Tag Archives: Same-sex Marriage Ban

German Chancellor Says Same-Sex Couples Should Not be Allowed to call Their Unions ‘Marriage’

In an online interview with German Youtube star Florian Mundt, alias LeFloid, as part of the ‘Gut Leben’ (good living) campaign, German chancellor Angela Merkel has said while same-sex couples should get marital benefits; a civil partnership should not be called marriage.

Merkel said she didn’t oppose same-sex marriage, but would wish to be call it something else.

I’m someone who is very supportive of us eliminating all discrimination,’ Merkel said when asked for her personal stance on marriage equality.

We have come a long way; when I remember, 25 years ago, many people didn’t dare to say that they are gay or lesbian. Luckily we overcame this; you can enter a partnership, a civil partnership.”

In June, members of Merkel’s Christian Democratic party sent an open letter claiming marriage equality would see the institution of marriage lost.

Also read: Angela Merkel Rejects Same-Sex Marriage in Germany

For me, personally, marriage is a man and a woman living together. That is my concept, but I support civil partnerships. I support us not discriminating against them when it comes to taxes, and to remove any other discrimination wherever we may find it.”

Mundt accused Merkel of quibbling and wanting to keep marriage between same-sex and traditional couples separate, although it would be the same on paper.

He said

For me, there is still a difference. It’s not the same, but they [same-sex couples] want the same. Everything else is an exclusion for me.”

The chancellor claimed people had to accept different opinions on the matter – including herself, as the opinions in her party as well as in the German government differ, but ‘you’ll have to endure that for a while.’

I don’t want discrimination and [I want] equality, but I make a difference at some point.”

Her interviewer countered quickly:

So you could say: no to discrimination, but we’ll keep differentiating between the two.”

Merkel responded

No discrimination, Marriage as a man and a woman living together.”

Watch the full interview here:

Angela Merkel Rejects Same-Sex Marriage in Germany

A spokesman for Germany’s chancellor Angela Merkel has ruled out introducing same-sex marriage.

Today was an important milestone in dismantling discrimination and the chancellor is pleased about that, but same-sex marriages are not a goal of this government. Every country makes its own laws – some countries go one route while others go another. In Germany we’ll take a path that suits Germany.”

Some have blamed the government’s coalition agreement for lack of flexibility on the issue.

Following the vote in Ireland, the German Chancellor faced calls for her government to catch up and introduce equality, with opposition Green leader Katrin Göring-Eckardt directly calling on Merkel to act.

Germany allows same-sex couples to enter into registered life partnerships that provide some of the benefits of marriage – but the Chancellor’s CDU/CSU coalition continues to oppose same-sex marriage.

Thomas Jaeger of Cologne University said:

This government isn’t capable of spontaneous reforms and is unable to move with the times. These are two big parties in the way of each other that don’t have the courage to tackle anything not agreed on in advance in their coalition agreement.”

Alabama Minister Jailed for Trying to Marry Lesbian Couple

Alabama has handed out a prison sentence to a minister for exercising her ‘religious freedom’ and trying to marry a lesbian couple, even though state’s ban on same-sex marriage was declared unconstitutional.

Anne DiPrizio – a non-denominational minister – was sentenced to 30 days in jail and a fine of $250 after she pleaded guilty to misdemeanour disorderly conduct. The sentence was then suspended for six months.

DiPrizio was arrested on 10 February after she offered to wed a lesbian couple inside Autauga County Probate Office, where the pair had received their marriage license just a few minutes before.

But Probate Judge Al Booth had banned all marriage ceremonies in the office the day before – coincidentally the same day that gay marriage became legal in Alabama – and called the police when DiPrizio refused to leave.

Six deputies arrested DiPrizio, who they found kneeling on the floor in protest.

She spent about three hours in jail then immediately returned to continue her protest after posting bail.

After sentencing DiPrizio said

I’m glad this is over and we can put this behind us.”

Living in Limbo – What it Means to Be a Lesbian Family in America’s Deep South

In 2011, when Carolyn L. Sherer started photographing lesbians and their families in Birmingham, Alabama, many chose not to show their faces. They were scared, they said, of losing their jobs or be discriminated against in other ways. Other people she asked to participate refused to be photographed at all.

However, Sherer, who is a lesbian, was determined to make members of her community be less invisible, in part because she hoped that letting others see them would help them become fully recognised and protected citizens.

My wife and I have been together since 1979 and it’s been very painful to me that my family hasn’t been acknowledged as a family unit. So that’s why I wanted to explore what a family is, what a family looks like. I wanted it to be about relationships and how people relate to each other in front of the camera.

I asked the participants to consider their feelings about words. In sequence, they were, ‘lesbian,’ ‘pride,’ and ‘prejudice.’ I got a range of responses,” she said. “Many of the older women in the beginning cried when I said ‘prejudice,’ or even when I said ‘lesbian.’ They said they’d been afraid to use the word or talk about it. Young people were like, ‘Lesbian?! We’re queer.’ ”

Conditions for gay Alabamans, in some respects, have improved since Sherer began her project. However, in March, the Alabama Supreme Court upheld the same-sex marriage ban there, and the state still doesn’t have any laws on the books addressing discrimination or hate crimes against LGBTQ citizens.

It’s important for people to understand what’s going on. People need to know we need to have protections.”

south-lesbian-familiy-09 south-lesbian-familiy-07 south-lesbian-familiy-04 south-lesbian-familiy-06 south-lesbian-familiy-05 south-lesbian-familiy-08 south-lesbian-familiy-01 south-lesbian-familiy-02 south-lesbian-familiy-03

“Living In Limbo: Lesbian Families In the Deep South” is on display at the Stonewall Museum’s Wilton Manors Gallery in Wilton Manors, Florida until June 28.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Out Smarts Same-Sex Marriage Opponents in Court

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the leader of the Supreme Court has become a liberal champion for her support of gay marriage and and left little doubt where she stands on the upcoming gay marriage case.

The 82-year-old justice had the perfect response to every argument against gay marriage put forward at the Supreme Court on Tuesday (28 April).

First, Ginsburg promptly shut down the argument that the court does not have legal right to change a ‘millennia’ of tradition.

Marriage today is not what it was under the common law tradition, under the civil law tradition. Marriage was a relationship of a dominant male to a subordinate female. That ended as a result of this court’s decision in 1982, when Louisiana’s Head and Master Rule was struck down.

Would that be a choice that state [still] should be allowed to have? To cling to marriage the way it once was?’

‘No’ was the reply from John Bursch, the lawyer representing the four states seeking to preserve their bans on gay marriage.

