GETTING TO “I DO”: Our Journeys to Marriage Equality
SHARE YOUR STORY TO CHANGE HEARTS & MINDS AROUND THE WORLD Waited years/decades to marry? Raising a family without access to the benefits and protections marriage offers? Straight but no longer narrow? MEUSA has launched its latest marriage equality story-sharing initiative in conjunction with the story-telling website Cowbird. Designed to collect and share multimedia-rich personal stories about relationships, family, marriage, advocacy, and equality in an online gallery, contributors will have an opportunity to share their personal marriage equality-related stories. “Sharing stories is one of the most powerful ways to sway more people into supporting marriage equality,” says MEUSA Executive Director Brian Silva. “We encourage potential participants to relay their dreams, ideals, and experiences with families, friends, neighbors, colleagues, and communities.”
One of the first stories to post was that of Ted Hayes and Jack Hayes. After 25 years together, Jack died shortly before marriage equality became a reality in New York. The post has been picked up by Upworthy and has been viewed over 32,000 times as well as receiving many “shares” and “likes” on multiple sites. The following guidelines outline the types of stories MEUSA hopes to gather:
- Personal journeys of same-sex couples and their relationships, children, and hopes and dreams for marriage
- Stories of our families, friends, neighbors, and communities as they’ve come to embrace and work towards marriage equality
- Stories of people who once opposed marriage equality but subsequently moved to a position of support
- Experiences as volunteers and advocates working towards marriage equality
It's easy to be part of Getting to ‘I Do’ and share your own story. Click on the image below or visit cowbird.com/join to create your free Cowbird account. Please write "Marriage Equality USA" in the You section when you sign up.
After you’ve created your account and logged in, please add your personal marriage equality story:
- Click the Tell a story link at the top right of the Cowbird home page
- Upload a photo, add audio and/or text
- Click the Saga icon button in the right column, and choose Marriage Equality from the list of Cowbird sagas that appear
To see what others have written or for ideas of what you can write, check out our current stories.
A Whirlwind Six Weeks Ahead for Marriage Equality
Last year at this time, the United States Supreme Court had just finished hearing oral arguments in two LGBT cases that resulted in landmark marriage equality rulings striking down Section 3 of DOMA and Proposition 8. Although LGBT rights are not before the high court in 2014, this year promises to be a barnburner of a year for marriage equality litigation in lower courts with a dizzying sixty cases pending in thirty states or territories of the United States. Consider what’s ahead in just the next six weeks:
On April 10, all eyes will be on the Tenth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals when they hear oral argument in the Utah marriage equality case, Kitchen v. Herbert. In December 2013, the federal district court in Salt Lake City struck down Utah’s exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage, and hundreds of LGBT couples married in Salt Lake City and other parts of the state before the decision was stayed pending appeal.
A week later, on April 17, the Tenth Circuit will also hear arguments in the Oklahoma freedom to marry case, Bishop v. Smith, where the district court in Tulsa invalidated that state’s ban of marriage for LGBT couples. On the same day, a state court in Little Rock will hear arguments in same-sex couples’ lawsuit seeking marriage equality in Arkansas, Wright v. Arkansas.
Less than a week after that, on April 23, the federal district court in Eugene, Oregon, will hear arguments in LGBT couples’ challenge to Oregon’s denial of marriage for same-sex couples. The Governor and Attorney General of Oregon have stated in court filings that they consider Oregon’s marriage ban unconstitutional and are ready to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples if the court strikes down the ban. In addition, the LGBT community and allies in Oregon have collected sufficient signatures to qualify an initiative to reverse the ban on the November 2014 ballot. The community has until July 3 to decide whether or not to pursue the measure, and if the district court strikes down the ban and marriage equality becomes the law in Oregon, the community will likely not submit the initiative for the ballot.
And three weeks after that, the action moves east to Virginia where, on May 13, the Fourth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals will hear arguments in Bostic v. Shaefer, a challenge to Virginia’s exclusion of LGBT couples from marriage. In February 2014, a federal district court in Norfolk ruled the state’s marriage ban unconstitutional. Same-sex couples in a separate class action challenge to Virginia’s ban, Harris v. Rainey, will also appear in the appeal. Virginia’s Governor and Attorney General are not defending the ban, but other state officials are pursuing the appeal.
Decisions in the district and trial courts could come immediately, or shortly after the hearings. Decisions in the federal appellate courts (the Fourth and Tenth Circuits) will likely come within months of the oral arguments. The case for LGBT equality has never been stronger. Stay tuned.
