John Lewis — A Marriage Equality Veteran of More Than One Battle
At the heart of MEUSA lie a handful of founding volunteers who have navigated the bumpy ride that has been the marriage equality movement for over a decade. John Lewis, MEUSA’s Legal and Policy Director, is one such MEUSA volunteer.
Molly McKay Williams, the former Executive Director of Marriage Equality California, and the woman who first recruited John and his husband Stuart as spokespeople and leaders for the marriage equality movement back in 2004, says, "Part of the joy of this work is doing it with people you love and admire. I love and admire John for his generous spirit; his deep, searching, introspective personality; and his great sense of humor. Our experiences in this movement, the highs and the lows, will be some of my most treasured life experiences."
With the United States Supreme Court’s recent historic, nationwide, marriage equality decision, John considers the two Amicus (friend of the court) briefs* he filed on behalf of MEUSA in the 2013 and 2015 Supreme Court cases to be highlights of his last few years with the organization. “Creating and filing these briefs was so rewarding because we applied MEUSA’s mission to empower people to tell their own stories and advocate in their own voices to the appellate legal setting, which is often detached from authentic human experience. In our briefs, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans and their families spoke directly to the Justices and expressed in their own words why the liberty and equality guarantees of the Constitution should apply to us. We used these voices to make the legal argument for marriage equality. We were gratified when Justice Kennedy in both his 2013 and 2015 opinions wrote in very human terms about the importance of equality under the law,” says John.
John also considers moderating the MEUSA National Community Calls a highlight of his MEUSA involvement in recent years. “I’ve greatly enjoyed moderating the community calls that MEUSA has hosted after every appellate marriage equality hearing over the last few years. We always invite attorneys and activists from the states involved to participate. We have a robust and lively conversation with lots of questions and back and forth. I am always impressed with the level of commitment and insight that so many of the people who call in have.”
David B. Cruz, Professor of Law at the University of Southern California Gould School of Law, and a legal expert who participated on several MEUSA National Community Calls, noted, "John’s contributions as moderator for MEUSA’s community calls have been invaluable. He displays a knack for posing questions in ways that go to the core of the issues, prompt speakers to give answers both accessible and precise, and help the country better understand the extraordinary developments MEUSA has been chronicling. His ability to contribute substantive information to those calls boosts his great value to the organization."
John and his husband, Stuart Gaffney, became involved in the movement when San Francisco started granting marriage licenses a full, three months before Massachusetts became the first state to usher in marriage equality on a permanent basis. “We began working with Marriage Equality USA through Marriage Equality California on February 12, 2004, the day we showed up for a rally to support marriage equality and arrived at the steps of San Francisco City Hall the very first hour that San Francisco opened the door to all loving, committed couples to marry. Because we showed up to get involved, we were one of the first ten couples of over 4,000 that married in San Francisco during San Francisco's so-called ‘Winter of Love.’ We've been working with Marriage Equality USA ever since,” says John.
“However, our marriage and those of over 4,000 other couples were taken away six months later when the California Supreme Court ruled that San Francisco could not issue the licenses on its own. We then joined the ongoing lawsuit with other couples and the City of San Francisco, arguing that California's ban on marriage for same-sex couples violated the state constitution. In May, 2008, we all won a tremendous victory and Stuart and I and an estimated 18,000 same-sex couples married in California before Proposition 8 passed in November 2008.”
It was their first marriage ceremony, the one that would later be invalidated, that propelled the couple to advocacy. “On February 12, 2004, when we heard the words ‘by virtue of the authority vested in me by the State of California, I pronounce you spouses for life,’ we felt something transform within us,” John says. “We felt for the first time in our lives our government treating us as equal human beings as LGBT people. That experience changed everything for us. We realized that we had always thought that somehow as LGBT people we would always be treated as not quite equal. At that moment, we committed to doing everything in our power to make the dignity that comes with our government treating us as fully equal human beings a lasting reality for LGBTQ people.”
“Although that marriage was taken away from us,” John says, “there was no turning back. And that's where Marriage Equality USA came in. We joined thousands of others working with the organization because the organization's mission was to enable people directly affected by marriage discrimination to advocate in their own voices as they best see fit why equality is crucial. We have immensely enjoyed lending our voice and helping others tell their stories and share their voices with the world.”
Like many same-gender couples who married immediately upon legalization, John and Stuart had already lived nearly two decades as a married couple in every sense of the term — other than legal recognition. “We met 28 years ago and,” says, John, “from the day we met, we always wanted a lasting, committed relationship. But back then, marriage appeared as something that we as LGBTQ people would never have access to. Marriage would always be for someone else, and we would always be in the audience attending someone else's wedding.”
John’s sense of the injustices perpetrated by lack of legal recognition of same gender marriages grew steadily over time. “As the years went by together, we became increasingly aware of the many legal protections that come with marriage and we became increasingly upset that we were deprived of these. We asked, ‘why would we not have spousal social security benefits upon retirement? Why are we paying thousands of dollars more in taxes just because we were gay?’ We were encouraged by, and took part in, various domestic partner benefits that became available. But then we realized that full marriage equality was something that rightfully belonged to LGBTQ people.”
John’s MEUSA volunteer activities have extended far beyond the legal and policy realms to include core, “press-the-flesh” events for the public. Among the most memorable, according to John, was the 2004 National Marriage Equality Express Caravan from coast to coast -- San Francisco to Washington DC. “We and other activists shared our personal stories in places like Cheyenne, Wyoming, Indianapolis, Indiana, and Columbus, Ohio, culminating with a national rally at the U.S. Capitol. “It was a wonderful experience to connect to LGBT communities all across the country and to help educate the public in places that had little familiarity with marriage equality.”
The “Decline to Sign Campaign,” to try to prevent Prop. 8 from going on the 2008 California ballot, was another activity that stands out in John’s memory. “We, and many other courageous, LGBTQ people, stood aside paid signature gatherers in the Central Valley of California to tell Californians about our lives and to explain to them why they should not support an initiative measure that would take away the freedom of LGBTQ people to marry in California. Although Prop. 8 made the ballot and passed, I am very proud of how Marriage Equality USA volunteers skillfully stood up for the lives of LGBTQ people under sometimes very hostile conditions. Marriage Equality USA volunteers were a paragon of nonviolent strength and resistance.”
John’s advocacy work has also extended beyond US borders. He says, “Partnering with Asian Pacific Island Equality and the Gay Asian Pacific Alliance, we created the first ever marriage equality floats in the San Francisco Chinese New Year Parade. As my husband Stuart is mixed race Chinese American, we were honored to present our lives along with the lives of other members of the LGBT API community to the world through the parade, which is broadcast worldwide, especially in Asia. The collaboration, skill and sensitivity that API Equality, GAPA, and Marriage Equality USA brought to this project was exemplary.”
Over the last two years, John (along with Stuart) has taken MEUSA's message to Japan. “We presented the organization's work at universities and at meetings with Japanese LGBTQ leaders, with whom we are now collaborating. We also participated in historic marriage equality events as representatives of Marriage Equality USA at Pink Dot Okinawa.”
