in Massachusetts, there are no public accommodation protections for transgender people. There are high rates of violence against transgender people, particularly transgender women of color. School curriculums are not LGBT inclusive. LGBT students are disproportionately punished in schools. The list goes on. And it goes on. But at GLAD, and as young people, we hope to use the momentum and national spotlight of marriage equality to fervently pursue equal justice under law for everyone.

消息

家 » 国家/联邦 » Page 49

The U.S. Supreme Court declined today to hear an appeal on behalf of Michelle Kosilek, a transgender woman who has been denied essential health care while serving a prison sentence in the custody of the Massachusetts Department of Correction (DOC). The denial marks the end of the road legally in Kosilek’s lengthy struggle to receive appropriate care while in prison.

“This is a terrible and inhumane result for Michelle,” said Jennifer Levi, director of the Transgender Rights Project for GLAD. “But it is just a matter of time before some prison somewhere is required to provide essential surgery, meeting the minimal Constitutional obligations of adequate medical care for transgender people in prison.”

GLAD, attorney Joseph L. Sulman, and Goodwin Procter LLP filed a petition for certiorari in March after an 全庭 decision by the First Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse two lower court decisions in Kosilek’s favor. The petition asserted that the First Circuit Court of Appeals overstepped its role with its December 2014 全庭 ruling that retried the facts of a 2012 trial, and applied the wrong standard of legal review. The petition can be read here. Goodwin Procter attorneys working on the case Abigail K. Hemani, Michele E. Connolly, James P. Devendorf, Jaime A. Santos, and Christine Dieter.

“The treatment of Michelle has been cruel and unusual, according to two lengthy, thoughtful, and closely reasoned judgements,” said Sulman. “The DOC’s behavior has been abominable as they have repeatedly defied their own experts in their eagerness to deny her desperately needed medical attention.”

The cert denial is the culmination of over 20 years of litigation on whether DOC officials have violated Kosilek’s 8^日 Amendment rights by failing to provide adequate care for her severe gender identity disorder (GID), a condition that all parties agree is a “serious medical need.” As a result of being denied treatment, Kosilek has self-mutilated and has attempted suicide twice.

The district court decision, written by Judge Mark L. Wolf, found that the DOC engaged in a pattern of “pretense, pretext, and prevarication” to deny her treatment. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts appealed, and on January 17, 2014, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals upheld Judge Wolf. The Commonwealth requested and was granted a rehearing of the appeal before the full bench, which then overturned Judge Wolf on December 16, 2014 by a vote of 3-2.

消息

家 » 国家/联邦 » Page 49

It’s time to end the legal bans that single out same-sex couples for disrespect,
and instead allow them to make the unique promise of marriage to one another
and provide greater protection and security for their families.
– Mary Bonauto

What is at stake?

The case marks a significant legal and cultural moment for the country, capping nearly twenty-five years of legal challenges, grassroots activism, legislative advocacy, and steady change in public opinion in favor of the freedom to marry for same-sex couples.

Thirty-seven states and the District of Columbia currently allow loving, committed same-sex couples to marry. The Supreme Court has been asked in this case to consider the constitutionality of laws in four states that bar same-sex couples from marrying, or prevent a marriage they lawfully entered into in another state from being recognized at home.

The Court has requested to hear arguments about each of these questions – the issuing of marriage licenses and the recognition of marriages – together on April 28.

The petitioners argue that the equal protection and liberty guarantees of the 14th Amendment make such marriage bans unconstitutional on both questions. If the Court agrees, it would mean no state would be permitted to refuse to recognize marriages or to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

In short, this case could resolve the question of marriage equality across the country once and for all.

What are the cases being argued?

The Court is hearing consolidated cases from four states, under the official name 奥贝格费尔诉霍奇斯案:

Kentucky: 伯克诉贝希尔案 和 洛夫诉贝希尔案

Michigan: 德波尔诉斯奈德案

Ohio: 奥贝格费尔诉霍奇斯案 和 亨利诉霍奇斯案

Tennessee: Tanco诉Haslam

Who are the petitioners?

The petitioners are same-sex couples – many of whom are raising children – and widowers, who are seeking to have their relationships and families protected and respected by being able to legally marry or have their existing marriages recognized in the state they call home.

