消息

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 德波尔诉斯奈德案 and the Kentucky case 洛夫诉贝希尔案.

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 德波尔诉斯奈德案 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 古德里奇诉 DPH, which made Massachusetts the first state in which same-sex couples could marry in 2004. GLAD’s Defense of Marriage Act challenges 吉尔诉 OPM和 佩德森诉 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 或者 www.nationalmarriagechallenge.com.

消息

家 » 国家/联邦 » 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 伯克诉贝希尔案 和 洛夫诉贝希尔案, 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 亨利诉霍奇斯案 on Lambda Legal’s case page here: www.lambdalegal.org/in-court/cases/henry-v-himes

Read more about 奥贝格费尔诉霍奇斯案 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/

接触：

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

Carisa Cunningham，同性恋倡导者和捍卫者，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

埃里克·奥尔维拉，NCLR，415-365-1324， EOlvera@NCLRights.org

消息

家 » 国家/联邦 » 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 全庭 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.

消息

家 » 国家/联邦 » 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, 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.

阅读投诉.

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.”

Given the 8.3 million people receiving SSI benefits as of December 2014, the fact that 5-7% of the population is lesbian, gay, or bisexual, the overall incidence of poverty in that population, and the tens of thousands of marriages of couples of the same sex prior to Windsor, there are likely hundreds of people in this class. Because SSA conducts redeterminations of eligibility on a rolling basis, the number of putative class members will increase over time.

Held v. Colvin

家 » 国家/联邦 » Page 50

Victory! As a result, in part, of this suit, the Social Security Administration (SSA) has issued a new polic y 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. 阅读更多.

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.

消息

家 » 国家/联邦 » 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^日 in an apparent hate violence homicide.
Virginia: Lamia Beard was found shot to death on January 17^日 in an apparent hate violence homicide.
Texas: Ty Underwood was found shot to death early Monday morning on January 26^日 in an apparent hate violence homicide.

California: Yazmin Vash Payne was discovered fatally stabbed to death on Saturday, January 31^英石, 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^英石 in an apparent hate violence homicide.
Louisiana: Penny Proud was found fatally shot on February 10^日 in an apparent hate violence homicide.
Florida: Kristina Gomez Reinwald was found unresponsive in her home on February 15^日 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^日 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.
马萨诸塞州： Omar Mendez was found stabbed to death in his home in an apparent intimate partner violence homicide on February 15^日.
马萨诸塞州： Lisa Trubnikova was allegedly killed on February 5^日 in an apparent stalking homicide.
Colorado: Jessie Hernandez 曾是 killed by the police on January 26^日.
Georgia: Ashley Belle was killed on January 26^日 and her partner was charged with the crime in an apparent intimate partner violence homicide.
New York: Cassandra Keels was killed on January 18^日 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 和 Safe OUTSide the System Collective in New York City, 卡萨红宝石 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.

签名，

大声相信
BiNet 美国
Center For Black Equity, Inc.
CenterLink：LGBT中心社区
平等联盟
家庭平等委员会
FORGE
Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders
获取相等
同性恋反歧视联盟
GLMA：促进LGBT平等的卫生专业人员
格尔森
人权运动
移民平等
International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC)
Lambda 法律
Movement Advancement Project.
全国黑人正义联盟
全国女同性恋权利中心
National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs (NCAVP)
National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce®
全国 LGBTQ 工作组
全国酷儿亚太岛民联盟（NQAPIA）
NCAVP Movement Building Committee:

API Chaya
BreakOUT!
BSEEDZ
卡萨红宝石
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)

平等工作场所倡导者
Pride at Work, AFL-CIO
圣人
Southerners on New Ground (SONG)
高等教育LGBT资源专业人员联盟
The Pride Network
跨性别法律辩护与教育基金
真彩基金

消息

家 » 国家/联邦 » 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 温莎诉美国案 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 温莎 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 古德里奇诉公共卫生部 (2003) made Massachusetts the first U.S. state in which same-sex couples could legally marry.

博客

家 » 国家/联邦 » 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

奥贝格费尔诉霍奇斯案：最高法院的婚姻平等

家 » 国家/联邦 » Page 50

Updated on August 12, 2025:

在 GLAD Law，我们认识到 Kim Davis 提起诉讼要求最高法院重新考虑 Obergefell. 然而，鉴于戴维斯诉求的范围极其狭窄，最高法院有充分的理由拒绝审理此案。