Pondering what comes next in the marriage equality movement, now that we have a favorable Supreme Court decision, John says, “We have always considered the movement for marriage equality as one integral component of the movement for full LGBTQ equality in all aspects of our lives. We know we will continue to work for full LGBTQ equality. We also feel strongly that we should not consider our marriage equality efforts complete upon winning equality in the United States. The LGBTQ movement is a worldwide movement and we look forward to the possibility of working with LGBTQ advocates in other countries establishing marriage equality in many other places around the globe.”
With just under 10% of the nations in the world now embracing marriage equality, the notion of worldwide marriage equality might appear, at first glance, almost as far-fetched as the idea marriage equality in California seemed a short, 10-years ago. Yet, if John finds the possibility of worldwide marriage equality seemingly, dauntingly improbable, he does not show it.
* Hollingsworth v. Perry Amicus Brief by MEUSA, 2013 and Obergefell Amicus Brief by MEUSA 2015
PHOTO CREDITS
#1 March 2015, John Lewis crafting the MEUSA Obergefell Amicus Brief, taken by Stuart Gaffney. From MEUSA News Blog post, MEUSA Amicus Brief: Real Voices, Real People, Real Impact, by John Lewis, 9 March 2015.
#2 Stuart Gaffney and John Lewis, Winter of Love marriage at San Francisco City Hall, 12 February 2004, from Gaffney/Lewis private collection.
#3 Molly McKay, Davina Kotulski, John Lewis and Stuart Gaffney, MECA Marriage Equality Express Caravan. Photo by Mike Kepka, The San Francisco Chronicle, 15 October 2004.
#4 Image of No on 8 sign, MEUSA archives.
#5 John Lewis and Stuart Gaffney at Pink Dot Pride in Okinawa, from MEUSA News Blog post Love Around the World, by Stuart Gaffney, 7 August 2014.
A Decision for the Ages
The United States Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges establishing nationwide marriage equality will likely go down in history as one of the Court’s great landmark rulings. The Court’s opinion not only embraces liberty and marriage equality for LGBTQ Americans but reaffirms the fundamental principles of American constitutional democracy. Although the opinion often uses terms such as “gays and lesbians” or “same-sex” couples and discusses sexual orientation, the Court’s holding brings marriage equality to all LGBTQ people and significantly advances the goals of freedom and equality in all aspects of our lives.
The opinion begins by articulating the core American value of personal freedom: “The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty … to define and express their identity.” The Court then explained how the Constitution is not shipwrecked in the 18th century but lives today to protect Americans’ freedom and equality. In the Court’s words: “The nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in our own times. The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions, and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning.”
The Court implicitly recognized the importance of decades of LGBTQ activism in creating change, explaining that “new dimensions of freedom become apparent to new genera¬tions, often through perspectives that begin in pleas or protests and then are considered in the political sphere and the judicial process.”
The Court then held that laws that exclude LGBTQ couples from marriage “burden the liberty of same-sex couples, and … abridge central precepts of equality.” Such laws “are in essence unequal: same-sex couples are denied all the benefits afforded to opposite-sex couples and are barred from exer¬cising a fundamental right.”
The Court affirmed that two people “whatever their sexual orientation” may form an “enduring bond” in marriage and that can lead to greater “expression, intimacy, and spirituality.” Further, “gays and lesbians can create loving, supportive families,” and indeed “hundreds of thousands of chil¬dren are presently being raised by [same-sex] couples” in “loving and nurturing homes ….” Put simply, the Court stated, “[t]here is no difference between same- and opposite-sex couples with respect to” these core matters. Yet same-sex marriage bans undermine the dignity of LGBTQ families, “harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples,” and “consign[]” same-sex couples “to an instability many opposite-sex couples would deem intolerable in their own lives.”
In explaining its decision, the Court emphasized the horrible isolation that LGBTQ Americans have had to endure historically. In the Court’s words, for long “[a] truthful declaration by same-sex couples of what was in their hearts had to remain unspoken,” and for years“[s]ame-sex intimacy” was criminal in many states. The opinion refers to how historically many LGBTQ people had been “con¬demned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civiliza¬tion’s oldest institutions,” marriage. The Court further noted that “[g]ays and lesbians were prohibited from most government employment, barred from military service, excluded under immigration laws, targeted by police, and burdened in their rights to associate.”
The Court spoke of the destructive nature of such prejudice and discrimination. “Especially against a long history of disapproval of [same-sex] relationships, [the] denial … of the right to marry works a grave and continuing harm. The imposition of this disability on gays and lesbians serves to disrespect and subordinate them.“
The tone of the opinion is strikingly vivid, emotionally intelligent, and personal. We and many others have experienced a profound sense of dignity and pride at no longer being second-class citizens when it comes to marriage, but the Court also acknowledged how painful and lasting the human toll of disparagement and isolation is. In the Court’s words, “wounds [to our human dignity] cannot always be healed with the stroke of a pen.” In describing the limited benefit of incremental victories, such as decriminalization of same-sex love, the Court observed: “Outlaw to outcast may be a step forward, but it does not achieve the full promise of liberty.”
The opinion will significantly bolster future cases challenging sexual orientation discrimination because the Court recognized the harmful effect of inequality on all lesbian and gay people, not just those in relationships. The Court held that the “exclusion” from marriage “has the effect of teaching that gays and lesbians are unequal in important respects. It demeans gays and lesbians for the State to lock them out of a central institution of the Nation’s society.” Denying LGBTQ people the right to marry “disparage[s] their choices and diminish[es] their personhood ….”
In its opinion, the Court also recognized explicitly for the first time that homosexual orientation is healthy and unalterable, observing how “psychiatrists and others [have now] recognized that sexual orientation is both a normal expression of human sexuality and immutable.” Although long obvious to millions of Americans and to every professional psychological or medical association, the Court’s recognition of these facts is very important to assuring success in future cases challenging unequal treatment based on sexual orientation.
The Court’s opinion essentially recognized the crime of Proposition 8 and all the other statewide measures that targeted LGBTQ Americans to deprive of them of marriage equality and their basic human dignity. The Court did so by reasserting the central role of the Bill of Rights in our constitutional democracy. The opinion reassures all Americans that “[t]he Nation’s courts are open to in¬jured individuals who come to them to vindicate their own direct, personal stake in our basic charter. An individual can invoke a right to constitutional protection when he or she is harmed, even if the broader public disagrees and even if the legislature refuses to act.” In the words of the Court, “[t]he idea of the Constitution ‘was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials ….’ This is why ‘fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.’”
We could say many other things about the importance of this historic decision, but for now we conclude with the last two lines of the opinion itself. By seeking marriage equality, LGBTQ people “ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.”
John Lewis is an attorney and is the MEUSA Legal & Policy Director. John and his husband Stuart Gaffney were plaintiffs in the California case for equal marriage rights decided by the California Supreme Court in 2008.
Read the Amicus Brief, authored by John Lewis, MEUSA submitted for the Obergefell case.
The Anticipation Builds
As the day draws near for the Supreme Court to issue its decision in the marriage equality cases, the urge to decipher any clue as to what the Court will decide heightens. A few weeks ago, the New York Times reported that as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg recently pronounced two gay men married “by the powers vested in her by the Constitution” at a swank D.C. wedding, she did it “[w]ith a sly look and special emphasis on the word ’Constitution.’” The newspaper also reported that the wedding guests’ wildly enthusiastic response seemed to have “delighted” the Justice. The New York Times’ speculation that Ginsburg’s intonation and reaction may be a “hint” of what the Supreme Court will decide set the news world abuzz.