Then Ginsburg destroyed the argument that marriage is for procreation.

Suppose a couple, 70-year-old couple, comes in and they want to get married? You don’t have to ask them any questions. You know they are not going to have any children.”

Next, Ginsburg dismissed the argument that gay marriage ‘impinges on the state’ and takes benefits away from straight couples.

How could that be, because all of the incentives, all of the benefits of marriage affords would still be available.So you’re not taking away anything from heterosexual couples. They would have the very same incentive to marry, all the benefits that come with marriage that they do now.’

Ginsburg, a former civil rights lawyer, has been uncharacteristically outspoken in advance of one of the most significant civil rights decisions in decades. In August, shebecame the first Supreme Court justice to officiate at a same-sex wedding. Since then, she’s highlighted the big shift in public opinion on gay marriage in interviews and public speeches, breaking from her usual reticence when it comes to talking about upcoming cases. In February, Ginsburg told Bloomberg that it “would not take a large adjustment” for Americans to accept nationwide marriage equality, given the “enormous” change in people’s attitudes about same-sex marriage.

Two anti-gay-marriage groups, the National Organization for Marriage and the American Family Association, have since called on Ginsburg to recuse herself, arguing that she can no longer be impartial. They’ve also targeted Justice Elena Kagan for officiating at a same-sex marriage, asking her to step down from the case, too.

Legal experts say the calls for recusal are unwarranted, given the 2012 ruling that the federal government must recognize same-sex marriages in states that allow them. The constitutional issue at stake in the current case is whether states can ban same-sex marriage at all. Officiating at a same-sex marriage in a jurisdiction that already allows it does not call into question the justices’ impartiality on that question, according to Columbia Law School professor Jamal Greene.

US Supreme Court to Hear Historic Same-sex Marriage Case Arguments Today

Today, the US Supreme Court begins hearing oral arguments in a ground-breaking case concerning marriage bans in the states of Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee, and Kentucky, in the first large-scale Supreme Court action on the issue since a ruling in favour of equality during 2013’s United States v Windsor.

Oral argument before the Supreme Court will take only a few hours, and hinge on an important question: whether marriage equality for gays and lesbians is a new right, or whether it’s an aspect of the existing right to marry. The couples argue that the Supreme Court has already recognised marriage as a fundamental freedom, and states cannot impose arbitrary restrictions on that freedom.

The four states before the court argue that federal law has only recognised marriage as fundamental for straight couples — a claim that echoes the racist arguments against overturning interracial marriage laws in the 1960s.

The justices will hear the case just a few days after a new survey shows public support for marriage equality rising to new heights. A new Washington Post/ABC survey puts support at 61 percent to 35 percent opposed. That’s close to a complete reversal from just a decade ago.

A ruling is expected by the summer.

Ahead of the case, hundreds of amicus briefs have been filed by concerned parties – with President Obama’s administration urging the court to strike down bans on same-sex marriage, while Republicans in Congress urged the court not to.

However, in a sure-fire sign that Republicans don’t want to be seen on the wrong side of history in the case, just 57 out of the party’s 299 Members of Congress signed the brief, which argues states should be allowed to decide if gays are allowed to marry. In contrast, a brief from the Democrats in favour of equality was signed by 211 of the party’s 232 Members of Congress.

A number of leading employers have also urged the court to strike down the ban, with a number of corporate rivals have put their differences aside to sign a joint legal brief. Bitter rivals – including Microsoft, Apple and Google, Twitter and Facebook, eBay and Amazon – put their differences aside to sign on to the brief. Other iconic businesses to support same-sex marriage include Walt Disney, Coca-Cola, Nike, Visa, American Apparel, Verison, General Mills, Barnes & Noble.

Lesbian Couple Highlights the Obstacles to Raising Children in States that Ban Same-Sex Marriage

Raising two young children in states that don’t recognise that their parents are married has caused couple, Nicole and Pam Yorksmith, a range of problems.

They live in Kentucky and work in neighbouring Ohio – both states that ban same-sex marriage. This has complicated school enrolment, benefits, travel, tax and, most worrisome, medical emergencies.

While they consider themselves co-parents of the children that Nicole, 35, delivered after artificial insemination, a lot of other institutions don’t see them that way.

That was a problem when 9-month-old Orion came down with croup in the middle of the night.

“He had really laboured breathing,” Pam recalled. Their paediatrician recommended taking him to the emergency room, and since 4-year-old Grayden was asleep, Nicole stayed home with him.

But Pam wasn’t listed on Orion’s birth certificate or records – “An hour later, they had to call Nicole. They have to call my wife to get permission to treat my child.”

Orion recovered, but it was a troubling reminder that as much as they want to live as a normal family since their 2008 marriage in California, they face obstacles.

I’m a very traditional person. We knew very early on that we wanted to get married and have a family — let’s get a house, let’s get married, then let’s have kids. And that’s what we did.”

8 States Where Same-Sex Marriage Has Passed, Are Now Among Those Urging the U.S. Supreme Court to Uphold Same-Sex Marriage Bans

Eight states where same-sex couples can marry are among 15 states urging the Supreme Court to uphold gay marriage bans and leave the matter to voters and lawmakers.

The 15 states are telling the justices in a brief filed Thursday that the court would do “incalculable damage to our civic life” if it decides that same-sex couples must be allowed to marry everywhere in the United States.

The states say they should be free to decide the issue for themselves.

Those seeking a nationwide decree in favour of same-sex marriage “urge the court to declare that the Constitution compels all 50 states to adopt this new form of marriage that did not exist in a single state 12 years ago. The court should decline that invitation,” the states wrote.

Plaintiffs from Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee are asking the court to declare that the Constitution forbids states from denying same-sex couples the right to marry. The justices are scheduled to hear arguments on April 28.

Same-sex couples can marry in 37 states as a result of court decree, voter approval or legislative action.

The eight states on Thursday’s legal filing where gay and lesbian couples can marry after courts struck down bans on gay marriage are: Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Oklahoma, Utah and West Virginia.

Seven other states where same-sex marriage remains illegal also joined the brief. They are: Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota and Texas.

Apple, Microsoft, Google and Facebook Call on the US Supreme Court to Strike Down Bans on Same-Sex Marriage

A number of corporate firm – including Microsoft, Apple,Walt Disney, Coca-Cola, Nike, Visa, American Apparel, General Mills, Barnes & Noble, Google, Twitter and Facebook, eBay and Amazon – have signed an employers’ amicus brief, which argues that permitting same-sex marriage is crucial to recognising employees’ rights.