By MEUSA National Media Director Stuart Gaffney and MEUSA Director of Legal & Policy John Lewis
This article originally appeared in SF Bay Times, April 2, 2014: http://sfbaytimes.com/a-whirlwind-six-weeks-ahead-for-marriage-equality/
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].
Same-Sex Binational Couple Still Fighting to Return Home
The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) may have met its demise last June but same-sex binational couples living abroad are still waiting for the federal government to recognize their marriages and allow them to return to America. Melanie Servetas and Claudia Amaral, a married, same-sex, binational couple living in exile in Amaral’s home country of Brazil, are one of the tens of thousands of couples who have found themselves caught in the backlog of cases waiting to be approved for an American green card.
Servetas and Amaral began their relationship in 2009 after meeting through an online dating service. Servetas held a high level position as a Senior Vice President with Wells Fargo in Rancho Cucamonga, California. Amaral was a successful IT business owner in Brazil. Within the next few months, the couple quickly found out about America’s unjust immigration laws and sought out options seeking a way they could be united. “After about six months, I decided to come here to Rio for a visit,” Servetas said. “After my trip here, I decided there was no way we could go on with our lives living apart.” Servetas gave up her American home and job and re-located to Brazil, intending to bring Amaral back to the U.S. with her should that ever become possible. In Rio de Janeiro, on June 26, 2013, the couple followed the news as the U.S. Supreme Court struck down DOMA, the federal law forbidding federal recognition of same-sex marriages. As soon as the ruling was public, the couple rushed to marry. They rejoiced at the thought of returning together to the United States. “Unbelievable joy that we could finally come home, sadness that we were still in Brazil, disbelief that we still have such a long way to go for equality and proud to be even a small part of a fight like this for equality” explained Melanie Servetas regarding her initial emotions after the repeal of DOMA.
Due to DOMA restrictions, American citizens in same-sex binational relationships were previously denied the right to sponsor their foreign-born partners for the purpose of immigration. Once DOMA was repealed, immigration opportunities became available to all same-sex binational couples. However, even during this time of celebration, the process of applying for a green card as a same-sex couple caused Servetas and Amaral to feel nervous and unsure of the future.
Despite the DOMA ruling and the resulting change in U.S. immigration law, hardships remain for the couple. Shortly after marrying, the couple submitted Amaral’s green card application with the assistance of their attorney, Regina Jefferies. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) initial approval process can take up to seven months. Once approved, the application gets transferred to the Department of State’s National Visa Center (NVC) for further review.
“We are still waiting for USCIS to notify the National Visa Center that their petition has been approved,” Jefferies said. “Once the petition gets transferred to the NVC, they request additional information. They do some pre-processing for the consulate. Once that information is there, it takes them another 30 business days to review. The NVC will complete their initial processing and forward the entire file out to the consulate in Rio.”
The procedure for applying for a green card for those couples who have been forced to live abroad in order to be together is an exhaustive and lengthy process. “We’ve been stuck, on hold in the process for almost 60 days now. USCIS has sent our approved petition to the NVC but the NVC has not officially confirmed they have received it for the next steps,” said Servetas.
After already enduring significant emotional and financial suffering, the waiting has made the situation almost unbearable. But Servetas and Amaral are committed to following through with the legal process so that they can return to America, despite the extreme burdens the system has placed on them. “The very long delays to process applications for people who have already suffered discrimination and hardships totally frustrate us,” said Servetas. “It seems wrong that our Consular processing is taking so much longer than that of people who were able to apply to the USCIS because they didn’t have to leave the US in order to stay together. I can’t believe we are still so many months away from even having our consular interview.”
Time is of the essence for the couple as critical family matters have arisen in America. The need for the couple to return to the United States in the near future has become even more pressing. “I am very worried because my family in the U.S. urgently needs our assistance to care for an ill family member and we haven’t been able to get a response on our request to expedite,” said Servetas.
Couples like Servetas and Amaral are running out of time and money as the United States continues infighting over immigration reform. The need for comprehensive immigration reform seems clearer than ever with so many couples finding themselves locked into a system bound by massive red tape and bureaucracy.
“The government has ‘safe traveler’ global entry programs -- certainly something similar could be applied in order to let us come into the U.S. We’d be able to begin to work at putting our lives back together while we wait out the approval process,” said Servetas. “Also, those cases being handled abroad through the consulates should be allowed to bypass the USCIS portion and apply directly to the consular post for approval. Handing these files back and forth, where they end up just sitting without review for months on end, seems punitive to a population like us who have already suffered discrimination. Just allow consular processing to be a direct procedure with the State Department.”