The things the Justices said during the Supreme Court’s late April oral argument in the marriage equality cases have also been ripe for speculation. Several of the Justices upon whom we are relying asked questions or made statements that most observers have interpreted as favorable to marriage equality. For instance, Justice Kagan seemed to indicate that she believed the current cases were “exactly what” the Supreme Court’s landmark decision, Loving v. Virginia, that struck down all state bans on interracial couples marrying, was about. In Loving, the Court held that such marriage exclusions violate Americans’ fundamental right to marry and the guarantees of equality that the U.S. Constitution provides. Justice Kagan described how Loving showed that “liberty and … equality are intertwined ….”
Justice Breyer also observed that “marriage is about as basic a right as there is” and that the Constitution prohibits a state from “depriv[ing] a person of … basic liberty, without due process of law ….” He questioned opponents’ counsel as to same-sex couples’ argument that they have “no possibility to participate in that fundamental liberty” in states without the freedom to marry. Breyer further stated that opponents’ argument that upholding tradition justified states’ same-sex marriage exclusions was “the same way we talk[ed] about racial segregation” during the era of Loving. Justice Sotomayor seemed to agree, apparently rejecting opponents’ argument that LGBT Americans somehow seek a Constitutional right to “gay” marriage and understanding that same-sex couples simply assert their fundamental right to marry that the Constitution guarantees everyone else.
Justice Ginsburg said favorable things as well. She recognized how the evolution of marriage under the law from “a relationship of a dominant male to a subordinate female” to an “egalitarian” institution made it something that same-sex couples would seek to participate in. She also seemed to reject opponents’ argument that same-sex couples’ marrying would somehow harm heterosexuals’ marriages, noting that the freedom to marry for same-sex couples would not “tak[e] away anything from heterosexual couples.” Justice Kagan appeared skeptical of similar arguments from opponents, noting that some people find it “hard to see how permitting same-sex marriage discourages people from being bonded with their biological children." Justice Breyer asked opponents’ attorney for “empirical” evidence of such a connection, none of which was availing. Soon thereafter, Justice Kagan told opponents’ counsel that he found his reasoning “inexplicable.”
Much attention focuses on Justice Kennedy, who is considered the “swing” vote on the Court in many cases and has written all three of the Court’s landmark LGBT rights cases. Kennedy said relatively little during the argument but asked questions and made statements that observers have interpreted as favorable to both sides. LGBT supporters were disturbed when early on he gave voice to the argument that a purported “definition” of marriage had been “with us for millennia” and that “it's very difficult for the court to say 'Oh well, we know better.'" Justice Breyer also wanted an answer to questions about the issue.
However, Justice Kennedy also stated that he thought “the whole purpose of marriage” was to bestow dignity on the couple and that same-sex couples seek the same “ennoblement” that other married couples have. In questioning opponents’ counsel, Kennedy recognized same-sex couples’ argument that they seek marriage “in order to show that we, too, have a dignity that can be fulfilled.” Kennedy also noted that approximately the same amount of time has elapsed between the Supreme Court’s landmark LGBT rights decision in Lawrence and the current cases as had elapsed between Brown v. Board of Education and Loving, two of the Court’s landmark race discrimination cases.
Justice Kennedy’s references to the importance of the dignity that marriage confers are heartening. Dignity was central to Justice Kennedy’s opinion in United States v. Windsor, striking down section 3 of DOMA. He emphasized that the State of New York’s decision to end the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage reflected the state’s decision to “protect” same-sex couples “in personhood and dignity.” Justice Kennedy wrote that “essence” of DOMA was “interference with the equal dignity of same-sex marriages” and that the “injury and indignity” that DOMA inflicted on married same-sex couples was “a deprivation of an essential part of the liberty protected” by the Constitution. He stated that DOMA “tells those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition,” thereby “plac[ing] same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage.”
Justice Kennedy asked questions that appeared favorable to both sides during oral argument in the marriage cases two years ago, but the ultimate result of Windsor was unambiguous, and some of the language stronger than most observers anticipated. No one can predict the outcome of any Supreme Court case with surety based on oral argument or other comments Justices might otherwise make. The actual motivations for Justices’ questions are unknowable in advance. Justices may want to probe an argument fully by making statements and asking difficult questions to both sides. Further, Justices may be poised to ask particular questions, but before they speak their colleague might ask the very same thing, or the time allotted to the argument may expire.
Anticipation will continue to build as we approach the end of June, when the Justices will likely render their decision. We know that if justice prevails, marriage equality will be the law of the land and the U.S. Supreme Court will recognize that LGBT Americans deserve full equal protection under the law in our lives.
John Lewis and Stuart Gaffney, together for nearly three decades, were plaintiffs in the California case for equal marriage rights decided by the California Supreme Court in 2008. John is the MEUSA Director of Legal & Policy; Stuart is the MEUSA Communications Director.
John Lewis - Director of Legal & Policy
John Lewis graduated in the top ten percent of his class from Stanford Law School in 1986, where he was awarded the Steven M. Block Award for writing on Civil Liberties. After clerking for the Honorable Thelton E. Henderson of the Northern District of California Federal Court, he practiced civil rights, public policy, and constitutional law.
John and his husband, Stuart Gaffney, were plaintiffs in the landmark California legal case In Marriage Cases, 43 Cal.4th 757 (2008), that established broad constitutional protections for lesbian and gay people and the freedom to marry in California before Proposition 8.
John is a member of the State Bar of California. John provides legal analyses of marriage equality-related court case proceedings, judicial decisions, and legislation to Marriage Equality USA leaders and members.
Additionally, John works with his husband, Stuart Gaffney, Marriage Equality USA's Communications Director, as a media resource and public spokesperson for the organization. John is a regular contributor to the Huffington Post, is a columnist for the San Francisco Bay Times and writes for other publications as well. John authored an amicus brief that MEUSA submitted to the United States Supreme Court in February 2013.
Interesting fact: John worked in a refugee camp in the Philippines for Southeast Asian refugees in the early 1980's.
Stuart Gaffney - Communications Director
Stuart is the Marriage Equality USA National Communications Director, serving as the primary liaison to all areas of the organization as it relates to media/press: MEUSA Media Center. Stuart also oversees our organizational communications, which incudes our media relations, messaging, and our news blog and newsletter.
Stuart and his husband John Lewis have been prominent voices speaking out for marriage equality in the local, national and international media since 2004. Stuart is one of the well-known "faces" of the marriage equality movement. His messaging and marriage equality news dissemination is widely relied upon, both professionally and informally. Stuart is a regular contributor to the Huffington Post, is a regular columnist for the San Francisco Bay Times and writes for other publications as well.
Stuart and John were plaintiffs in the historic California case for marriage equality, In re marriage cases (2008). Stuart's Witness declaration. Together for 24 years, they legally married in 2008. A graduate of Yale University, Stuart is a filmmaker, and in his "day job" he is a policy analyst and educator at the UCSF Center for AIDS Prevention Studies.
Not surprisingly, Stuart was president of his high school's debate team WAY back in 1980. Stuart says that one of the best times of their lives was when he and husband John backpacked around the world together before their wedding day.