More: US President Continues Support For LGBT Community, Telling Supreme Court Same-Sex Marriage Bans Are Unconstitutional

The brief states in part:

“Some of the states in which amici (the 379 companies) do business make marriage equally available to all of our employees and colleagues; others prohibit marriages between couples of the same sex and refuse to recognize existing same-sex marriages. This dual regime burdens amici. It creates legal uncertainty and imposes unnecessary costs and administrative complexities on employers, and requires differential employer treatment of employees who are similarly situated save for the state where they reside.

State laws that prohibit or decline to recognize marriages between same-sex couples hamper employer efforts to recruit and retain the most talented workforce possible in those states. Our successes depend upon the welfare and morale of all employees, without distinction. The burden imposed by inconsistent and discriminatory state laws of having to administer complicated schemes to account for differential treatment of similarly situated employees breeds unnecessary confusion, tension, and diminished employee morale.

A diverse, inclusive workplace environment increases the total human energy available to the organization. People can bring far more of themselves to their jobs because they are required to suppress far less. Inclusive companies are more open to new ideas and opportunities, while less prone to overconfidence when approaching challenges. Companies that are diverse and inclusive obtain better profits and other outputs, thanks to improved team collaboration and commitment.”

The Supreme Court is to hear arguments on same-sex marriage from April 28.

The companies are:

A.L. Nella & Company, LLP, CPAs, A.T. Kearney, Aardema Whitelaw, PLLC, Acacia Home LLC, Accenture, Aetna Inc., Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., AJ Leo Electric and Solar, Akamai Technologies, Inc., Alaska Airlines, Alcoa Inc., Amazon Services Inc., Amazon.com, Inc., American Airlines Group Inc., American Apparel, American Express Company

American International Group, Inc., Aparicio-Mercado Law, L.C., Apple Inc., AppNexus Inc., Aramark, Arbor Brewing Company, LLC, Arnold & Porter LLP, Aspen Skiing Company, Assemble Sound LLC, AT&T Inc., Atlas Cut Stone, Atticus Circle, The Austin Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, Avanade Inc.

Bain & Company, Inc., Bakehouse Art Complex, Baker & McKenzie LLP, Bank of America, The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation, Barclays, Barnes & Noble, Inc., bebe stores, inc., Becton, Dickinson and Company, Belcampo Inc., Ben & Jerry’s, Big Duck Studio, Inc., Bigelow Villa LLC, Billy’s Farm, BlackRock, Inc., Bloomberg L.P., Blue Apron, Inc., Blue Heron Ventures, Blue Moon Hotel / Winter Haven Hotel, Blume, Faulkner & Skeen, PLLC, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Boston Community Capital, Inc., Boston Consulting Group, The Boston Foundation, Boston Medical Center Corporation, Boston Scientific Corporation, Brady Mills LLC, BrandQuery LLC ,Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Broadcom Corporation, Brocade

Cablevision Systems Corporation, Capital One Financial Corporation, Captain Wendell’s Marine Services LLC, Cardinal Health, Inc., Care Resource, CBS Corporation, CEB, Central Physical Therapy and Fitness PSC, CGI, Charlotte Business Guild, The Chubb Corporation, CIGNA Corporation, Cisco Systems, Inc., Citigroup Inc., City Catering Company, City Lites Neon, Inc., The City of Ann Arbor, Michigan, Civitas Public Affairs Group, Clean Yield Asset Management, CloudFlare, Inc., CMIT Solutions of Seattle Downtown, The Coca-Cola Company, Cohen & Associates, Colgate-Palmolive Company, Columbia FunMap, Inc., Comcast Corporation, The Computer Butler, ConAgra Foods, Inc., The Corcoran Group, Corner Brewery, LLC, Corning Incorporated, Cox Enterprises, Inc., Crazy Misfits Pet Services, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC
Cummins Inc., Cupcake Royale, CVS Health Corporation

Dallas Voice, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Inc., Danaher Corporation, David J. Jarrett, P.C., David Kosar Insurance Agency, David Mack Henderson Income Tax Preparation, DCI Group AZ, L.L.C., Deloitte LLP, Delta Air Lines, Inc., Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation, The Desert Business Association, Deutsche Bank AG, Diageo North America, Inc., DIRECTV, DocuSign, Domini Social Investments LLC, The Dow Chemical Company, Dreamcatcher Arts and Publishing Ltd., Dropbox, Inc., DuPont

eBay Inc., Edelman, Eldercare Consulting, Electronic Arts Inc., EnduringHydro, LLC, Ernst & Young LLP, The Estée Lauder Companies Inc., Event Rents, Everything Real Estate LLC, Express Movers Inc.,

Facebook, Inc., Farella Braun + Martel, LLP, Fastsigns, Fenwick & West LLP, First Data Corporation, 1st Security Bank, 1stdibs.Com, Inc., FIT Technologies, Flanery CPA, Full Court Press Communications

G.A.W., Inc., The Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce Nevada, General Electric Company, General Mills, Inc., Gensler, Gilt Groupe Holdings, Inc., GlaxoSmithKline LLC, Gleason & Associates Claims Services, Go Factory, Inc., Goethel Engelhardt, PLLC, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Google Inc., Goulston & Storrs, P.C., Great Officiants LLC, The Greater Connecticut Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, Greater San Diego Business Association, Greater Seattle Business Association, Greensulate, Grossman Marketing Group, Group Health Cooperative, Groupon, Growing Hope,

Harrell Remodeling, The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., Healthline, Hewlett-Packard Company, Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc., Holdredge Wines, Homeward Pet Adoption Center, Horizon Air Industries, Inc., House Packard LLC, HSB,

Ikard Wynne LLP, The Independence Business Alliance, The Inland Northwest Business Alliance, Insala, Ltd, Inspirato, LLC, Integrated Archive Systems, Inc., Integrity Law Group, Intel Corporation, Intuit Inc., INUS Group, LLC,

Jackson Hole Group LLC, Jagod Designs, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Jenn T. Grace International LLC, Jennifer Brown Consulting, JetBlue Airways Corporation, The Jim Henson Company, Johnson & Johnson, Johnston, Kinney and Zulaica LLP, Jonathan L. Bowman, Attorney at Law, PS, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Julian Chang Consulting, Inc.

kapchur.us photography, The Kathy A. Janssen Foundation, Kazan, McClain, Satterley, & Greenwood, PLC, Keir Jones Agency – State Farm, Keker & Van Nest LLP, KEO Marketing Inc., Kimberly-Clark Corp., Kimpton Hotel & Restaurant Group, LLC, Kollmar Sheet Metal Works, Inc., Kotzan Chiropractic, KPMG LLP