Kim Davis 的案子是 极其狭窄，她的论点已被第六巡回上诉法院驳回不止一次。此事的起因是，十年前，她担任县政府官员时，指示整个办公室拒绝向同性伴侣发放结婚证，而不是按照工作要求遵守法律。下级法院最终判决，一对屡次被拒发结婚证的夫妇获得精神损害赔偿。戴维斯的法律团队正试图强行争取重新提起诉讼的机会。 奥贝格费尔 这对夫妇是否有权获得这些赔偿，这是一个非常狭隘的法律问题。今年早些时候，第六巡回上诉法院就同样的诉讼请求对她做出了不利的判决，随后全院法官驳回了她重新审理案件的请求。 各行各业、各个政治派别的人们都支持婚姻平等，或者对婚姻平等采取宽容的态度，并希望关注其他问题。 最高法院有充分理由拒绝审查此案，而不是扰乱婚姻平等这一对夫妻、孩子、家庭和整个社会如此积极的事情。
Mary Bonauto, Senior Director of Civil Rights and Legal Strategies, GLAD Law, one of the lawyers that argued in Obergefell v Hodges

婚姻为夫妻及其家庭提供深厚的保护。这让他们可以一起规划生活，如果他们愿意的话，抚养孩子. This year marked ten years of nationwide marriage equality. The win in 奥贝格费尔 这既不是故事的开始，也不是故事的结束。 GLAD Law, will continue to fight to protect marriage equality for all families.

更多信息请访问 婚姻平等：为何重要、我们如何取得胜利以及未来之路.

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

保护你的 LGBTQ+ 婚姻和家庭

获得亲子关系保障的途径

2015年6月26日：胜利！

美国何时将同性婚姻合法化？

2015年6月26日，美国最高法院裁定，无论居住在哪里，同性伴侣均享有与异性伴侣同等的合法结婚权利，这在美国法律和文化领域都具有里程碑式的意义。这项具有变革意义的裁决，标志着LGBTQ+群体争取平等权利的进程中迈出了重要的一步。进一步了解我们对这一历史性时刻的反应。

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 和 Jayne Rowse 在密歇根州的案件中 德波尔诉斯奈德案 以及肯塔基州案件中的蒂莫西·洛夫 (Timothy Love)、劳伦斯·伊松扎 (Lawrence Ysunza)、莫里斯·布兰查德 (Maurice Blanchard) 和多米尼克·詹姆斯 (Dominique James) 洛夫诉贝希尔案 （加入 伯克诉贝希尔案) 以及全国各地被禁止结婚的同性伴侣。

Ropes & Gray LLP律师事务所合伙人道格拉斯·霍尔沃德-德里迈尔（Douglas Hallward-Driemeier）代表原告寻求婚姻的承认。了解更多这里.

The Supreme Court ruling came in consideration of several combined marriage cases. Kentucky petitioners 蒂莫西·洛夫和劳伦斯·伊松扎 和 莫里斯·布兰查德和多米尼克·詹姆斯 代理方包括美国公民自由联盟 (ACLU)、斯坦福法学院最高法院诉讼诊所、Clay Daniel Walton & Adams 律师事务所以及 Fauver 律师事务所。了解更多这里。

GLAD Law was co-counsel in 德波尔诉斯奈德案以及密歇根州律师Carole Stanyar、Nessel & Kessel律师事务所的Dana Nessel、Mogill, Posner & Cohen律师事务所的Kenneth Mogill以及韦恩州立大学法学教授Robert Sedler。了解更多关于April和Jane以及她们对密歇根州婚姻禁令的挑战的故事。这里和这里.

奥贝格费尔诉霍奇斯案 和亨利诉霍奇斯案由俄亥俄州的 Lambda Legal 和私人律师提起；并且 Tanco诉Haslam, 由 NCLR 和田纳西州的私人律师提起。

11月14日，密歇根州夫妇April DeBoer和Jayne Rowse的律师提交了一份请愿书，请求美国最高法院审理他们的案件，寻求推翻第六巡回上诉法院维持密歇根州、肯塔基州、俄亥俄州和田纳西州禁止同性伴侣结婚的裁决。April DeBoer和Jayne Rowse都是护士，她们抚养和领养了四个孩子，目前正在抚养第五个孩子。她们彼此深爱，也爱自己的孩子，她们应该能够结婚。

2014 年 3 月，经过两周的庭审，听取了来自全国顶尖心理学家、社会学家、儿童福利专家和历史学家的专家证词，美国地区法院法官伯纳德·弗里德曼裁定，密歇根州禁止同性伴侣结婚的法律违宪。

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

婚姻平等触及并惠及全国各地的社区。我们维护平等的方式之一是探讨婚姻对我们和他人的重要性。

无论您是已婚夫妇、有 LGBTQ+ 父母、兄弟姐妹、父母、祖父母、家庭成员、朋友、同事还是邻居，我们都很乐意了解您的经历。 Share your story today.

消息

家 » 国家/联邦 » 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