#marriage equality
Bypassing lower courts, a Milwaukee lesbian couple filed a lawsuit Wednesday directly with the Wisconsin Supreme Court in an effort to invalidate the state’s ban on same-sex marriage.
Katherine Halopka-Ivery and Linda Halopka-Ivery named state and Milwaukee County officials as defendants in the 35-page lawsuit. They are represented by Milwaukee attorney Paul Ksicinski.
Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen said he will defend the action.
The declaratory judgment action contends that original jurisdiction with the Supreme Court is proper because the matter of the legality of same-sex marriage is of great public importance to the state.
The lawsuit comes as one state after another is moving toward legalizing gay marriage.
The suit notes that in 1982, Wisconsin was the first state to ban discrimination against gays in housing, public accommodation and employment, and that, unlike some other states, Wisconsin never banned marriage between people of different races.
Now, it states, while 17 states and the District of Columbia recognize same-sex marriages, Wisconsin has one of the most restrictive bans.
The lawsuit also cites the U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, saying it found that “in marriage, separate is not equal.”
That decision bestowed federal marriage benefits on same-sex couples who are lawfully married and reside in states that recognize such unions. Therefore, the Halopka-Iverys contend, they are being denied those federal benefits.
The plaintiffs say they were legally married in California in December but are now subject to possible criminal prosecution in Wisconsin under the state’s so-called “marriage evasion” law. A gay or lesbian couple who go elsewhere to obtain a marriage specifically prohibited under Wisconsin law could face up to nine months in jail and $10,000 fines, if convicted.
According to the suit, Katherine Halopka-Ivery tried to transfer ownership of real estate in her name to the couple and Milwaukee County register of deeds officials refused to record the transfer unless the couple filed for a Wisconsin domestic partnership.
Australia’s High Court has overturned legislation allowing gay marriage in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT).
The ACT parliament passed a bill in October making the territory the first part of Australia to legalise same-sex weddings.
But the national government challenged the decision, saying it was inconsistent with federal laws.
Some 27 couples who married since the law came into effect last weekend will now have their unions declared invalid.
The court said the issue should be decided by parliament - which in September 2012 voted down gay marriage legislation.
‘Matter for lawmakers’
The ACT legislation had allowed gay couples to marry inside the ACT, which includes the Australian capital, Canberra - regardless of which state they live in.
Federal law, however, specified in 2004 that marriage was between a man and a woman.
Civil unions are allowed in some states in Australia.
Additionally, the fact that this is the broad will of the people means it won’t just inevitably be struck down by some unelected judge in a future time of crisis - as in a certain other nation!
Thanks.
To my fellow members of the LGBTQ community: We didn’t ask for this fight, but it’s here. Get ready for cultural and political battle .
Elections matter, and the SCOTUS matters long after those elections have passed.
This post is going to be about New York. I usually post things related to languages. The reason today is, however, as a gay person I’m joyful that New York became the sixth and largest US state to allow gay marriage. The gay population of New York city is estimated at over half a million.
Back to languages: 72% of New Yorkers speak English mainly but 28% speak another language at home. One of the below sentences is each understood by at least 100,000 New Yorkers:
Él lo ama.
他愛他。
Lui lo ama.
Он любит его.
Il l'aime.
Li renmen l ’.
ער ליב אים.
On go kocha.
그는 사랑.
The languages are the most commonly spoken by New Yorkers in this order: Spanish, Chinese, Italian, Russian, French, French Creole, Yiddish, Polish and Korean. Read more on this here.
The whole point about human rights is, if someone can vote to remove them, then they aren’trights!
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-case-for-ending-the-supreme-court-as-we-know-it
For those in the LGBT community, this is obviously a historic day. For those of all sexual orientations who embrace D/s as a way of life, there is plenty more to do to eliminate explicit and implicit barriers and discrimination. If you are into D/s you know you can’t change who you are and that this goes far beyond kink and fetish.
Maybe one day, people can be out in the open in all walks of life without being labeled obscene, immoral or mentally ill. Different doesn’t mean bad…just different.
I am so so incredibly happy and proud. Today the results came in for the Australian Marriage Equality postal vote, and the result was yes! I’m so grateful and relieved and surprised and thankful and you’ll probably hear more of this later but. Thank you Australia.
DETROIT — An appeals court put an indefinite halt Tuesday on same-sex marriages in Michigan though lawyers for the couple who challenged the state’s gay-marriage ban had asked the judges to allow them while the state appeals the ruling.
The U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals granted the state’s request 2-1 to suspend Friday’s ruling from U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman, who had declared Michigan’s gay-marriage ban unconstitutional. On Saturday, the appeals court had granted an emergency stay.
“The Supreme Court has already determined that a stay pending appeal is warranted when a district court strikes down a state constitutional amendment defining marriage,” Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette wrote Tuesday in asking for the extension. The high court ordered a halt to same-sex marriages in Utah in January while that state appeals a December federal court ruling.
Also Tuesday, lawyers for plaintiffs April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse had asked the court to lift its emergency stay while the state appealed.
In 2004, Michigan voters amended the state constitution to defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The state has claimed that children thrive best when mothers and fathers raise them and has argued that’s why it wants to preserve the traditional definition of marriage.
After Friedman’s ruling Friday, clerks in Ingham, Muskegon, Oakland and Washtenaw counties opened their offices Saturday and issued 321 marriages licenses to same-sex couples; at least 299 weddings were performed before the appeals court issued its first stay. The stay leaves those couples in a sort of limbo, waiting to see if their vows are legally recognized.
Rowse and DeBoer didn’t get married Saturday. They said they want to wait to see if Friedman’s decision is upheld after all appeals.
The American Civil Liberties Union said Tuesday it is preparing to launch its own set of legal challenges if Michigan doesn’t recognize the validity of the weddings of same-sex couples performed Saturday.