Lambda Business Association, Laparoscopic Institute for Gynecologic Oncology, Larson Marketing & Communications LLC, Laughton Properties, Law Offices of Joel L. Sogol, Law Office of Lisa E. Schuchman, Law Office of Lorie L. Burch, PC, Law Offices of Robin L. Bodiford, P.A., The Law Office of Susan K. Fuller, PLLC, Levi Strauss & Co., Liberty Burger, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Life & Love Celebrations, Link in the Chain Foundation, Inc., Littler Mendelson, P.C., LNT, Inc., The Long Beach Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, Lori Karbal et al, Loring, Wolcott & Coolidge Trust, LLC, The Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce

Main Street Hair Shoppe Ltd., Marriott International, Inc., Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company, McGraw Hill Financial, Inc., McKesson Corporation, McKinsey & Company, Inc., Merca Property Management, The Miami-Dade Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, Microsoft Corporation, The Mid-America Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, Miller & Olson, LLP, Miller Shelton Group, LLC, MillerCoors LLC, Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C., Mona Smith PLLC, Moody’s Corporation, Morgan Miller Plumbing, Morgan Stanley, MWW Public Relations,

NAMI Dallas, Inc., The Nashville LGBT Chamber of Commerce, The National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, Neumann Capital Management, LLC, The New England Patriots, New Leaf Columbus, New York Life Insurance Company, Nifty Hoops, LLC, NIKE, Inc., Nixon Peabody LLP, North Texas GLBT Chamber of Commerce, Northrop Grumman Corporation,

OBOX Solutions, Office Depot, Inc., The Ogilvy Group, Inc., Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., ONE Community Media, LLC, 1 Source Consulting Solutions, Oracle America, Inc., Orbitz Worldwide, Inc., Out & Equal Workplace Advocates, Outerwall Inc.

Pakmode Publications, LLC, d/b/a Pakmode Media + Marketing, Pandora Media, Inc., PATH, Peabody & Arnold LLP, Pepper Hamilton LLP, PepsiCo, Pfizer Inc., Pixelligent Technologies LLC, Plexus Education Foundation, Plexus LGBT and Allied Chamber of Commerce, Portland Area Business Association, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, PrideFest, the PrintingWorks, Pro-Tec Data, Inc., Procter & Gamble, ProTrials Research, Inc., Prudential Financial, Inc., Puma Spring Vineyards, Qualcomm Incorporated, Quorum

RAFI Architecture and Design, Rainbow Chamber of Commerce Silicon Valley, Ralph’s Regal Weddings, Ray Holley Communications, RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Replacements, Ltd., Restaurant Management Concepts, Reverberate! Marketing Communications, Inc., Rising Tide Brewing Company, RJR Photography, Robert H Stutz Jr CPA, Rockwell Automation, Inc., Rotella & Hernandez, LLC

The Sacramento Rainbow Chamber of Commerce, Sadek Bonahoom PLC, The San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, The San Francisco Giants, The Seattle Lesbian, LLC, Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, Sempra Energy, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Shingles Roofing LLC, Sidetrack, Inc., Simon, Schindler & Sandberg LLP, Skellenger Bender, P.S., Skyworks Solutions, Inc., Sleeves Up Productions, LLC, Sōw, Spectra Law PS, Spry Vision, Inc., St. Jude Medical, Inc., Staples, Inc., Starbucks Corporation, Starrtek LLC, State Street Corporation, Steven Graves Insurance Agency, Stonewall Behavioral Health, Stonewall Columbus, Stuffed Cakes, LLC, Sun Life Financial (U.S.) Services Company, Inc., SunDaily, Support.com, Inc., Sweet Dixie Kitchen, Symantec Corporation

Taber Food Services, Inc., dba Hobee’s California Restaurants, The Tampa Bay Rays, Target Corporation, TD Bank, N.A., TD Securities (USA) LLC, Tech Data Corporation, TestTracks, Thinking Cap Communications & Design, Third Point LLC, Thomson Reuters, Tiwary Entertainment Group LLC, TNT Promotions, LLC, TOCA Events, LLC, TravelOut, Inc., Tutta Bella Neapolitan Pizzeria, Twitter, Inc., 206 Inc.

UBS AG, The Ultimate Software Group, Inc., United Air Lines, Inc., United Therapeutics Corporation, Uptown Physicians Group, VCB Consulting & Accounting Services

Verizon Communications Inc., Viacom Inc., Visa Inc., VitaPerk, VMware, Inc.

W. M. Martin Advertising, W.W. Grainger, Inc., W/S Development Associates LLC, Walsh Wellness Center, The Walt Disney Company, Wasserman Media Group, Wells Fargo & Company, Whey Natural! USA LLC, Wisconsin LGBT Chamber of Commerce, Witeck Communications, Inc., The Workplace Equality Index, Wyndham Worldwide Corporation

Xerox Corporation, Xfund

YES DESIGN GROUP, Ypsilanti Downtown Development Authority

Zausmer, Kaufman, August & Caldwell, P.C., Zingerman’s Community of Businesses, ZoomSystems, Zynga Inc.

Texas Attorney General Argues Lesbian Couple’s Marriage Is Void

The Attorney General of the US state of Texas has attempted to void the marriage of a lesbian couple, Sarah Goodfriend and Suzanne Bryant, who were married in Austin last week.

“The rogue actions of Travis County judges do not withstand the scrutiny of law. The same-sex marriage license issued is not valid because it conflicts with the Texas Constitution and state law — the license is therefore void ab initio…

Activist judges don’t change Texas law and we will continue to aggressively defend the laws of our state.”

Attorney General Ken Paxton

Attorney General Ken Paxton moved quickly after the couple married, appealing the Texas Supreme Court, which quickly blocked other couples from marrying in the state by issuing a stay. Even new Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott also reaffirmed his support for Texas’ constitutional ban on same-sex marriage that voters overwhelmingly approved in 2005.

The women were granted a one-time license after the women argued that being legally married would ensure inheritance and allow the couple to make medical decisions for each other should one of them become critically ill.

Goodfriend, has ovarian cancer, and the state district judge raised the “severity and uncertainty” of her condition in granting the women permission to marry.

The couple’s attorney, Chuck Herring, is now arguing that the marriage was not void, saying:

“The case is over. The marriage is over and done. Our clients are married and very happy.”

The state of Texas’ same-sex marriage ban was found unconstitutional last year, but the judge issuing the ruling stayed it, in order to facilitate a state appeal.

