marriage equality

  • February 7, 2012

    by Jeremy Leaming

    In a striking, though perhaps short-lived, victory for marriage equality, a federal appeals court panel invalidated California’s infamous Proposition 8, a ballot initiative that had overturned same-sex marriage in the state.

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled 2 -1 today that the anti-equality measure “served no purpose, and no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians,” the Los Angeles Times reports. The Ninth Circuit majority concluded that Prop. 8  subverts the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection clause.

    Prop. 8 was passed, with the backing of religious right organizations, not long after the California Supreme Court ruled that a right to wed could not be denied to same-sex couples, and that doing so would violate the equal protection rights of lesbians and gay men. Prop. 8 amended the state constitution to bar same-sex marriage.

    The majority opinion in Perry v. Brown, written by Judge Stephen Reinhardt (pictured) upheld a lower federal court ruling by retired federal judge, Vaughn R. Walker, which invalidated Prop. 8.

    “Proposition 8 worked a singular and limited change to the California Constitution: it stripped same-sex couples of the right to have their committed relationships recognized by the State with the designation of ‘marriage,’ which the state constitution had previously guaranteed them, while leaving in place all of their other rights and responsibilities as partners – rights and responsibilities that are identical to those of married spouses and form an integral part of the marriage relationship,” Reinhardt wrote.

    Prop. 8 also resulted in an ignoble state constitutional rule that protected marriage only for straight couples, Reinhardt said.

    “In adopting the amendment, the People simply took the designation of ‘marriage’ away from lifelong same-sex partnerships, and with it the State’s authorization of that official status and the societal approval that comes with it,” Reinhardt wrote.

  • January 27, 2012

    by Jeremy Leaming

    Earlier in the week N.J. Gov. Chris Christie drew some plaudits from civil liberties advocates for making an effort to diversify that state’s highest court with the nomination of a gay man. Quickly on the heels of the announcement, however, Christie reaffirmed his opposition to the state legislature’s effort to pass a bill advancing equality, specifically granting gay couples the right to wed. Instead Christie said that marriage equality should be placed before voters. The move, according to The New York Times reporter Kate Zernike “highlighted the considerable political skills that have made him one of the Republican Party’s rising stars.”

    But, The Daily Beast blogger Andrew Sullivan lauds Newark, N.J. Mayor Cory Booker’s recent comments on marriage equality calling them among the “best defenses of marriage equality from a public official,” as well as a “great rebuttal” to Christie’s “deft but cowardly attempt to put civil rights in front of a referendum – even though the legislature is in favor.”

    Taking questions from reporters earlier this week, Booker said there are some very appropriate things to put before voters, such as measures requiring the super wealthy to pay more in taxes. Protections of civil rights, however, should not be placed within voters’ crosshairs, he said.

    “We should not be putting civil rights issues to a popular vote, to be subject to the sentiments, the passions of the day,” he said. “No minority should have their rights subject to the passions and sentiments of the majority.”

    See Booker’s comments below. Booker provided the closing speech at the 2010 ACS National Convention, in which he urged citizens to help advance equality.

  • November 16, 2011
    Guest Post

    By David H. Gans, Director of the Human Rights, Civil Rights & Citizenship Program, Constitutional Accountability Center; this analysis is cross posted at CAC’s Text & History blog.


    There are few areas of the law as deeply polarizing and emotionally heated as the application of the Constitution’s guarantee to all persons of the equal protection of the laws.  What is lost – all too often – in this heated and polarized discussion is the text and history of the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause itself, along with the full sweep of our constitutional history: the principle of equality first stated in the Declaration of Independence, perfected in the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and further illuminated in the Nineteenth Amendment and other Amendments.

    That’s what makes a new study by Constitutional Accountability Center entitled Perfecting the Declaration: The Text and History of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment required reading.   Perfecting the Declaration, the fourth in CAC’s Text and Narrative Series, tells the story of how the American people redeemed the Constitution from the sin of slavery and rewrote the Constitution to guarantee equality to all persons, bringing the Constitution back in line with the principle of equality laid out in the Declaration.  In the Equal Protection Clause, “We the People” perfected the Declaration by writing into the Constitution’s text that all “person[s]” are equal, not just that “all men are created equal.”  The story of this constitutional transformation is essential to the Supreme Court’s many landmark rulings honoring the Constitution’s promise of equality for all persons, including Brown v. Board of Education, Reed v. Reed, whose 40th anniversary is being celebrated this week at a star-studded panel in Washington, D.C., and Romer v. Evans.  As important, this story is critical to on-going efforts to persuade courts and, ultimately, if necessary, the Supreme Court, to take the next step and strike down state laws that deny gay men and lesbians the right to marry the person of their choice.  

  • November 10, 2011

    by Jeremy Leaming

    While it is unlikely to be replicated in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, lawmakers on the Senate side took a step toward repealing the so-called Defense of Marriage Act or DOMA, the federal law that discriminates against lesbians and gay men.

    The Senate Judiciary Committee votied in support of the Respect for Marriage Act, which would repeal DOMA. Before today’s vote, Democrats rallied around marriage equality, while several Republicans decried the Committee's action as political posturing, and all voted against the repeal bill.

    Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who introduced the measure earlier this year, knocked DOMA, calling it “wrong when it passed in 1996 and it is wrong now. There are 131,000 legally married couples in this country who are denied more than 1,100 federal rights and protections because of this discriminatory law. I don’t know long the battle for full equality will take, but we are on the cusp of change, and today’s historic vote in the committee is an important step forward.”

    Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) blasted DOMA for denying equal treatment to gay couples. “The Federal Government should not deny recognition and protection to the thousands of Americans who are lawfully married under their state law. We must repeal DOMA to ensure the freedom and equality of all our citizens.”

    Sens. Charles Schumer, Richard Durbin, Al Franken, Christopher Coons and Blumenthal, also weighed in on the side of marriage equality. See some of their comments here.

    Republican Sen. John Cornyn, chided the Committee for moving the bill to the Senate floor where it would not be voted on “this year or next,” as The Huffington Post reports. According to Cornyn, today’s action was all about political maneuvering for next year’s general election.

  • September 29, 2011

    by Jeremy Leaming

    When Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed a marriage equality measure into law this summer it included language allowing religious institutions and other nonprofits to refuse to wed same-sex couples, but did not include an out for public officials, such as town clerks.

    But as The New York Times recently noted the town clerk in Ledyard, N.Y. is refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses, citing evangelical Christianity as a bar against performing her official duties.

    “For me to participate in the same-sex marriage application process I don’t feel is right,” Rose Marie Belforti told The Times. “God doesn’t want me to do this, so I can’t do what God doesn’t want me to do, just like I can’t steal, or any of the other things that God doesn’t want me to do.”

    Belforti’s refusal to issue a marriage license to Deirdre DiBiaggio and Katie Carmichael, however, did not set well with the couple of ten years, who told the newspaper they were not going to let the discrimination stand.

    The national civil liberties group, People For the American Way Foundation, and the New York law firm, Proskauer Rose LLP have lodged a letter with Ledyard town officials calling on them to force Belforti to start issuing marriage licenses pursuant to the state’s Marriage Equality Act, or resign her position.

    The letter states, in part, “Ms. Belfoti is no longer issuing any marriage licenses – an essential duty of her elected office – at the town’s direction, or, at a minimum, with the town’s acquiescence. The actions of both Ms. Belforti and the town are in violation of New York law.”