What couples like Servetas and Amaral have already endured in their attempts to be together should be considered astonishing. In America, we continue to fight for equality. But many injustices continue as the plight of those who have had to choose between love and country are forced to pay the penalty of previous discriminatory laws. By no means do Servetas and Amaral minimize the struggle that same-sex binational couples who reside in America face. They only want to let people know that for those who have been exiled by love, trying to come home is proving to be just as difficult as leaving was. Servetas and Amaral are still waiting to move forward with their application process and are committed to continue the fight against America’s broken immigration system.
By Gina Caprio
Reflections on Arizona’s Vetoed Anti-Gay Legislation: Time to Seize the Moment
Arizona’s recently failed attempt to enact a law permitting restaurants, hotels, and other businesses to deny services to LGBT people, under the guise of religious liberty, rightly raised the ire of LGBT people and all those who oppose discrimination. The nationwide attention the bill received also has a silver lining.
It awakened Americans to the fact that LGBT people currently have no protections against discrimination in public accommodations under federal law, and that only 13 states prohibit such discrimination against LGBT people (and another 8 states outlaw such discrimination against lesbian and gay people). In other words, even without the failed legislation, businesses in 29 states, including Arizona, currently can discriminate against LGBT people with legal impunity (if no local ordinance exists) because these states have no statutes prohibiting such discrimination, and federal law contains no such prohibition.
Ironically, our opponents’ efforts to enact this draconian legislation have educated Americans to the fact that LGBT people need these legal protections nationwide. It’s time for those who oppose discrimination in all its invidious forms to demand federal legislation to prohibit such discrimination against LGBT people.
The vetoed Arizona legislation also reminds us once again that we are all in this struggle together. Former Congressman Norman Mineta, speaking to the Japanese American Citizens League about marriage discrimination against same-sex couples, said “a threat to anybody’s civil rights is a threat to the civil rights of all Americans.” Nowhere is this insight more evident than the Right Wing’s efforts, under the guise of religious protection, to undermine gains in equality that LGBT people, other minorities, and women have gained over the last six decades.
Later this month, the United States Supreme Court will hear arguments in cases where owners of public businesses claim that their religious views about contraception should take precedence over the medical choices that female employees and their doctors make about what is in the best interest of the women employees. A decision in favor of the owners could dramatically narrow women’s opportunities in the workplace, and limit their autonomy over medical decisions – all under the guise of religious freedom.
Similarly, interpreting the First Amendment to allow business owners to use religion to justify discrimination could open a gaping hole in many other statutes that prohibit discrimination again minorities and women in employment and public accommodations. After all, the trial court judge inLoving v. Virginia, the case in which the US Supreme Court ultimately overturned laws that banned interracial couples from marriage, ruled in favor such bans, proclaiming: “Almighty God created …(different) races …and placed them on separate continents…(this) fact…shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.” Religion could once again be used in innumerable contexts to justify discrimination.
The backlash against the Arizona bill is already causing other state legislatures to rethink passing similar measures. It’s time to seize the moment and enact federal legislation to protect LGBT people from discrimination in public accommodations nationwide.
By MEUSA National Media Director Stuart Gaffney and MEUSA Director of Legal & Policy John Lewis
This article originally appeared in SF Bay Times, March 6, 2014: http://sfbaytimes.com/reflections-on-arizonas-vetoed-anti-gay-legislation-time-to-seize-the-moment/
My Dad, an Intrepid Love Warrior
My 89-year-old dad passed away last week. He was a marvelous person – and an intrepid love warrior throughout his life. When I was born in 1958, my dad told my mother that he would like to be the one who got up in the middle of the night to feed me. My mother agreed, and my dad always described our time together during those feedings as sheer joy. “We were having so much fun that you didn’t want to go back to sleep, and neither did I.”
Many years later, Stuart and I married at San Francisco City Hall on February 12, 2004, and I called my parents in Kansas City that evening to let them know. Before I could get a word out, my dad interrupted, exclaiming: “We saw what was happening in San Francisco on the news. Were you there? Did you get married?!” Just a few weeks before, my dad had heard then-President George Bush’s anti-gay pronouncements in the 2004 State of Union address, and I remember him telling me that it felt as if the President of the United States had attacked our family before the nation.