Courts in Indiana made a similar exception for a lesbian couple in April because one of the women was dying of cancer and wanted her partner’s name on her death certificate. A federal appeals court overturned Indiana’s ban in September.

Shortly after news of the marriage spread online, Travis County officials said two other same-sex couples inquired about marriage licenses. By then, Paxton’s office was already preparing its emergency filing with the state Supreme Court.

Texas Supreme Court Halts All Same-Sex Marriages After One Couple Marries

Two days ago a county judge struck down a same-sex marriage ban in Texas. This morning, based on that ruling, another state judge ordered a Texas county clerk to issue a marriage license to one same-sex couple, which she did.

Suzanne Bryant and Sarah Goodfriend, together over thirty years, were married shortly afterwards.

Just hours later, the Texas State Supreme Court intervened and ruled that no other same-sex couple may marry.

Newly-elected Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton, filed for an emergency stay with the Supreme Court immediately after the couple married.

Paxton wrote

“A stay is necessary to make clear to all county clerks that Texas marriage law remains enforceable until there has been final appellate resolution.”

The couple, who have adopted two children together, are hopeful their marriage will not be annulled by the Court.

“If they want to come in and try to nullify this, they will. But we have a valid marriage license, and I don’t think they can.”

Slovakia Referendum To Ban Same-sex Marriage Fails

A low turnout in a Slovakia referendum last week has dashed a measure that would have legalised the discrimination towards lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) couples. The decision of the majority of voters not to participate in the referendum offers some comfort to minorities in Slovakia.

Although the majority of the people who voted approved the proposals, it was less than the 50% of registered voters required for the vote to be valid in the country of 5.4 million people.

The referendum called for same-sex couples to be barred from marrying or from adopting and raising children, and for limited access to comprehensive sex education at school.

“Slovakia’s people voted with their feet not to take part in this effort to limit their fellow citizens’ human rights. The referendum was shaped by homophobic views, designed purely to limit and discriminate against the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people.”

Boris Dittrich, Human Rights Watch

Human Rights Watch are fighting for the government to introduce legislation to legally recognise same-sex relationships and affirm the rights of LGBT people to form a family and raise children.

The referendum was organized by the Slovak government as a result of a petition by the Alliance for Family, a conservative group that gathered about 400,000 signatures more than needed to put the measure to a referendum vote.

The referendum contained three questions.

One asked voters if they agreed that ‘no other cohabitation of persons other than a union between one man and one woman can be called marriage’.
The second asked if they agreed that ‘same-sex couples or groups shall not be permitted to adopt and subsequently raise children’.
The third, curiously lumping euthanasia with sexual education, asked whether voters agreed that ‘schools shall not require children to participate in education in the area of sexual behaviour or euthanasia if their parents or the children themselves do not agree with it’.

Slovakia’s constitution, in article 93, provides that a referendum may not be used to determine ‘basic rights and liberties’. However, in October 2014, after President Andrej Kiska referred the matter to the Slovak Constitutional Court, it ruled that the three questions in the referendum did not violate the constitution. It rejected a fourth question on registered partnerships.

Slovakia does not legally recognise relationships between same-sex partners. In 2014, Slovak’s constitution was changed to define marriage exclusively as a union between a man and a woman.

Croatia, has also amended its constitution, to define marriage as a union solely between a man and a woman in the wake of a referendum banning same-sex marriage. The government, however, subsequently introduced a bill for legal recognition of same-sex relationships, which the parliament passed. Croatia is thereby meeting its obligation to afford same sex-couples legal recognition and protection, Human Rights Watch said.

As a party to the European Convention on Human Rights, Slovakia is bound by the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights. In a November 7, 2013, ruling in Vallianatos and others v. Greece (GC), nos. 29381/09 and 32684/09, the court found that proposed registered partnership legislation in Greece, which did not include same-sex couples, was discriminatory. It ruled that the Greek legislation violated article 8 (family life), taken together with article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Slovak constitution also provides in article 11 that international human rights treaties it has ratified take precedence over the country’s laws.

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has also recognized the importance of granting same-sex couples the same rights as opposite-sex couples in civil unions or registered partnerships.

“The Slovak public has indicated it does not want arbitrary discrimination against LGBT families. The Slovakian government should protect LGBT people and their children by introducing legislation that is in line with their obligations as an EU member state and with legislation in other EU countries.”

Boris Dittrich, Human Rights Watch

Watch | Lesbian Couples Fight For Same-Sex Marriage in Mississippi

Same-sex marriages is now available in 75% America, but the battle needs more momentum, especially in the South.

However, do not fear, as the same-sex marriage movement is alive and well, even in Mississippi.

Andrea Sanders and Rebecca Bickett are one of two lesbian couples fighting to overturn the state’s same-sex marriage ban.

Watch their story…

A Federal Judge In Montana Has Struck Down State’s Same-sex Marriage Ban.

U.S. District Judge Brian Morris has struck down that Montana’s same-sex marriage ban.

The ruling by the federal judge comes in a challenge filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Montana on behalf of four same-sex couples who sued to overturn the ban.

“This Court recognizes that not everyone will celebrate this outcome. This decision overturns a Montana Constitutional amendment approved by the voters of Montana. Yet the United States Constitution exists to protect disfavored minorities from the will of the majority. Equal protection of the laws will not be achieved through ‘indiscriminate imposition of inequalities.’ Our constitutional tradition does not permit laws to single out a certain class of citizens for ‘disfavored legal status.’”

Judge Brian Morris

ACLU officials argued that Montana was bound by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ recent decision to strike down similar gay marriage bans in Idaho and Nevada.

Montana is the only state under the 9th Circuit’s jurisdiction that had still been enforcing its same-sex marriage ban.

The ruling takes effect immediately.

US Supreme Court Action Could Lead to #MarriageEquality in 11 More States

In a surprise development, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would not accept for review any of the seven appeals from five states. The action means that the stays placed on lower court decisions in all five states – decisions that struck down bans on marriage for same-sex couples — are immediately lifted, making way for the lower courts to issue orders requiring the states to stop enforcing their bans.

The action also means that six other states in the same federal circuits as the five states which had appeals before the high court will have to abide by the federal appeals court rulings in those circuits. All three circuits –the Fourth, Seventh, and Tenth—struck down the bans on marriage for same-sex couples.

That means that very soon, same-sex couples will be able to marry in 30 states plus the District of Columbia.

