「在這個時候走到這一步並非必然，」 GLAD Law 執行董事 Janson Wu 說。 「這一切的發生是因為全國各地的人們——無論男女老少，無論 LGBT 還是異性戀，無論宗教人士還是商界人士——都挺身而出，捍衛公平，捍衛他們的家人和朋友，並勤勉而有策略地努力，將同性伴侶納入婚姻。這是一場充滿希望、毅力和智慧的運動。”
博諾托是密西根州德布爾訴斯奈德案（DeBoer v. Snyder）的法律團隊成員，其律師團隊還包括達娜·內塞爾（Dana Nessel）、卡羅爾·斯坦亞（Carole Stanyar）、肯尼斯·莫吉爾（Kenneth Mogill）和羅伯特·塞德勒（Robert Sedler）。她也為全國各地眾多溫莎案後婚姻案件提供策略諮詢，組織法庭之友意見書，並與威爾默平和而德律師事務所（WilmerHale）一起為格拉德律師事務所（GLAD Law）提交了法庭之友意見書。格拉德律師事務所對《捍衛婚姻法》（DOMA）的挑戰——吉爾訴人事管理局（Gill v. OPM）和佩德森訴人事管理局（Pedersen v. OPM）——均由博諾托案牽頭，並促成了三家聯邦法院首次及其他早期裁定《捍衛婚姻法》違憲，為溫莎案奠定了基礎。
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.
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 奧貝格費爾訴霍奇斯案 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.
除了亨利和麥金泰爾兩位律師外，原告的代理律師還包括同性戀者反歧視聯盟（GLAD）的瑪麗·L·博諾托（Mary L. Bonauto）、老齡化正義組織（Justice in Aging）的丹尼·陳（Denny Chan）和安娜·福利（Anna Rich），以及可拉基·霍格律師事務所（Foley Hoag LLP, Marporte）（可拉科Quina）、凱瑟琳·丹尼克（Catherine Deneke）和史蒂芬·T·拜喬斯基（Stephen T. Bychowski）。福利霍格律師事務所先前曾與同性戀者反歧視聯盟合作，挑戰《婚姻保護法》。
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.
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).
Victory! On June 25, 2015 the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling upholding subsidies under federal exchanges. 閱讀更多
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.”
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.
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.
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 奧貝格費爾訴霍奇斯案:
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.
伯克訴貝希爾案/洛夫訴貝希爾案(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
奧貝格費爾訴霍奇斯案 (Ohio)
Jim Obergefell, David Michener and Robert Grunn
亨利訴霍奇斯案 (Ohio)
Brittani Henry and LB Rogers, Kelly Noe and Kelly McCracken, Nicole and Pam Yorksmith, and Joseph Vitale and Robert Talmas
Tanco訴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:
瑪麗·博諾托, 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.
The United States Supreme Court will hear arguments today in the four marriage equality cases collectively known as 奧貝格費爾訴霍奇斯案.
At 10 a.m. Mary L. Bonauto, Civil Rights Project Director for Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, will address Question 1, as formulated by the Court, “Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?” She is representing April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse of Michigan, as well as Kentucky couples Tim Love and Lawrence Ysunza, and Maurice Blanchard and Dominique James.
Douglas Hallward-Driemeier, partner in the law firm Ropes & Gray, will address Question 2, as formulated by the Court, “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?”
Co-counsel on the four cases are Lambda Legal, National Center for Lesbian Rights, and the American Civil Liberties Union, as well as many private attorneys.
The oral arguments mark 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. In 2004, Massachusetts became the first state in which same-sex couples could legally marry as a result of GLAD’s case 古德里奇訴公共衛生部, which Bonauto argued and won.
Since 2004, 36 more states and the District of Columbia have enabled same-sex couples to legally marry through court cases, legislation, and ballot questions. Significantly, in 2013, the Supreme Court struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in the case Windsor v. United States of America. That decision opened the door to a wave of successful federal district and appellate court decisions affirming the freedom to marry for same-sex couples across the nation.
Bonauto is a member of the legal team for the Michigan case, 德波爾訴斯奈德案, with co-counsel Dana Nessel, Carole Stanyar, Kenneth Mogill, and Robert Sedler. She has also helped to organize amicus briefs for numerous marriage cases across the country. GLAD’s challenges to DOMA, 吉爾訴 OPM 和 Pederson v. OPM, both spearheaded by Bonauto, also produced the first rulings from a federal court that DOMA was unconstitutional, setting the stage for 溫莎.
A decision in 奧貝格費爾 is expected near the end of June.
香港中文 
Español de México 
Português 
简体中文 
Français 
Tiếng Việt 
العربية 
Polski 
Русский 
Deutsch 
Kreyòl Ayisyen