I came out to my parents back in the early 1980s. In many ways, I had it very easy: my dad was then a professor of counseling psychology with semi-out colleagues; and my mother, also a university professor, had hung out in gay bars in Amsterdam with her gay friends in the 1950s. Despite my parents’ experience and intellectual understanding, my coming out process, however, presented challenges for them emotionally. Over time, they overcame them, embraced Stuart and other friends, and for years sent me clippings of every gay-related article they saw in the newspaper. They even apologized to me for failing to be sensitive to what I had experienced growing up and asked my forgiveness.
My mother had passed away by the time Stuart and I were able to wed legally in June 2008, but my dad proudly attended the celebration at City Hall. Last March, I visited my dad at his retirement community in Chicago before going to Washington, DC, for the Supreme Court hearings in the marriage equality cases. My dad had told all his friends and many staff all about it, and that I had co-authored an amicus brief before the Court. When I arrived, marriage equality and LGBT rights seemed to be the talk of the community. His friends now refer to Stuart as my husband.
The Lewis family came to America from Wales in the late 17th century to escape religious persecution as Quakers. When they arrived, they started a book in which they wrote down every member of the family born in the New World. My dad has the book today. In one of our last conversations, he asked me to get the book and to make sure that Stuart’s name was included in it. It is. My dad, born a kind, joyful, caring, and thoughtful spirit, was a love warrior to the end.
By MEUSA Director of Legal & Policy John Lewis
This article originally appeared in SF Bay Times, February 20, 2014: http://sfbaytimes.com/my-dad-an-intrepid-love-warrior/
Guest Post: New Federal Benefits For Same Sex Married Couples
US Attorney General Eric Holder has announced that the US government will now recognize same sex marriages as equal to heterosexual marriages in all federal matters. That means they will be treated just the same in bankruptcy court proceedings, visitation privileges for inmates of federal prisons and in federal survivor benefits.
Note: I am not an attorney or a qualified tax expert. No action should be taken based solely on the content of these memos. However I hope the memos will help you ask the right questions of people who are qualified in these issues.
Same sex married couples will now be able to jointly file for bankruptcy. This ensures alimony and domestic support debts aren't discharged in bankruptcy cases. And, if they do file for bankruptcy and were married in a state which allows same sex marriage, such as California, their bankruptcy will be valid all across the nation, even in states that do not recognize same sex marriage.
Also, from now on, people in same sex marriages will have to right to refuse to testify against their spouses in civil and criminal cases heard in federal court, even when the court proceedings occur in states that do not recognize same sex marriage. And the same sex spouses of all law enforcement officers and firefighters will be entitled to benefits in the event of death or severe injury in the line of duty.
Federal prison inmates, who are married to people of the same sex, will have the same rights as inmates who are in heterosexual marriages. For example, their spouses will be allowed to visit them in prison, federal prisoners will be allowed to take escorted trips to attend the funerals of their spouses or to deal with crises being faced by their spouses, to engage in correspondence with their spouses, and to obtain compassionate release, or reduction of their sentence, to care for a disabled spouse who is not in prison.
The Attorney General’s order also covers some lesser known programs such as the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) Program . During the cold war era with the Soviet Union, the United the United States carried out numerous atomic bomb tests. In order to do these tests people mined uranium and others processed that uranium to prepare it for use in that program. Some of them got sick and died from exposure to the uranium.
Congress passed the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act to provide monetary compensation to those who got sick from the radiation. The act also provides compensation to the spouses of people who died from that radiation. Now those spousal benefits will be available to the same sex spouses of those who died.
Attorney General Holder also stated that same sex spouses would be eligible for spousal compensation from the September 11 Victim Compensation Fund.
It is important to note that the US Attorney General has little or no authority over state courts and programs. It is possible, for example, that a state court in Georgia might compel the same sex spouse of a defendant to testify against his or her spouse in state court, even if they married in a state where same sex marriages are recognized.
None-the-less, Attorney General Holder’s announcement is another major step in the march to full and equal rights for LGBT people.
Authored by Boyce Hinman, founder and director of the California Communities United Institute, and member of Marriage Equality USA. Hinman has been writing and posting a series, "Monday Morning Marriage Memo," as part of his Anatomy for Justice blog. This article was first published there, and is republished here with the author’s permission. Hinman resides in and serves California, therefore the posts sometimes have a California slant. NOTE: Marriage Equality USA is not a legal firm or a tax/accounting firm. No action should be taken based solely on the content of our news blog or website.