“We are thrilled the court is letting the Tenth Circuit victory stand. This is a huge step forward for Utah and the entire country. We are hopeful that the other cases pending across the country will also vindicate the freedom to marry, so that all couples, no matter where they travel or live, will be treated as equal citizens and have the same basic security and protections for their families that other Americans enjoy.”

Shannon Minter, Legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights

The announcement does not legally affect the remaining 20 states, but it could give courts in those other states and circuits some pause before upholding similar bans in those states and circuits. Some experts say they expect the Supreme Court will almost certainly take up an appeal should a federal appeals court rule such bans to be constitutional.

Prominent constitutional law scholar Laurence Tribe of Harvard University, who argued against bans on sodomy in the 1986 Bowers v. Hardwick case, said he thought there was only a 50-50 chance the court would have granted one of the existing appeals.

“As soon as a solid split emerges, I fully expect the Court to grant cert. I’d watch the Sixth Circuit if I were you.”

Laurence Tribe, Harvard University

A three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit heard oral arguments August 6 in six marriage equality lawsuits from four states: Kentucky,Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee. The panel has yet to issue its opinion, but questions from two of the three judges during the argument gave repeated voice to various justifications for the bans.

Missouri Stepping Closer to Lift on Same-Sex Marriage Ban

A judge struck down part of Missouri’s gay marriage ban for the first time by ordering the state to recognize same-sex marriages legally performed in other states, saying state laws banning the unions single out gay couples “for no logical reason.”

The order means such couples will be eligible to sign up for a wide range of tax, health insurance, veterans and other benefits now afforded to opposite-sex married couples. Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster, who has defended the state’s ban on gay marriage, said his office was reviewing the ruling.

The decision comes in a lawsuit filed by 10 same-sex couples who legally married outside the state, including Arlene Zarembka and Zuleyma Tang-Martinez. The St. Louis couple, who married in Canada, said Friday’s ruling could boost their household income, and they plan to apply Monday for Zarembka to receive Social Security benefits as Tang-Martinez’s spouse.

“To me, it’s a real validation by the judge of our relationship and our commitment to each other.”

Tang-Martinez

Jackson County Circuit Judge J. Dale Youngs sided with the couples, who argue that their rights to equal protection and due process are being violated by Missouri’s ban on gay marriage. Youngs said the couples deserve the same recognition as opposite-sex couples who married in other states.

Jackson County Circuit Judge J. Dale Youngs wrote…

“The undisputed facts before the Court show that, to the extent these laws prohibit plaintiffs’ legally contracted marriages from other states being recognized here, they are wholly irrational, do not rest upon any reasonable basis, and are purely arbitrary. All they do is treat one segment of the population – gay men and lesbians – differently than their same-sex counterparts, for no logical reason.”

The lawsuit before Youngs only challenges Missouri’s refusal to recognize marriages legally performed outside the state, not laws that bar same-sex couples from getting married in Missouri.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which is helping the couples, noted the ruling was a first in the state.

“We’re gratified that the court recognized that married same-sex couples and their families are no different than other couples, and that the Constitution requires them to be treated equally. This is not the first court to reach this conclusion, but it is the first court to do so in Missouri, so it’s a tremendous day for our state.”

Tony Rothert

Rothert also said the ruling means that thousands of Missouri couples can now qualify for spousal government benefits and, on a smaller level, change their last names to match their spouse’s on their Missouri driver’s license.

The case is among at least three challenging Missouri’s ban: There is a federal challenge in Kansas City, and a St. Louis case focuses on city officials who issued marriage licenses to four same-sex couples to trigger a legal test of the ban.

The lawsuits are based on the same arguments that led the U.S. Supreme Court last year to overturn part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act that denied a tax, health and other benefits to legally married gay couples.

In Missouri, Youngs said he expects the state Supreme Court to “provide the last word on all of the important legal issues presented by this case.”

Same-sex marriage is now legal in 19 states and the District of Columbia. The ACLU has cases pending against 13 other states with such bans, including five cases currently before federal appeals courts.

Thirty Two US States Ask Supreme Court to Settle The Gay Marriage Issue Once and For All

Thirty-two states that either allow gay marriage or have banned it asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday to settle the issue once and for all.

Fifteen states that allow gay marriage, led by Massachusetts, filed a brief asking the justices to take up three cases from Virginia, Utah and Oklahoma and overturn bans. And 17 other states, led by Colorado, that have banned the practice asked the court to hear cases from Utah and Oklahoma to clear up a “morass” of lawsuits, but didn’t urge the court to rule one way or another.

The filing came as a three-judge panel of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago ruled that same-sex marriage bans in Wisconsin and Indiana are unconstitutional. The unanimous decision Thursday criticized the justifications both states gave, several times singling out the argument that marriage between a man and a woman is tradition. There are, the court noted, good and bad traditions.

The experience of Massachusetts – the first state to legalize gay marriage – shows that allowing same-sex couples to wed has only benefited families and strengthened the institution of marriage, said Attorney General Martha Coakley.

“Laws that bar same-sex couples from marrying are discriminatory and unconstitutiona. The time has come for this critical issue to be resolved.”

Martha Coakley, Attorney General

Massachusetts was joined by California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Washington.

Colorado’s brief argued that the definition of marriage faces legal challenges only the Supreme Court can resolve, and that without a Supreme Court decision, states defending bans could be liable for huge legal bills from future lawsuits if they are overturned. It was written by Daniel D. Domenico, the state’s solicitor general, and Michael Lee Francisco, assistant solicitor general.

Colorado was joined by Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

These are the cases addressed in the briefs:

In Virginia, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in July that the state’s voter-approved ban is unconstitutional. The state has appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which hasn’t said whether it will accept the case. But the high court granted a request on Aug. 20 from a county clerk to delay implementation of the ruling, which would have allowed same-sex couples to marry beginning the next day.
In Oklahoma, an appeals court tossed the state’s ban in July but put its ruling on hold pending an appeal, meaning same-sex couples can’t marry in Oklahoma for now. Attorneys representing the Tulsa County court clerk – who refused to issue a marriage license for a lesbian couple there – asked the Supreme Court this month to hear the case.
In Utah, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver ruled this summer that Utah must allow gay couples to marry, though it put the ruling on hold pending an appeal. The state has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the state’s ban.

Judges Blast Indiana and Wisconsin Marriage Bans

Federal appeals judges bristled on Tuesday at arguments defending gay marriage bans in Indiana and Wisconsin, with one Republican appointee comparing them to now-defunct laws that once outlawed weddings between blacks and whites.

As the legal skirmish in the United States over same-sex marriage shifted to the three-judge panel of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago, more than 200 people lined up hours before to ensure they got a seat at the much-anticipated hearing.