Policy and Legal Update - March 24-30, 2014
POLICY & LEGAL UPDATES
News reported March 24 – 30, 2014
NATIONAL MAP
NATIONAL POLLS
- On 27 March 2014, Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research surveyed 1,000 likely 2016 voters, and reported that 55% favor it, 40% do not, with 5% unaccounted for. Separately, 62% believe same-gender civil marriage will be legalized by the U.S. Supreme Court, and 33% do not, with 5% unaccounted for. • MEUSA Summary • News Source
STATE POLLS
WISCONSIN • On 26 March 2014, Marquette Law School surveyed 801 registered WI voters on same-gender civil marriage, and reported that 48% support it, 24% support only civil union, and 24% support no legal recognition for same-gender couples, with 4% unaccounted for. Separately, regarding the 2006 constitutional ban on same-gender civil marriage, 59% would repeal it, and 36% would continue it, with 5% unaccounted for. • MEUSA Summary • News SourceNATIONAL LEGISLATION PENDING
NATIONAL LEGISLATION ENACTED
LAWSUITS PENDING
ALABAMA • On 20 March 2014, in Paul Hard v. AL Governor Robert Bentley, et al., a federal lawsuit to: (1) overturn the 1998 AL law and the 2005 AL constitutional amendment which ban same-gender civil marriage; (2) issue a revised Death Certificate for Charles Fancher showing Paul Hard as the surviving spouse, based on their 2011 MA marriage; and (3) disburse the proceeds of a wrongful death suit to Paul Hard, Ms. Pat Fancher, mother of Charles Fancher, asked to intervene because (a) she opposes same-gender civil marriage; and (b) she wants to remain her deceased son’s next of kin and receive all the wrongful death proceeds of his estate. • MEUSA Summary • News Source ARIZONA • On 24 March 2014, in Nelda Majors & Karen Bailey, et al. v. AZ Attorney General Tom Horne, et al., a federal lawsuit for 7 couples, and the surviving spouses of 2 additional same-gender couples, challenging the AZ 1996 and 1999 laws and the AZ 2006 constitutional ban on same-gender civil marriage, plaintiffs asked that their case be (1) merged with Joseph Connolly & Terrel Pochert, et. al., v. Pinal County Superior Court Clerk Chad Roche, and (2) decided by the same judge. • MEUSA Summary • News Source LOUISIANA • On 18 March 2014, in Forum for Equality Louisiana v. Louisiana Revenue Secretary Tim Barfield, et al., a federal case for 4 same-gender couples challenging the LA constitutional ban on same-gender civil marriages performed in LA or elsewhere, and challenging LA’s refusal to recognize both spouses as parents to children that are born to them or children that they adopt, the court consolidated this case into Jonathan Robicheaux & Derek Pinton, et al. v. LA Attorney General James Caldwell. The common issues (equal protection; due process for recognizing out-of-state same-gender civil marriages) will be decided first; the non-common issues (1st Amendment; LA marriage rights; Full Faith and Credit between states) will be decided later. The consolidation caused a revised 2014 schedule: cross motions for summary judgment (due 17 April), amicus briefs (12 May), cross responses to motions (19 May), replies (2 June), oral arguments (25 June), ruling (1 July), appeal to 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (1 August). • MEUSA Summary • News Source LOUISIANA • On 18 March 2014, in Jonathan Robicheaux & Derek Pinton, et al. v. LA Attorney General James Caldwell, a federal lawsuit for 2 couples challenging the LA constitutional amendment and state law banning same-gender civil marriage, and seeking LA recognition for same-gender couples married elsewhere, the court consolidated into this case Forum for Equality Louisiana v. Louisiana Revenue Secretary Tim Barfield, et al., a federal suit for 4 same-gender couples challenging the LA constitutional ban on same-gender civil marriages performed in LA or elsewhere, and challenging LA’s refusal to recognize both spouses as parents to children that are born to them or children that they adopt. The common issues (equal protection; due process for recognizing out-of-state same-gender civil marriages) will be decided first; the non-common issues (1st Amendment; LA marriage rights; Full Faith and Credit between states) will be decided later. The consolidation caused a revised 2014 schedule: cross motions for summary judgment (due 17 April), amicus briefs (12 May), cross responses to motions (19 May), replies (2 June), oral arguments (25 June), ruling (1 July), appeal to 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (1 August). • MEUSA Summary • News Source WISCONSIN • On 24 March 2014, in Virginia Wolf & Carol Schumacher, et al., v. WI Governor Scott Walker, et al., a federal lawsuit for 4 couples challenging the 2006 WI ban on same-gender civil marriage or civil union, and WI's unique ban on marrying elsewhere, for which each spouse faces up to $10,000 in fines and 9 months in prison as soon as they return to WI, the judge denied the WI motion to stay this case until the WI Supreme Court rules on the WI domestic partner registry case (Julaine Appling, et al., v. WI Governor Scott Walker, et al.), saying that a such stay would be pointless, and scheduled the 2014 trial for August 25-29. • MEUSA Summary • News Source MICHIGAN • On 25 March 2014, in April DeBoer & Jayne Rowse v. MI Governor Rick Snyder, et al.,a challenge to the MI laws that deny adoption to certified foster parents when they are not married, the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals stayed the district court ruling pending the outcome of the MI appeal. • MEUSA Summary • News Source PUERTO RICO • On 26 March 2014, in Ada Conde v. PR Health Secretary & Vital Records Registrar,an attorney filed a federal lawsuit to have her 2004 same-gender civil marriage from MA recognized in PR. • MEUSA Summary • News Source MICHIGAN • In late March 2014, in April DeBoer & Jayne Rowse v. MI Governor Rick Snyder, et al.,a federal challenge to MI laws that deny adoption to certified foster parents when they are not married, and the constitutionality of the state’s 2004 ban on same-gender marriage, civil union, domestic partnership, and joint adoption, the court set the appeal deadlines: 7 May (MI brief), 9 June (plaintiff brief), and 26 June (MI response brief). • MEUSA Summary • News Source MISSOURI • On 26 March 2014, in Kerry Messer, et al. v. MO Governor Jeremiah Nixon, et al., the MO Family Baptist Convention Christian Life Commission and the MO Family Policy Council sued to stop MO from accepting tax returns from same-gender couples with legal civil marriages who file joint federal and MO returns, because the plaintiffs claim that they are already suffering “immediate and irreparable damage.” • MEUSA Summary • News Source NEVADA • On 27 March 2014, in SmithKline Beecham Corporation v. Abbott Laboratories, one or more judges at the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals requested re-review of this previously decided appeal (which both parties already decided not to pursue any further), so the court asked both parties to state by 17 April 2014 whether their case should be re-heard by all 11 judges of the 9th Circuit, after which the 11 judges will vote whether to re-review the case. On 21 January 2014, the appeals court ruled that “heightened scrutiny” is the new standard by which all future sexual orientation discrimination cases will get decided, so that could change if all the court decides to re-hear the case by all 11 judges. • MEUSA Summary • News Source MICHIGAN • On 28 March 2014, In late March 2014, in April DeBoer & Jayne Rowse v. MI Governor Rick Snyder, et