伯克诉贝希尔案/洛夫诉贝希尔案 (Kentucky)

Gregory Bourke and Michael Deleon, Paul Campion and Randy Johnson, Kim Franklin and Tammy Boyd, Jimmy Meade and Luke Barlowe, Timothy Love and Lawrence Ysunza, and Dominique James and Rev. Maurice “Bojangles” Blanchard

Deboer v.Snyder (Michigan)

April DeBoer 和 Jayne Rowse

奥贝格费尔诉霍奇斯案 (Ohio)

Jim Obergefell, David Michener and Robert Grunn

亨利诉霍奇斯案 (Ohio)

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

Tanco诉Haslam (Tennessee)

Dr. Valeria Tanco and Dr. Sophy Jesty, Ijpe DeKoe and Thom Kostura, and Matthew Mansell and Johno Espejo

When is the argument?

April 28, 2015. The argument begins at 10 a.m. and is scheduled to last two and a half hours.

What are the two questions?

Question 1: Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?

Question 2: Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

Who is arguing?

Question 1:

Mary Bonauto, Civil Rights Project Director at Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), will argue on behalf of same-sex couples seeking the freedom to marry; she has been allotted 30 minutes.

Donald Verilli Jr., U.S. Solicitor General, will also have 15 minutes to support the argument for a constitutional right to marry for same-sex couples.

John Bursch, Michigan Special Assistant Attorney General, will defend the state bans on marriage for same-sex couples; he has been allotted 45 minutes.

Mary Bonauto will also have a short amount of time at the end of the argument for rebuttal or clarification.

Question 2:

Douglas Hallward-Driemeier, who leads the Appellate and Supreme Court Practice at Ropes & Gray, will argue that a state must recognize marriages of same-sex couples entered into outside of the state; he has been allotted 30 minutes.

Joe Whalen, Associate Solicitor General in the Tennessee Attorney General’s Office, will defend state bans on recognition of marriages legally entered into by same-sex couples in other jurisdictions.

Douglas Hallward-Driemeier will also have a short amount of time at the end of the argument for rebuttal or clarification.

Will the Argument be Streamed or Televised?

The argument will not be streamed or televised. The Court will post audio and a transcript of the argument later that afternoon. Sign up for GLAD email alerts to get the link once it’s posted:

When can we expect a decision?

The decision is expected at the very end of the Court’s session, likely the end of June.

消息

家 » 国家/联邦 » Page 49

美国最高法院今天将审理四起婚姻平等案件，统称为 奥贝格费尔诉霍奇斯案.

上午10点，同性恋倡导与捍卫者组织民权项目主任玛丽·L·博诺托将解答法院提出的第一个问题：“第十四修正案是否要求一个州必须为同性两人之间的婚姻颁发结婚证？”她代表密歇根州的艾普丽尔·德波尔和杰恩·罗斯，以及肯塔基州的蒂姆·洛夫和劳伦斯·伊松扎夫妇，以及莫里斯·布兰查德和多米尼克·詹姆斯夫妇。

Ropes & Gray 律师事务所合伙人道格拉斯·霍尔沃德-德里迈尔 (Douglas Hallward-Driemeier) 将解答法院提出的第二个问题：“第十四修正案是否要求一个州承认两个同性之间的婚姻，只要他们的婚姻是合法获得许可并在州外举行的？”

这四起案件的共同辩护律师包括 Lambda Legal、全国女同性恋权利中心和美国公民自由联盟，以及许多私人律师。

此次口头辩论标志着美国法律和文化领域一个重要的时刻，它为近25年来的法律挑战、草根行动、立法倡导以及支持同性婚姻自由的公众舆论的稳步转变画上了句号。2004年，由于同性恋者反歧视联盟（GLAD）的裁决，马萨诸塞州成为第一个允许同性伴侣合法结婚的州。 古德里奇诉公共卫生部，Bonauto 对此进行了辩论并获胜。

自2004年以来，已有36个州和哥伦比亚特区通过法院案件、立法和投票表决的方式，允许同性伴侣合法结婚。值得注意的是，2013年，最高法院在以下案件中推翻了联邦《婚姻保护法》（DOMA）。 温莎诉美利坚合众国案。这一判决为联邦地区法院和上诉法院一系列成功的判决打开了大门，这些判决确认了全国范围内同性伴侣结婚的自由。

Bonauto 是密歇根州案件的法律团队成员， 德波尔诉斯奈德案，与联合律师Dana Nessel、Carole Stanyar、Kenneth Mogill和Robert Sedler合作。她还协助全国各地众多婚姻案件组织了法庭之友陈述。GLAD对《婚姻保护法》的挑战， 吉尔诉 OPM 和 佩德森诉 OPM均由 Bonauto 牵头，并首次在联邦法院裁定《婚姻保护法》违宪，为温莎.

一项决定 奥贝格费尔 预计在六月底左右。

更多信息请访问 www.gladlaw.org/marriage.

