Of the many amici briefs filed to support marriage equality, the "Historian" brief, submitted by the American Historical Association along with 23 individual history professors, seeks to provide the proper historical context for the critical questions now facing the Supreme Court. As that brief explains, it is Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that is out of whack with our heritage, not the idea that states can recognize LGBT marriages.
By James Esseks, Director, ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender & AIDS Project at 2:49pm
Today, we asked the United States Supreme Court to review the ACLU’s challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act on behalf of Edie Windsor. A federal trial court struck down DOMA last month in Edie's case, holding that it violates the federal constitution.
Asking for Supreme Court review now, even before the federal appeals court decides Edie’s case, is unusual. In the vast majority of cases, the Supreme Court won’t take a case until there is a federal appellate decision, but in rare circumstances, it can reach down into lower courts and pluck cases for earlier review. At this point petitions for Supreme Court review have been filed in two other DOMA cases – GLAD’s Gill v. OPM case, which has been decided by the First Circuit, and Lambda Legal’s Golinski v. OPM case, which, like Windsor v. United States, doesn’t have an appeals court decision yet.
The Court will likely decide the constitutionality of DOMA this coming term, using one or more of these cases as vehicles for addressing the issue. We filed because we believe that Edie’s story is a strong addition to the striking collection of plaintiffs in the Gill case and to Karen Golinski’s story as well. Now the Court has three cases, offering a variety of harms, to choose from.
Edie is an 83-year-old lesbian widow who spent 44 years with her partner and then spouse, Thea Spyer. Over the course of decades, Edie and Thea dealt together with Thea’s multiple sclerosis and the progressive paralysis that it caused, deepening their love and commitment as Thea gradually became a paraplegic. When Thea died, two short years after they finally married in 2007, Edie learned that she owed the IRS $363,000 in estate taxes on her inheritance from Thea. When Edie found out that a straight widow wouldn’t have owed a dime, she decided to challenge DOMA in court. Her case was one of two that prompted the Department of Justice to stop defending the constitutionality of DOMA and instead to acknowledge that it violates the federal constitution.
By Greger Calhan, Legal Fellow, ACLU, Racial Justice Program at 12:16pm
The month of June represents a double anniversary for Mildred and Richard Loving. Two weeks ago, the Virginia couple would have celebrated their 55th wedding anniversary. And earlier this week on June 12th, Americans celebrated the 46th anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court decision which bears their name, Loving v. Virginia, and which recognized an equal right to marriage for all people, regardless of race.
Yesterday, Minnesota became the 12th state in the country to approve a law allowing same-sex couples to marry. This comes on the heels of Rhode Island and Delaware approving freedom to marry laws in the last two weeks, and historic victories at the ballot box in Maine, Maryland, and Washington last November. Momentum is building across the country, and Illinois is poised to become the fourth state this month to affirm the dignity of all committed couples.
This is the story of two couples; two couples who come out of the same post-war generation, and who built their lives around the same emotional core of love, commitment, and devotion to one another. And yet, their relationships were marked very differently by history and by the laws that governed their lives.
Edie's case presents a straightforward question of equality: Is it fair for the federal government to pretend that her marriage to Thea Spyer, with whom she shared her life for 44 years, never happened? That's what DOMA requires the federal government to do – treat the approximately 130,000 married same-sex couples in the United States as unmarried for purposes of the 1,100 different federal programs where being married makes a difference – from family medical leave, to social security survivor benefits, to veterans' benefits. The Court's answer to that question will determine whether DOMA falls.
By James Esseks, Director, ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender & AIDS Project at 10:36am
It seems like every time you turn around these days, someone is announcing new support for the freedom to marry, which is the result of years of groundwork that the ACLU and other organizations have laid to get us to this incredible place.
Yesterday in New Mexico, we filed a new state court lawsuit seeking the freedom to marry for same-sex couples. We have partnered with the National Center for Lesbian Rights for the litigation, and both organizations have also joined forces with Equality New Mexico and Freedom to Marry on a related public education campaign to help New Mexicans show their neighbors why the freedom to marry is so important. We're riding a wave of enthusiasm in New Mexico, as the Mayor and City Council in Santa Fe announced earlier this week that there's good reason to believe that state law already allows same-sex couples to marry. We think that's right, but know that we're going to need guidance from the courts to get a final answer, so we've filed this case both to present the issue to the courts and to illustrate why denying the freedom to marry is so unfair.
By Nicole G. Berner, Associate General Counsel, Service Employees International Union & Elena Medina, Law Fellow, Service Employees International Union at 12:09pm
Next week, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in two historic cases relating to marriage equality. In Hollingsworth v. Perry, the Justices will consider the constitutionality of...
By Robert H., Teen Activist Project Member, NYCLU at 12:09pm
What marriage equality has meant to me and my family has changed greatly over our lives. When my parents were born, in the mid-1950s, the idea of ever having an open, public discussion of sexual orientation seemed impossible, and marriage for gay and lesbian couples wasn't even remotely imaginable. Now, in my lifetime and theirs, my parents have gotten married, and it is entirely possible that their marriage will be recognized by our government in the same way that everyone else's is. It's both exciting and dramatic, and I never know whether I believe it will happen.