al., a federal challenge to MI laws that deny adoption to certified foster parents when they are not married, and the constitutionality of the state’s 2004 ban on same-gender marriage, civil union, domestic partnership, and joint adoption, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder confirmed that the federal government is recognizing the 322 same-gender civil marriages performed in MI between the time that the MI marriage ban was ruled unconstitutional and the time that MI appealed that ruling, even though MI is ignoring those marriages. • MEUSA Summary • News Source TENNESSEE • On 25 March 2014, in Valeria Tanco, et al. v. TN Governor William Haslam, et al., a federal constitutional challenge to the TN law that bans recognition of same-gender civil marriages, TN asked the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals for a stay on the district court’s order banning TN from enforcing the TN ban on same-gender marriage against the 6 plaintiffs. • MEUSA Summary • News Source OHIO • On 28 march 2014, in Alfred Cowger & Anthony Wesley, Jr. v. Ohio & U.S. Government, et al., a federal lawsuit because the Affordable Care Act doesn’t recognize out-of-Ohio marriages, the plaintiffs dropped their case, after finally obtaining a family health insurance policy. • MEUSA Summary • News Source NEBRASKA • On 28 March 2014, in Bonnie Nichols v. Nebraska, Ms. Nichols petitioned the NE Supreme Court for permission to divorce Margie Nichols, whom she married in IA in 2009. In August 2013, a district court dismissed the case because the NE 2000 constitutional ban on same-gender marriage bars recognition of same-gender marriage and same-gender divorce. The NE Attorney General is arguing before the state court of appeals that: the NE marriage ban is irrelevant, and no one has any federal right to divorce. • MEUSA Summary • News Source VIRGINIA • On 28 March 2014, in Timothy Bostic, et al. vs. VA 4th Circuit Court Clerk George Schaefer, et al., a federal lawsuit challenging VA’s 2006 ban on same-gender marriage and the ban on out-of-state marriages, VA court clerks argued that marriage is solely for the purpose of procreation between mixed-gender spouses, and that same-gender civil marriage would lead to legalization of incest. • MEUSA Summary • News Source KENTUCKY • On 28 March 2014, in Timothy Love, et al. v. Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear (formerly Gregory Bourke & Michael De Leon, et al. v. Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear), a federal lawsuit challenging KY’s ban on recognizing same-gender couples married elsewhere, the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals set the briefing schedule: KY principal brief (7 May 2014), plaintiffs’ principal brief appendix (9 June 2014), KY reply brief (26 June 2014). • MEUSA Summary • News Source TENNESSEE • On 28 Martch 2014, in Valeria Tanco, et al. v. TN Governor William Haslam, et al., a federal constitutional challenge to the TN law that bans recognition of same-gender civil marriage, the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals set the briefing schedule: TN principal brief (7 May 2014), plaintiffs’ principal brief appendix (9 June 2014), TN reply brief (26 June 2014). • MEUSA Summary • News SourceLAWSUITS RESOLVED
STATE LEGISLATION PENDING
MISSOURI • On 27 March 2014, MO state Representative Mike Colona (D) introduced HJR-85, which would repeal the 2004 constitutional ban on same-gender civil marriage and legalize it. • MEUSA Summary • News Source MISSISSIPPI • On 27 March 2014, the MS Senate sent SB-2681, MS Religious Freedom Restoration Act (which would legalize discrimination whenever the discriminator claims religious belief as the excuse) to conference with the House, because the bill dies if a final version is not filed by 31 March 2014. • MEUSA Summary • News SourceSTATE LEGISLATION ENACTED
STATE BALLOT MEASURES
Send questions and comments to: [email protected].
Policy and Legal Update - March 17-24, 2014
Policy & Legal Updates
March 17 – 23, 2014NATIONAL MAP
NATIONAL POLLS
STATE POLLS
- PENNSYLVANIA • On 3 March 2014, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,405 registered PA voters regarding same-gender civil marriage, and reported that 57% support it, 37% oppose it, and 6% don’t know or don’t answer. • MEUSA Summary • News Source
NATIONAL LEGISLATION PENDING
- On 26 April 2013, U.S. Representative Aaron Schock (R-IL) introduced the Equitable Access to Care and Health Act (HR-1814), which would excuse a citizen from the federal law requiring the purchase of health insurance whenever that citizen claims a religious belief, and on 6 May 2013, U.S. Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) introduced the Senate version (S. 862). On 11 March 2014, the U.S. House of Representatives skipped Committee review, and passed HR-1814 on a voice-only vote. Lawmakers favoring it include 226 Representatives (145 Republican, 81 Democrat), and 32 Senators (16 Republican, 15 Democrat, 1 Independent). Based on history, the chance of enactment is 24%. • MEUSA Summary • News Source
NATIONAL LEGISLATION ENACTED
LAWSUITS PENDING
PENNSYLVANIA • 18 March 2014, in Cara Palladino & Isabelle Barker v. PA Governor Corbett et al.,a federal suit about marriage recognition, the court scheduled oral arguments for 28 May 2014. • MEUSA Summary • News Source TEXAS • On 7 March 2014, in Cleopatra De Leon, et al., v. TX Governor Rick Perry et al.,a federal class action lawsuit for all TX couples challenging the 2003 law and the 2005 TX constitutional ban on marriage inside and outside TX, the preliminary injunction against the TX same-gender civil marriage bans while the district court case is proceeding was appealed by TX to the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, and the district court case proceedings were stayed pending the appeal ruling. • MEUSA Summary • News Source TEXAS • On 12 March 2014, in Shannon Zahrn, et al. v. TX Governor Rick Perry, et al., a federal class action suit seeking equal marriage rights for all TX couples, and challenging the TX statutory and constitutional bans on same-gender civil marriage, TX asked the court to stay proceedings in this case pending the outcome at the 5th Circuit of Cleopatra De Leon, et al., v. TX Governor Rick Perry et al. • MEUSA Summary • News Source TEXAS • On 12 March 2014, in Christopher McNosky, et al. v. TX Governor Rick Perry, et al., a federal class action suit seeking equal marriage rights for all TX couples, and challenging the TX statutory and constitutional bans on same-gender civil marriage, TX asked the court to stay proceedings in this case pending the outcome at the 5th Circuit of Cleopatra De Leon, et al., v. TX Governor Rick Perry et al. • MEUSA Summary • News Source TEXAS • On 18 February 2014, In the Matter of the Marriage of A.L.F.L. and K.L.L., Allison Leona Flood Lesh and Kristi Lyn Lesh filed for divorce and child custody. A hearing is scheduled for 20 March 2014. • MEUSA Summary • News Source TENNESSEE • On 18 March 2014, in Valeria Tanco, et al. v. TN Governor William Haslam, et al., a constitutional challenge to the TN law that bans recognition of same-gender civil marriages, the TN attorney general: (1) asked for a stay of the injunction requiring TN to recognize the civil marriages of 3 same-gender couples, and (2) notified the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that TN is appealing the order requiring recognition of marriages made elsewhere. On 20 March 2014, the court denied the state’s request. • MEUSA Summary • News Source KENTUCKY • On 20 March 2014, in Timothy Love, et al. v. Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear (formerly Gregory Bourke & Michael De Leon, et al. v. Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear), a federal lawsuit challenging KY’s ban on recognizing same-gender couples married elsewhere, the court stayed enforcement of its final order (requiring KY to recognize marriages performed elsewhere) pending the outcome from the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. Briefing on the intervening couples’ claims is slated to finish by 28 May 2014. • MEUSA Summary • News Source WISCONSIN • On 20 March 2014, in Virginia Wolf & Carol Schumacher, et al., v. WI Governor Scott Walker, et al., a federal lawsuit for 4 couples challenging the 2006 WI ban on same-gender civil marriage or civil union, and WI’s unique ban on marrying elsewhere, for which each spouse faces up to $10,000 in fines and 9 months in prison as soon as they return to WI, WI DoJ claimed that existing mixed-gender marriage rights don’t include same-gender marriage rights, and asked that the case be dismissed. • MEUSA Summary • News Source ARKANSAS • The case of Kendall Wright, et al. v. AR Governor Michael Beebe, et al., in which 21 same-gender couples challenge the 2004 AR constitutional ban on same-gender civil marriage, the state law banning same-gender civil marriage, the federal law allowing states to ignore same-gender marriages from other states, and recognition of parental rights, birth certificate names, insurance, and other benefits, is scheduled for oral argument on 17 April 2014. • MEUSA Summary • News Source VIRGINIA • On 20 March 2014, in Timothy Bostic, et al. vs. VA 4th Circuit Court Clerk George Schaefer, et al., a federal lawsuit challenging VA’s 2006 ban on same-gender marriage, and out-of-state marriage recognition, the 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals confirmed the hearing of oral arguments on 13 May 2014 from attorneys for the original plaintiffs, assisted by attorneys from Lambda Legal and ACLU (in Joanne Harris, et al. vs. VA State Registrar Janet Rainey, et al., a certified class action case). • MEUSA Summary • News Source MICHIGAN • On 21 March 2014, in April DeBoer & Jayne Rowse v. MI Governor Rick Snyder, et al.,a challenge to the state’s 2004 ban on same-gender marriage, civil union, domestic partnership, and joint adoption, the court: (1) overturned the law and constitutional amendment that banned same-gender civil marriage in MI, (2) said that MI testimony calling same-gender parents inferior was "entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration," and (3) said that no available science contradicts the consensus that same-gender and mixed-gender couples are equally good at parenting. • MEUSA Summary • News Source MICHIGAN • On 22 March 2014, in April DeBoer & Jayne Rowse v. MI Governor Rick Snyder, et al.,a challenge to the state’s 2004 ban on same-gender marriage, civil union, domestic partnership, and joint adoption, officials in at least 5 counties married over 300 county-resident, same-gender couples until 5:00 p.m., when the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals issued a temporary stay, effective through Tuesday, 26 March 2014. • MEUSA Summary • News Source HAWAI'I • On 19 March 2014, in Natasha Jackson, et al., v. Governor Neil Abercrombie, et al., a marriage rights case, the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals requested an opening brief by 25 April 2014, an answering brief by 27 May 2014, and an optional reply brief 14 days after delivery of the answering brief. Lawamkers legalized same-gender civil marriage in 2013, but the court still wants to ensure an orderly disposition of the appeal for future reference. • MEUSA Summary • News SourceLAWSUITS RESOLVED
STATE LEGISLATION PENDING
GEORGIA • On 3 March 2014, SB-377, which would allow religious belief to excuse violating federal health care laws, died in the GA legislature for 2014. • MEUSA Summary • News Source SOUTH DAKOTA • By 14 March 2014, SB-128 (which would legalize religion-based discrimination against LGBT people in 4 settings: (1) employment; (2) public accommodation; (3) commercial services; and (4) state courts) died in the 2014 SD legislature, after a 5-to-2 vote by the SD Senate Judiciary Committee defeated it. • MEUSA Summary • News Source CALIFORNIA • On 14 March 2014, CA initiative #13-0014 (which would exempt a citizen from any law that conflicts with that citizen’s religious bible-based beliefs, and would modify the CA constitution to protect religious expression even when it violates peace and safety) failed to collect 807,615 valid signatures for the November 2014 ballot. • MEUSA Summary • News SourceSTATE LEGISLATION ENACTED
STATE BALLOT MEASURES
Send questions and comments to: [email protected].
Policy and Legal Update - March 10-16, 2014
Policy & Legal Updates
March 10 – 16, 2014NATIONAL MAP
NATIONAL POLLS
STATE POLLS
NATIONAL LEGISLATION PENDING
NATIONAL LEGISLATION ENACTED
LAWSUITS PENDING
VIRGINIA • On 10 March 2014, in Timothy Bostic, et al. vs. VA 4th Circuit Court Clerk George Schaefer, et al., a federal lawsuit challenging VA’s 2006 ban on same-gender marriage, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allowed plaintiffs for Joanne Harris, et al. v. VA State Registrar Janet Rainey, et al.to join the appeal, with an expedited hearing date of May 12-15. Briefs are due from defendants by 28 March 2014, from plaintiffs by 11 April, and the defendants’ reply is due by 30 April. • MEUSA Summary • News Source ALABAMA • On 12 March 2014, in Shrie Michelle Richmond & Kirsten Allysse Richmond v. Madison County Circuit Clerk, a judge denied a divorce for two women who married in IA in 2012, and their attorney said they will appeal. • MEUSA Summary • News Source WISCONSIN • On 11 March 2014, in Virginia Wolf & Carol Schumacher, et al., v. WI Governor Scott Walker, et al., a federal lawsuit for 4 couples challenging the 2006 WI ban on same-gender civil marriage or civil union, and WI's unique ban on marrying elsewhere, for which each spouse faces up to $10,000 in fines and 9 months in prison as soon as they return to WI, plaintiffs withdrew their request to suspend enforcement of the same-gender civil marriage ban while their lawsuit is pending, in exchange for (1) a quick ruling and (2) an agreement that two of the plaintiff couples will not be prosecuted for marrying in another state. • MEUSA Summary • News Source ARIZONA • On 13 March 2014, in Nelda Majors & Karen Bailey, et al. v. AZ Attorney General Tom Horne, et al., Lambda Legal filed a federal lawsuit for 7 couples, and the surviving spouses of 2 additional same-gender couples, challenging the AZ 1996 and 1999 laws and the AZ 2006 constitutional ban on same-gender civil marriage. • MEUSA Summary • News Source FLORIDA • On 12 March 2014, in Sloan Grimsley & Joyce Albu, et al., v. FL Governor Rick Scott, et al., ACLU filed a federal lawsuit for 8 same-gender couples and SAVE, challenging the FL ban on recognizing marriage licenses from elsewhere. • MEUSA Summary • News Source TENNESSEE • On 14 March 2014, in Valeria Tanco, et al. v. TN Governor William Haslam, et al., a constitutional challenge to the TN law that bans recognition of same-gender civil marriage, a judge issued a preliminary injunction requiring TN to recognize the marriage licenses obtained by the (now) 3 plaintiff couples from other states, so long as their lawsuit remains in progress. The judge noted that “all signs indicate that, in the eyes of the United States Constitution ... that proscriptions against same-sex