Washington, DC – Today, the Supreme Court struck down a central part of the Voting Rights Act, invalidating crucial protections passed by Congress in 1965 and renewed four times in the decades since. The sharply divided decision will significantly reduce the federal government’s role in overseeing voting laws in areas with a history of discrimination against African-Americans.

We, America’s leading LGBT advocacy organizations, join civil rights organizations – and indeed, all Americans whom this law has served to protect – in expressing acute dismay at today’s ruling. Not only had Congress repeatedly reaffirmed the need for this bedrock civil rights protection, but authoritative voices from across America had filed amicus briefs urging the court not to undermine the law: the NAACP; the American Bar Association; the Navajo Nation; the states of New York, California, Mississippi and North Carolina; numerous former Justice Department officials charged with protecting voting rights; dozens of U.S. senators and representatives; and many others.

These varied and powerful voices attest to the self-evident reality that racial protections are still needed in voting in this country. As recently as last year’s elections, political partisans resorted to voter suppression laws and tactics aimed at reducing the votes of people of color.

Voting rights protections, which have long served our nation’s commitment to equality and justice, should not be cast aside now. The court has done America a grave disservice, and we will work with our coalition partners to undo the damage inflicted by this retrogressive ruling.

黑人平等中心
CenterLink：LGBT中心社区
高等教育LGBT资源专业人员联盟
平等联盟
家庭平等委员会
Freedom to Marry
Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders
Gay Men’s Health Crisis (GMHC)
人权运动
Immigration Equality Action Fund
Lambda 法律
全国黑人正义联盟
全国女同性恋权利中心
国家跨性别平等中心
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
The National Queer Asian Pacific Islander Alliance
平等工作场所倡导者
PFLAG – Parents, Families, & Friends of Lesbians and Gays
Pride at Work, AFL-CIO
Unid@s

With April 15 on the horizon, the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) means that married same-sex couples across the country are dealing with the indignity, confusion, and expense caused by the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

DOMA means that married same-sex couples cannot file their federal income taxes jointly as married.  For some, this means paying more in taxes, and for others, it means paying less.  For all, it is a stark reminder that the federal government doesn’t respect their marriage or their family. In tax year 2012, couples from Maine and Washington have been able to marry, and are confronting these problems for the first time.

For couples and members of the media, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders is making a number of resources available.

Guides for Couples and Tax Preparers

Navigating Income Taxes for Married Same-Sex Couples
https://www.gladlaw.org/uploads/docs/publications/navigating-taxes-married-couples.pdf

Tax Time and Preserving Your Federal Rights (information on preserving the right to claim a prior-year refund if DOMA is ruled unconstitutional)
https://www.gladlaw.org/uploads/docs/publications/tax-time.pdf

Blog Post

GLAD’s InfoLine Manager Bruce Bell, who has received hundreds of calls about tax-filing, prepared this blog post to help couples think through the issues.

Legal InfoLine

Volunteers with GLAD’s Legal InfoLine can answer questions for couples and tax preparers.  The Legal InfoLine can be reached at 800-455-GLAD (4523), or by email at gladlaw@glad.org, or for live chat at https://www.gladlaw.org/rights/infoline-contact.

Stories of Tax-Filing Couples Harmed by DOMA

Beth Ryan and Jenny O’Flaherty of Vermont: They moved from Virginia to Vermont to protect themselves and their children from anti-gay laws, but federal discrimination followed them.

Suzanne and Geraldine Artis of Connecticut: At tax time, they must decide to whom their three children belong: to Geraldine or Suzanne.  Says Suzanne, “They’re not property, they’re my family.”

Joel Howard and John Tracy Tucker of Connecticut: This couple has paid an additional $12,000 in taxes because of DOMA.  “We are basically paying a penalty for being a gay couple,” says Joel.

Ailsa Wu and Kate Herman of Massachusetts:  With their modest income, it’s a significant loss to be unable to file jointly.  They must hire an accountant to prepare two sets of returns instead of one, and they pay more.

Paul Ruseau and Bob Ruseau of Massachusetts:  With two small children and one stay-at-home dad, Paul and Bob take a tax hit that worries them for their children’s future.

There are more stories of couples affected by DOMA  at www.gladlaw.org/doma/stories.

Washington, DC – The Supreme Court heard oral arguments today in 美国诉温莎案,  challenging Section 3 of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” which defines marriage as between a man and a woman for all federal purposes.

The following statement was made by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders’ Executive Director Lee Swislow after oral arguments today in 美国诉温莎案:

“For every day DOMA continues to be enforced by our federal government, thousands of legally married same-sex couples are denied critical protections.

DOMA is a blatantly discriminatory law which targets a particularly disliked group, impacts important personal interests, and represents a one-time departure from the usual process of allocating federal rights and benefits.

Same-sex couples who are legally married in their home states should be treated like all other married couples in this nation – with respect and dignity.

I am confident this case got a fair hearing today in our nation’s highest court. This day has been long in the making, and the question is not if, but when, this discriminatory law will be overturned.”

GLAD’s two DOMA challenges, 吉尔诉人事管理办公室 和 佩德森诉人事管理办公室 were considered at the Supreme Court conference in December, but were not granted certiorari.

GLAD filed Gill, the country’s first strategic challenge to DOMA in 2009; and filed Pedersen in 2010.  Gill was the first case in which DOMA was found unconstitutional by a federal District Court, and also achieved the first appellate ruling that DOMA is unconstitutional in May 2012.

Gill was held by the Court and will most likely be addressed by the Court in June.

Washington, DC – The Supreme Court heard oral arguments today in Hollingsworth v. Perry, challenging California’s Proposition 8 that revoked same-sex couples’ ability to marry in the state.

The following statement was made by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defender’s Executive Director Lee Swislow after oral arguments:

“We are confident this case got a fair hearing today in our nation’s highest court. Gay and lesbian couples have the same love and make the same commitment as all couples, and deserve the same recognition as full citizens.

These couples are simply asking for the government to honor their fundamental right to marry and to treat them with equal dignity and respect under the law.

Our country’s history is one of expanding the circle of constitutional rights and protections to include more citizens, and our nation is always the better for it.

We are hopeful that the court will seize this historic moment, and come down on the side of fairness, dignity and equality.”

GLAD has been a leader in the fight to secure the freedom to marry for same-sex couples, starting with its 1997 litigation in Vermont leading to civil unions in 2000 and the landmark 2003 victory in 古德里奇诉公共卫生部 making Massachusetts the first state to legally marry same-sex couples, followed by wins in Connecticut’s Supreme Court in 2008, in the New Hampshire and Vermont legislatures in 2009, and at the ballot box in Maine in 2012.

Marriage at the Supreme Court – Wednesday, March 27

温莎诉美国案

Plaintiff: Edith Windsor

Federal constitutional challenge to Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits the federal government from recognizing the legal marriages of gay and lesbian couples. Read more at www.aclu.org/edie

Briefs and additional information: www.gladlaw.org/doma/documents 和 www.aclu.org/edie

Case Brought by: Paul, Weiss and the ACLU

Audio of the Argument:  www.supremecourt.gov

For live updates from Washington D.C. throughout the day, follow:

@GLADLaw

@ACLULive

#time4marriage

@freedomtomarry

@hrc