消息

家 » 国家/联邦 » Page 49

接触：
Crystal Cooper，美国公民自由联盟全国频道，212-519-7894， ccooper@aclu.org
Carisa Cunningham，同性恋倡导者和捍卫者，617-426-1350， ccunningham@glad.org
Lisa Hardaway，Lambda Legal 212-809-8585 分机 266， lhardaway@lambdalegal.org
埃里克·奥尔维拉，NCLR，415-365-1324， eolvera@nclrights.org

华盛顿——肯塔基州、密歇根州、俄亥俄州和田纳西州婚姻诉讼案的原告律师今天宣布，玛丽·L·博诺托 (Mary L. Bonauto) 和道格·霍尔沃德-德里迈尔 (Doug Hallward-Driemeier) 将代表原告出席定于 4 月 28 日在美国最高法院举行的案件辩论。

Bonauto 将针对问题 1 提出论点：“第十四修正案是否要求一个州承认两个同性之间的婚姻？”，而 Hallward-Driemeier 将针对问题 2 提出论点：“当两个同性之间的婚姻在州外合法获得许可并完成时，第十四修正案是否要求一个州承认他们的婚姻？”

美国公民自由联盟、男女同性恋倡导者和捍卫者组织、Lambda Legal 和全国女同性恋权利中心以及代表肯塔基州、密歇根州、俄亥俄州和田纳西州的夫妇和幸存配偶的私人律师合伙人发表了以下声明：

我们非常激动地宣布，玛丽和道格将代表我们的客户以及数百万基本权利岌岌可危的美国人，为他们辩护。玛丽·博诺托精心策划并辩护的案件，使马萨诸塞州成为第一个完全实现婚姻平等的州，并在联邦法院首次赢得了《婚姻保护法》违宪的裁决。她帮助发起了婚姻运动，现在将帮助它走向终点。道格·霍尔沃德-德里迈尔为团队带来了令人印象深刻的最高法院诉讼背景，他曾在最高法院出庭辩论十四次，提交了150多份辩护状，曾担任美国司法部总检察长助理，并在其他多起LGBT权利案件中提供无偿法律服务。作为带领我们的社区和国家走向这一历史性时刻的法律团队和倡导者，我们很自豪能够支持玛丽和道格，支持我们所有的客户，以及这个国家所有寻求婚姻自由和婚姻受尊重的同性伴侣。

“我很荣幸能够与卡罗尔·斯坦亚尔、达娜·内塞尔、肯·莫吉尔和罗伯特·塞德勒组成的密歇根团队，以及肯塔基州、俄亥俄州和田纳西州其他法律团队的支持，为来自肯塔基州和密歇根州寻求婚姻自由的请愿者发声，”同性恋倡导者和捍卫者组织民权项目总监玛丽·L·博诺托表示。“我们一路走来，正是由无数坚信婚姻是所有人基本权利的人共同铺设的。同性伴侣不应被剥夺婚姻制度所代表的快乐、安全和完整的公民权利。我相信法院会给予我们公正的审理，我期待着所有美国LGBT群体都能与自己爱的人结婚的那一天。”

道格·霍尔沃德-德里迈尔表示：“能够代表这些已经合法结婚并组建新家庭的恩爱夫妻，为他们争取各州尊重其婚姻的权利，我深感荣幸。这些案件的原告代表了各种各样的夫妻，从相伴三十年的夫妻到刚刚组建家庭的夫妻，也代表了许多已婚夫妇为了新雇主工作、在最近的医院分娩或寻找新机会而必须跨越州界的情况。这些夫妻理应享有各州在其他已婚夫妇及其家庭人生各个阶段给予他们的尊重和稳定。”
请愿夫妇致法院的信函中列出了 4 月 28 日论点的支持者，可在此处找到.

有关 Bourke v. Beshear 和 Love v. Beshear 的更多信息，请参阅 ACLU 的案例页面： https://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights/bourke-v-beshear-freedom-marry-kentucky
有关 Deboer v.Snyder 的更多信息，请参阅 GLAD 的案例页面： www.gladlaw.org/marriage 或者 http://www.nationalmarriagechallenge.com/

有关 Henry v. Hodges 案的更多信息，请访问 Lambda Legal 的案例页面： http://www.lambdalegal.org/in-court/cases/henry-v-himes
有关 Obergefell 诉 Hodges 案的更多信息，请访问 ACLU 的案例页面： https://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights/obergefell-et-al-v-himes-freedom-marry-ohio
有关 Tanco v. Haslam 的更多信息，请参阅 NCLR 的案例页面： http://www.nclrights.org/cases-and-policy/cases-and-advocacy/tanco_v_haslam/