While judges often play devil’s advocate during oral arguments, the panel’s often-blistering questions for the defenders of the same-sex marriage bans could be a signal the laws may be in trouble – at least at this step in the legal process.

Richard Posner, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1981, hit the backers of the ban the hardest. He balked when Wisconsin Assistant Attorney General Timothy Samuelson repeatedly pointed to “tradition” as the underlying justification for barring gay marriage.

“It was tradition to not allow blacks and whites to marry – a tradition that got swept away,” the 75-year-old judge said. Prohibition of same sex marriage, Posner said, derives from “a tradition of hate … and savage discrimination” of homosexuals.

Attorneys general in both states asked the appellate court to permanently restore the bans, which were ruled unconstitutional in June. Its ruling could affect hundreds of couples who married after lower courts tossed the bans and before those rulings were stayed pending the Chicago appeal.

Gay marriage is legal in 19 states as well as the District of Columbia, and advocates have won more than 20 court victories around the country since the U.S. Supreme Court ordered the federal government to recognize state-sanctioned gay marriages last year.

The Supreme Court has yet to take up a case, but Utah and Oklahoma’s cases were appealed to the high court and Virginia’s attorney general also has asked the justices to weigh in. Appeals court rulings are pending for Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee, while appellate court hearings are scheduled next month for Hawaii, Oregon, Idaho, Nevada and is expected soon in Texas.

Posner, who has a reputation for making lawyers before him squirm, cut off Indiana Solicitor General Thomas Fisher, just moments into his presentation and frequently chided him to answer his questions.

At one point, Posner ran through a list of psychological strains the children of unmarried same-sex couples suffered, including having to struggle to grasp why their schoolmates’ parents were married and theirs weren’t.

“What horrible stuff,” Posner said. What benefit to society in barring gay marriage, he asked, outweighs that kind of harm to children?

“All this is a reflection of biology,” Fisher answered. “Men and women make babies, same-sex couples do not… we have to have a mechanism to regulate that, and marriage is that mechanism.”

Samuelson echoed that, telling the hearing that regulating marriage – including by encouraging men and women to marry – was part of a concerted Wisconsin policy to reduce numbers of children born out of wedlock.

“I assume you know how that has been working out in practice?” Judge David Hamilton responded, citing figures that births to single women from 1990 to 2009 rose 53 percent in Wisconsin and 68 percent in Indiana.

While the judges seemed to push defenders of the bans the hardest, they also pressed the side arguing for gay marriage to say just where they themselves would draw the line about who could and couldn’t marry.

Would they argue in favor of polygamy on similar grounds, by pointing to the emotional toll on children in families with multiple mothers or fathers, asked Judge David Hamilton, a President Barack Obama appointee.

“If you have two people, it’s going to look like a marriage,” said Kenneth Falk of the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana. “If you have three or four, it doesn’t. … There’s no slippery slope.”

Among those following the arguments in court was plaintiff Ruth Morrison, a retired Indianapolis Fire Department battalion chief. She said that because Indiana won’t recognize the woman she married in another state as her wife, she wouldn’t be able to pass on pension and other benefits if she dies.

“Now Indiana tells us our promises are only good if our spouses are of the opposite sex,” Morrison, wearing a fire department uniform, said during a rally ahead of the hearing Monday night.

A voter-approved constitutional amendment bans gay marriage in Wisconsin. State law prohibits it in Indiana. Neither state recognizes same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. The lawsuits that led to Tuesday’s hearing in Chicago contend that the bans violate the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection guarantee.

Despite the seriousness of the hearing, there was some levity.

At one point, a visibly uncomfortable Samuelson struggled to offer a specific reason for how gay marriage bans benefit society. He then noted a yellow courtroom light was on signaling his allotted time was nearly up.

“It won’t save you,” Judge Ann Claire Williams, a Bill Clinton appointee, told him, prompting laughter in court.

Samuleson smiled, and said: “It was worth a try.”

Together 48 Years, Lesbian Couple Fights North Carolina Same-Sex Marriage Ban

On the summer night Ellen Gerber and Pearl Berlin committed to spending their lives together, the No. 1 song was “When A Man Loves A Woman.”

Lyndon B. Johnson was president. NASA had just landed the first unmanned probe on the moon.

“We’re still in love, after 48 years. We still can’t begin the day without a good cuddle.”

Ellen Gerber

June 2, 1966, is engraved in Roman numerals on the identical gold bands the women exchanged during a religious wedding at their Greensboro synagogue last year on the anniversary of that long-ago night. They followed three months later with a civil ceremony in Maine.

But under North Carolina law, they might as well be strangers.

That’s why Gerber and Berlin are the lead plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging the state’s voter-approved constitutional amendment banning legal recognition of same-sex relationships.

“They can see that in us, that being gay or lesbian is just the same as being straight. You just love somebody of your own sex. Otherwise, there’s no difference. … We want to be recognized for what we are – a married couple.”

Ellen Gerber

Last month, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals – with jurisdiction over five states, including North Carolina – struck down Virginia’s same-sex marriage ban. On Wednesday, the appellate panel refused to delay its ruling, possibly clearing the way for gay marriages to begin next week in the Old Dominion.

North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper has said it would be “futile” to continue defending his state’s similar law. Republican Gov. Pat McCrory and GOP legislative leaders urged Cooper, a Democrat, to continue the fight, but gave no indication they will defend the ban themselves.

There are real-world worries that come with being gay and growing older. And time is not on the High Point couple’s side.

Berlin, 89, fell down some stairs before Christmas, hitting her head, breaking three ribs and enduring her third hospital stay in two years.

Gerber, a 78-year-old retired lawyer, long ago drafted Berlin’s health-care power of attorney. But a piece of paper is no guarantee hospital staff would immediately afford her the same spousal rights that would be automatic if she were married to a man.

“It’s very scary, that something could happen to Pearl and I could be kept from her. They might not let me in the emergency room with her. They might not let me help make decisions. … It would be just horrendous if I wasn’t able to be there with her, holding her hand. I would die if I couldn’t do that.”

Ellen Gerber

Since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a key section of the federal Defense of Marriage Act last year, same-sex marriage proponents around the country won nearly two dozen legal victories. Such marriages are now allowed in 19 states and the District of Columbia.

Legal experts predict North Carolina’s first same-sex marriage licenses could be issued within months, depending on the legal process.

But Gerber and Berlin worry they might not have much time. Their lawyers plan to file a brief asking a federal judge in Greensboro to grant immediate recognition to same-sex marriages.