marriage will soon become a footnote in the annals of American history.” • MEUSA Summary • News Source WISCONSIN • On 14 March 2014, in Virginia Wolf & Carol Schumacher, et al., v. WI Governor Scott Walker, et al., a federal lawsuit for 4 couples challenging the 2006 WI ban on same-gender civil marriage or civil union, and WI’s unique ban on marrying elsewhere, for which each spouse faces up to $10,000 in fines and 9 months in prison as soon as they return to WI, WI Department of Justice asked that the case be put on hold until the WI Supreme Court decides whether the WI domestic partner registry violates the WI ban on same-gender civil marriage in Julaine Appling, et al., v. WI Governor Scott Walker, et al. • MEUSA Summary • News Source INDIANA • On 14 March 2014, in Midori Fujii, et al. v. IN Governor Michael Pence, ACLU of IN filed a federal suit for 13 plaintiffs (5 gay couples, 1 widow, and 2 children) challenging the IN ban on same-gender civil marriage in IN and elsewhere, funeral arrangements, and inheritance taxes. • MEUSA Summary • News Source INDIANA • On 14 March 2014, in Pamela Lee & Candace Batten-Lee, et al. v. IN Governor Michael Pence, et al., a federal suit was filed seeking marriage rights and benefits for public workers. • MEUSA Summary • News Source INDIANA • On 10 March 2014, in Rae Baskin & Esther Fuller, et al. v. Bogan, et al., Lambda Legal filed a federal suit for 3 couples challenging the IN same-gender civil marriage ban, and especially end-of-life health care. • MEUSA Summary • News Source INDIANA • On 14 March 2014, in Bowling, Bowling & Bruner v. IN Governor Michael Pence, 2 lesbian women filed a federal lawsuit to have their IA marriage recognized by IN, and an additional plaintiff sued because her IA marriage was never recognized by IN. • MEUSA Summary • News Source OHIO • On 26 February 2014, in Jim Obergefell & John Arthur v. OH Public Health Director Theodore Wymyslo, a federal marriage recognition lawsuit, the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals denied the plaintiffs’ motion for an expedited briefing schedule, and instead set a deadline of 30 May for all 3 briefs from both parties. • MEUSA Summary • News Source KENTUCKY • On 14 March 2014, in Timothy Love, et al. v. Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear (formerly Gregory Bourke & Michael De Leon, et al. v. Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear), a federal lawsuit challenging KY’s ban on recognizing same-gender couples married elsewhere, KY Governor Steve Beshear asked the court to delay the 20 March 2014 effective date when KY must start recognizing same-gender civil marriages from other states. • MEUSA Summary • News SourceLAWSUITS RESOLVED
STATE LEGISLATION PENDING
STATE LEGISLATION ENACTED
STATE BALLOT MEASURES
- Legalized Discrimination • On 14 March 2014, the OR attorney general titled ballot initiative IP-52, “Religious Belief Exceptions to the Anti-Discrimination Laws...” IP-52 is sponsored by two anti-LGBT organizations (Friends of Religious Freedom, Oregon Family Council). • MEUSA Summary • News Source
Send questions and comments to: [email protected].
Policy and Legal Update - February 3-9, 2014
Policy & Legal Updates
February 3 – 9, 2014NATIONAL MAP
NATIONAL POLLS
NATIONAL LEGISLATION
LAWSUITS
MICHIGAN • On 6 February 2014, in April DeBoer & Jayne Rowse v. MI Governor Rick Snyder, et al., a suit challenging the MI laws that deny adoption to certified foster parents when they are not married, the plaintiffs sought to ban the testimony of sociology professor Mark Regnerus because his flawed methods, rejection by peers, lack of qualifications, unreliability, irrelevance don’t meet the minimum requirements for federal evidence. Trial is scheduled for 25 February 2014. • MEUSA Summary • News Source UTAH • On 6 February 2014, in Jonell Evans, et al. v. State of Utah, a case seeking immediate recognition of all marriages between same-gender couples who were married from 20 December 2013 through 6 January 2014, the plaintiffs asked for an expedited hearing. • MEUSA Summary • News Source LOUISIANA • On 27 January 2014, in Jonathan Robicheaux and Derek Pinton, et al. v. LA Attorney General James Caldwell, a federal case challenging the LA constitutional amendment and state law banning same-gender civil marriage, and banning LA recognition of same-gender couples married elsewhere, Judge Martin Feldman denied a request to un-consolidate this case (#2013-cv-05090) from another case (#2014-cv-00097). • MEUSA Summary • News Source ARKANSAS • On 31 January 2014, in Rita & Pam Jernigan et al. v. Crane et al., a federal lawsuit seeking same-gender civil marriages, AR asked a federal judge to dismiss the lawsuit challening the 2004 AR constitutional ban on same-gender civil marriage. • MEUSA Summary • News Source WISCONSIN • On 3 February 2014, in Virginia Wolf & Carol Schumacher, et al., v. WI Governor Scott Walker, et al., ACLU filed a federal lawsuit for 4 couples challenging the 2006 WI ban on same-gender civil marriage or civil union, and WI's unique ban on marrying elsewhere, for which each spouse faces up to $10,000 in fines and 9 months in prison as soon as they return to WI. • MEUSA Summary • News SourceSTATE LEGISLATION & POLLS
ARIZONA • On 5 February 2014, the Camp Verde, AZ council voted against recognizing civil unions for same-gender couples. • MEUSA Summary • News Source UTAH • On 29 January 2014, UT state Representative Merrill Nelson proposed a law so that citizens can donate funds via their UT tax return for legalizing discrimination against same-gender couples. • MEUSA Summary • News Source KANSAS • On 6 February 2014, HB-2453, which would legalize discrimination by individuals, businesses, and government against same-gender couples whenever the excuse is religious beliefs, passed from committee to the full House for a vote. • MEUSA Summary • News Source INDIANA • IN Republicans criminalized the performance of any religious ceremony that religiously marries two people of the same gender, starting 1 July 2014. • MEUSA Summary • News Source UTAH • On 27 January 2014, state Rep. Jacob Anderegg (R) introduced 2 bills (HB-231, HJR-1) that would prevent clergy from being forced to solemnize marriages against their beliefs. • MEUSA Summary • News Source VIRGINIA • On 3 Febuary 2014, the Republican-led VA House of Representatives passed HB-706, a bill that would let any state lawmaker defend the VA ban on same-gender civil marriage in place of the governor and attorney general. The bill also needs approval of the VA Senate, then the VA governor. • MEUSA Summary • News Source WEST VIRGINIA • On 4 February 2014, the Morgantown, WV City Council unanimously approved a resolution supporting marriage equality in the WV legislature. • MEUSA Summary • News Source ARIZONA • On 4 February 2014, an AZ House Government Committee passed HB-2153, which legalizes discrimination against LGBT people whenever the perpetrator claims religious beliefs as the excuse for the discrimination. SB-1062 also passed its respective committee in the AZ Senate. • MEUSA Summary • News Source TEXAS • On 4 February 2014, Bexar County, TX extended health benefits to county workers' same-gender spouses. • MEUSA Summary • News Source ARIZONA • On 5 February 2014, an AZ House committee approved a bill to legalize discrimination against LGBT people whenever religious belief is the excuse. • MEUSA Summary • News Source TENNESSEE • On 6 February 2014, TN state Senator Brian Kelsey (R) and Representative Bill Dunn (R) proposed SB-2566 and HB-2467, to legalize discrimination against same-gender couples in domestic partnerships, civil unions, and marriages, whenever the discrimination is excused by claims of religious belief. • MEUSA Summary • News Source KENTUCKY POLLS • On WKYT-TV, WHAS-TV, and 2 newspapers surveyed 1,082 registered voters on same-gender civil marriage, and reported that 55% oppose it, 35% support it, and 10% aren’t sure. • MEUSA Summary • News Source WISCONSIN POLLS • On 29 October 2013, Marquette University surveyed 800 WI registered voters on same-gender civil marriage, and reported that 53% support it, 24% support only civil union, 19% oppose all legal recognition of same-gender couples, with 4% unaccounted for. • MEUSA Summary • News SourceSTATE BALLOTS & POLLS