The challenges could come if Michigan refuses to grant benefits to a spouse in a same-sex marriage, blocks adoptions from those couples or does not allow a couple to file state income tax forms jointly, said Jay Kaplan, a lawyer for the ACLU of Michigan.
“I truly don’t understand the rabid resistance from some people,” said Glenna DeJong, who with Marsha Caspar was the first same-sex couple to get married Saturday in Michigan. “I do know we’ll be on the right side of history.”
DeBoer and Rowse’s lawyers had argued that denying the stay best meets the public interest.
“There are times when maintaining the status quo makes sense,” their filing said. “There are also times when maintaining the status quo is merely a kinder label for perpetuating discrimination that should no longer be tolerated.”
Seventeen states and the District of Columbia issue licenses for same-sex marriage. Since December, bans on gay marriage have been overturned in Oklahoma Texas, Utah and Virginia, but appeals have put those cases on hold.
Contributing: The Associated Press
A federal judge, saying he was complying with the U.S. Constitution and not trying to defy the people of Texas, struck down the state’s ban on gay marriage Wednesday but left it in place pending a ruling by an appeals court later this year.
Judge Orlando Garcia issued his ruling in Austin in response to a suit by two gay couples. They challenged the state’s constitutional amendment, which had been approved by 76% of voters in 2005, and a 2003 law banning gay marriage.
Garcia’s decision rejected the argument by the Texas attorney general’s office that each state has the right to define marriage in the traditions of its citizens. Texas also argued that traditional marriage best supports the state’s interest in procreation and child rearing.
“After careful consideration, and applying the law as it must, this court holds that Texas’ prohibition on same-sex marriage conflicts with the United States Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection and due process,” Garcia wrote in a 48-page opinion. “Texas’ current marriage laws deny homosexual couples the right to marry, and in doing so, demean their dignity for no legitimate reason.”
He continued that regulation of marriage “has traditionally been the province of the states and remains so today,” but “any state law involving marriage or any other protected interest must comply with the United States Constitution.”
“Today’s court decision is not made in defiance of the great people of Texas or the Texas Legislature, but in compliance with the United States Constitution and Supreme Court precedent,” said Garcia, who was nominated to the federal bench by President Clinton in 1994. “Without a rational relation to a legitimate governmental purpose, state-imposed inequality can find no refuge in our United States Constitution.”
Under federal court rules, a judge may suspend a law if he or she believes the plaintiffs have a strong case and will suffer if the law is enforced.
Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican, indicated the state would appeal. He issued a statement that Texas would “continue to fight for the rights of Texans to self-determine the laws of our state.”
“Texans spoke loud and clear by overwhelmingly voting to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman in our constitution, and it is not the role of the federal government to overturn the will of our citizens,” he said.
Nicole Dimetman and Cleopatra De Leon, one of the couples who filed suit, were wed in Massachusetts and want Texas to recognize their marriage. The other plaintiffs, Mark Phariss and Vic Holmes, have been together 17 years and want to get married at home in Texas.
“We are extremely happy — happy beyond words — with Judge Garcia’s decision,” Phariss and Holmes said Wednesday in a joint statement with Dimetman and De Leon, the San Antonio Express-Newsreported. “Today, Judge Garcia affirmed that the Equal Protection Clause applies to all Texans. We are delighted by that decision, and we expect that, if appealed, it will be upheld.”
Dimetman and De Leon called the ruling “a great step towards justice for our family.”
“Ultimately, the repeal of Texas’ ban will mean that our son will never know how this denial of equal protections demeaned our family and belittled his parents’ relationship,” they said. “We look forward to the day when, surrounded by friends and family, we can renew our vows in our home state of Texas.”
Michael Diviesti, state lead organizer of GetEQUAL TX, a gay rights group, said, “It’s a sure sign that things are changing in Texas for the better. We’ve got a few more steps to go on the marriage front, but I think we’re all pretty prepared to keep up the fight.”
He added, “I wish we could start planning our weddings right now. Unfortunately, we can’t, but now there is an end in sight. A lot of us were thinking it would take five to 10 years before we could get married in our home states. But seeing this happen in our state shows us that we’re not as far away from that as we thought we were.”
Cece Cox, CEO of Resource Center Dallas, a community services agency for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, said, “Even though today nothing is exactly different, there are a lot of conversations that are going to be had about discrimination. And that’s where a lot of progress is made — not just in the courts.”
“This ruling by an unelected federal judge is the most egregious form of judicial activism in our generation,” said Jonathan Saenz, president of Texas Values, an organization that promotes religious liberty. “This is only the beginning of an epic battle that the Texas people will ultimately win in the name of the only true and lawful definition of marriage: one man and one woman.”
Federal judges also struck down bans on gay marriage in Utah, Oklahoma and Virginia, but the Texas ruling — if upheld on appeal — would have stronger reverberations coming from the nation’s largest, most influential red state.
Lawsuits are pending in at least 20 other states that ban gay marriage, including Michigan, where a federal judge is currently hearing arguments about a constitutional amendment that limits marriage to heterosexuals.
Seventeen states and the District of Columbia allow same-sex marriages.
Wednesday evening, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed a Republican-backed measure that would have allowed individuals and businesses to invoke their religious beliefs as a defense against claims of discrimination against gays.
Senate Bill 1062, which passed both houses of the Legislature last week, came under a withering assault from major corporations, organizations, politicians, professional sports and individuals.
Three of Brewer’s fellow Republicans who voted for the measure also urged her to not sign the bill into law, saying that although its intent was “to create a shield for all citizens’ religious liberties, the bill has been mischaracterized by its opponents as a sword for religious intolerance.”
Contributing: Talia Richman