“Marriage is a statement that you make in front of your family, your friends, your community. It has a meaning that tells the world who you are. It’s a very fundamental part of someone’s identity,”

Ellen Gerber

The walls of the home they built in High Point are covered with art and photos from their adventures. They visited all seven continents, even mingling with penguins on an Antarctic ice shelf.

Berlin is a perfectionist. Gerber admits she’s something of a slob.

They met in 1964, when Gerber visited a friend in Detroit who invited Berlin for brunch. Berlin taught at Wayne State University. Gerber was headed to graduate school at the University of Southern California.

It wasn’t love at first sight, but they had a lot in common. They both taught physical education. They were both “nice Jewish girls from Brooklyn.” They’d never had much interest in boys.

“I had a crush on every female camp counselor I ever had. On every Girl Scout leader. On a couple of my teachers. I came home from my first summer where I was at camp for a month, and I wrote, `I love Sandy,’ on every page of my diary.”

Ellen Gerber

Over the next two years, with frequent calls and visits, their friendship evolved into love. Gerber landed a job at Berlin’s college.

On the long drive moving Gerber to Michigan, they stopped at a motel. Conversation turned to where Gerber would live. That night, they decided to move in together.

They didn’t tell their families they were a couple, but didn’t hide it. They lived in a one-bedroom apartment. Gerber’s mother offered to buy a second bed. They declined. She started buying Berlin pajamas.

“She said, `We will never condone this,’ But she got to the point where she could laugh when I said, `But Mother. You always said all you cared about was that I marry a Jew, and I did.'”

Ellen Gerber

Berlin had inadvertently outed herself years earlier, mistakenly sending her mother a love letter she had written to a woman. Her mother called.

“And she says, `Pearl, I just want to tell you something. I just finished reading today’s mail, and I just read your letter to Marian. It was very well written. I know you did not intend it for me. I want you to know your father will never see it and never hear a word about it.'”

Eventually, even Berlin’s father accepted their relationship, telling Gerber: `’Lennie. If you were a man, this would all be perfect,” Gerber recounted.

Berlin moved to a college in Massachusetts, and Gerber got work there too. Then, in 1971, the University of North Carolina at Greensboro asked Berlin to run a new doctoral program.

Gerber said school administrators made it clear they would never hire her. “They said we were `too open,'” Gerber said. “You were supposed to pretend.”

So Gerber went to law school and became a legal aid lawyer. Later, she helped gay and lesbian couples draft wills, powers of attorney and fill out tax returns.

Still, no legal document can provide the same protections as a marriage certificate. Gerber recounts cases where relatives fought deceased people’s gay partners over their estates, or excluded them from funerals.

While that isn’t a concern for Gerber, she worries Berlin’s death certificate will list her marital status as single.

“I think anybody who had lost a spouse would be devastated if somebody said, `Eh, this isn’t your spouse.'”

Ellen Gerber

Berlin chuckles at talk of her demise. She already has picked the font for invitations to their golden anniversary party – on June 2, 2016.

Same-sex Marriages Could Start Next Week in Virginia

A federal appeals court refused to delay its ruling striking down Virginia’s gay marriage ban, which means that same-sex couples could begin marrying in the state as early as next week.

The state would also need to start recognizing marriages from out of state by next Wednesday, assuming the U.S. Supreme Court does not intervene.

A county clerk in northern Virginia had asked the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond to stay its decision, issued in late July, while it is appealed to the high court. The appeals court’s order did not explain why it denied that request.

While clerks in other states within the 4th Circuit – West Virginia and the Carolinas – wouldn’t technically have to begin issuing licenses as well, federal courts in the state would likely make them if they don’t, said Nancy Leong, a law professor at the University of Denver. Maryland, another state in the circuit, already allows same-sex marriages.

“There’s no longer a justification to keep same-sex couples from marrying. Given how many different judges in so many different parts of the country … have reached the same result, it seems highly likely that the plaintiffs will ultimately prevail on the merits, and I think that, in turn, explains why the 4th Circuit was not willing to grant a stay.”

Nancy Leong

Ken Connelly, legal counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing Prince William County Clerk of Court Michele B. McQuigg in the case, said the group will seek an emergency stay from the nation’s highest court “as soon as possible.” That request will go to Chief Justice John Roberts, who is responsible for the 4th Circuit.

Connelly said he expects the stay to be granted, “given that there isn’t any substantive difference” between the Virginia case and a federal case in Utah, in which the Supreme Court has twice granted delays in the state’s fight to keep its same-sex marriage ban.

But Adam Umhoefer, executive director of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, which argued against Virginia’s gay marriage ban, said

“Virginia’s loving, committed gay and lesbian couples and their children should not be asked to wait one more day for their fundamental right to marry.”

Adam Umhoefer

Virginia voters approved a constitutional amendment in 2006 that banned gay marriage and prohibited the recognition of such marriages performed in other states. The appeals court ruling overturning that ban was the third such ruling by a federal appeals court and the first in the South.

Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring – who has said he will not defend the state’s ban and believes the courts ruled correctly in striking it down – asked the Supreme Court last week to review a lower court’s decision striking down the state’s ban.

Herring said he believes the case will prove compelling to the high court because of the “stringent, discriminatory nature of Virginia’s marriage ban” and other factors.

A panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati last week considered arguments regarding six cases from Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee. Some observers have said the 6th Circuit may be the first to uphold statewide gay marriage bans after more than 20 consecutive rulings in the past eight months striking them down.

A Third Florida County Rules Same-sex Marriage Ban Unconstitutional | #MarriageMomentum

A 3rd Florida circuit-court has ruled that the state’s same-sex marriage ban is unconstitutional. Broward County Judge Dale Cohen issued the ruling, stating that the state laws barring same-sex marriage and the recognition of same-sex marriages performed out of state violate the US Constitution.

Cohen issued an immediate stay on his ruling pending a state appeal.

“Every win in court brings us closer than we’ve ever been to the freedom to marry in Florida… We look forward to the day when all loving, committed couples and their families enjoy the same protections, opportunities and responsibilities of marriage under the law. Every passing day inflicts real hardships on families who are denied the legal protection and dignity that marriage equality provides.”

Nadine Smith, CEO of Equality Florida

A Florida Keys judge ruled in favour of same-sex marriage on 17 July, along side a Miami-Dade County judge on 26 July. In late July, the 3rd District Court of Appeals refused to allow same-sex marriage licenses to be issued while state appeals are being processed.

Attorney General Pam Bondi has appealed both rulings, and is expected to appeal Broward County’s ruling.