OHIO • On 9 February 2014, FreedomOhio announced it has gathered 650,000 petition signatures, hopes to reach 1,000,000 by summer, and will decide later whether the statewide vote occurs in 2014 or 2016. • MEUSA Summary • News Source Send questions and comments to: [email protected].Policy and Legal Update - January 27-February 2, 2014
Policy & Legal Updates
27 January – 2 February, 2014NATIONAL MAP
NATIONAL POLLS
NATIONAL LEGISLATION
LAWSUITS
VIRGINIA • On 31 January 2014, in Joanne Harris, et al. v. Staunton, VA Court Clerk, et al., a lawsuit for two couples seeking full marriage equality for all VA residents, including couples married elsewhere, the court granted class-action status, so the case now affects all same-gender couples. • MEUSA Summary • News Source NEVADA • On 27 January 2014, in Beverly Sevcik, et al., v. Governor Brian Sandoval, et al., a lawsuit seeking full marriage equality for 8 couples, the Carson City, NV Clerk-Record Alan Glover withdrew his Answering Brief in the appeal case, and no longer opposes the Plaintiffs. • MEUSA Summary • News Source VIRGINIA • On 27 Januar y2014, in Joanne Harris, et al. v. Staunton, VA Court Clerk, et al., a federal class action lawsuit for two couples seeking full marriage equality for all VA residents, including couples married elsewhere, VA Attorney General Mark Herring notified the court that VA’s state laws banning same-gender civil marriage are unconstitutional, that VA is reversing its position in the case, that he will not defend them, and that he will argue that they are unconstitutional. • MEUSA Summary • News Source OKLAHOMA • On 28 January 2014, in Mary Bishop, et al. v. United States and Tulsa County Court Clerk, et al., a case challenging the state constitution for denying the right to marry the person of one’s own choice, and for refusing to recognize same-gender marriages performed in other states, the Tenth Cicuit U.S. Court of Appeals decided to review the OK and UT appeals (a) on a fast-track schedule, and (b) by the same panel of judges. The appeals will be briefed separately and argued separately. The OK appeal schedule is: cross-appeal 1st brief by 24 February, 2nd/supplemental briefs by 17 March, 3rd brief by 1 April, optional reply brief by 7 April, and oral arguments after 7 April. • MEUSA Summary • News Source UTAH • On 28 January 2014, in Kitchen, et al. v. Utah Governor Gary Herbert, et al., a federal lawsuit challenging UT’s constitutional amendment banning same-gender civil marriage, the Tenth Cicuit U.S. Court of Appeals decided to review both the UT and OK cases (a) on a fast-track schedule, and (b) by the same panel of judges. The UT and OK appeals will be briefed separately and argued separately. The UT appeal schedule is: last filings 4 March; oral arguments 10 April. • MEUSA Summary • News Source UTAH • On 28 January 2014, in Jonell Evans, et al. v. Utah, an ACLU suit to force UT to recognize about 1360 marriages performed from 20 December 2013 through 2 January 2014, the case was moved from state court to a federal court. • MEUSA Summary • News Source VIRGINIA • On 28 January 2014, in Timothy Bostic, et al. vs. VA State Registrar Janet Rainey, et al., a federal lawsuit challenging VA’s 2006 ban on in-stateand out-of-state same-gender marriage, VA Governor Terry McAuliffe (D) told dozens of Republican lawmakers he would not appoint any special prosecutor to defend the VA same-gender civil marriage ban. • MEUSA Summary • News Source VIRGINIA • On 28 January 2014, in Joanne Harris, et al. v. Staunton, VA Court Clerk, et al.,a federal class action lawsuit for two couples seeking full marriage equality for all VA residents, including couples married elsewhere, VA Governor Terry McAuliffe (D) told dozens of Republican lawmakers he would not appoint any special prosecutor to defend the VA same-gender civil marriage ban. • MEUSA Summary • News Source HAWAII • On 29 January 2014, in McDermott v. Abercrombie, a state judge ruled that the HI Marriage Equality Act of 2013 violates neither the state nor the federal constitutions. • MEUSA Summary • News Source WEST VIRGINIA • On 28 January 2014, in Casie Jo McGee, et al. v. Cabell County Clerk Karen Cole, et al., a federal lawsuit for three couples challenging the state law that bans marriage equality, the judge denied WV’s motion to dismiss the suit, but dismissed the complaint about recognizing out-of-state marriage licenses, unless additional plaintiffs are added. • MEUSA Summary • News Source UTAH • On 30 January 2014, in Kate Doe & Beth Roe v. Utah, a lesbian couple sued UT for refusing to recognize their 2010 marriage in another state. • MEUSA Summary • News SourceSTATE LEGISLATION & POLLS
KANSAS • On 24 January 2014, KS state Representative Charles Macheers introduced a bill to legalize discrimination against same-gender couples whenever a person, group, or business claims that their discrimination is religiously based. The KS House Federal and State Affairs Committee scheduled a hearing for 28 January 2014. • MEUSA Summary • News Source SOUTH DAKOTA • On 21 January 2014, SD state Senator Ernie Otten proposed SB-67, which would legalize discrimination against same-gender couples whenever the perpetrator claims religions as the excuse. • MEUSA Summary • News Source SOUTH DAKOTA • On 21 January 2014, SD state Senator Ernie Otten proposed SB-66, which would prevent clergy and religions from being sued for not performing a same-gender civil weddings. • MEUSA Summary • News Source SOUTH DAKOTA • On 30 January 2014, SD SB-67 was withdrawn, and replaced by SB-128, which would legalize religion-based discrimination against LGBT people in 4 settings: (1) employment; (2) public accommodation; (3) commercial services; and (4) state courts. • MEUSA Summary • News Source IDAHO • On 28 January 2014, ID state Representative Lynn Luker proposed a bill to legalize discrimination by people in 28 licensed professions who use religion as their excuse for the discrimination. • MEUSA Summary • News Source NEBRASKA • On 28 January 2014, Sarpy County, NE commissioners extended health insurance benefits to spouses of county employees with same-gender spouses who got legally married in another state. • MEUSA Summary • News SourceSTATE BALLOTS & POLLS
INDIANA • On 27 January 2014, by 57 to 40, the IN House approved HJR-3, a proposal to revise the IN constitution to ban same-gender civil marriage, after revising it to delete a ban on civil union, domestic partnership, and worker spouse benefits, but whether same-gender civil marriage goes before voters, and in what year, remains undecided. • MEUSA Summary • News Source PENNSYLVANIA • On 29 January 2014, Franklin & Marshall College surveyed 580 PA voters about same-gener civil marriage, and reported 56% in favor, 39% opposed, and 6% don't know. • MEUSA Summary • News SourceSend questions and comments to: [email protected].