Wow! This is handy. Lately, it seems like there’s ten times more GLBT news to read (and write about) than there normally is. And lawsuits? Oi! Who can keep up? It’s not like I have a dozen interns scrambling around Chez Mike!
Chris Johnson, writing at The Washington Blade, has the first of a two-part series on the various LGBT lawsuits that are happening all over the country. Here’s a summary:
A roundup of LGBT litigation
LGBT Americans could be affected by pending litigation throughout the country that touches on issues such as marriage rights. Here are some cases of interest.
Massachusetts v. U.S. Health & Human Services Dept. The Massachusetts attorney general is arguing that part of the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional because it interferes with the state’s authority to define the marital status of its residents. The federal lawsuit was filed last week in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, and the federal government is slated to respond within 60 days.
Gill v. Office of Personnel Management Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders argue that the part of the Defense of Marriage Act prohibiting federal recognition of same-sex marriage is unconstitutional because it violates the equal protection clause. The federal lawsuit is pending before the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts and the U.S. Justice Department is expected to issue a reply brief in September.
Smelt v. United States Attorneys argue that the Defense of Marriage Act and Proposition 8 are unconstitutional because, among other reasons, they interfere with the ability of married gay couples to travel and establish residency in other states. The federal lawsuit produced last month’s controversial Justice Department motion to protect DOMA and is pending before the U.S. District Court in the Central District of California, Southern Division.
Perry v. Schwarzenegger Lawyers for the American Foundation for Equal Rights argue that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional because it violates the equal protection clause and singles out LGBT people for discrimination.
The federal lawsuit is pending before the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California.
Bonilla v. Hurst Plaintiffs argue that Louisiana’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and civil unions violates equal protection and due process clauses. The federal lawsuit is pending before the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Louisiana.
McConkey v. Van Hollen The plaintiff is contesting Wisconsin’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and civil unions by arguing that it violates the state’s two-subject rule, which prohibits proposed constitutional amendments from dealing with more than one more subject. The Wisconsin Supreme Court has agreed to hear the state lawsuit and a decision regarding arguments is expected this fall.
Perry v Schwarzenegger is the lawsuit filed by Ted Olson and David Boies, the subject of a post this morning. Here’s a taste of what Chris Johnson has on this incredibly important case:
One prominent federal lawsuit is Perry v. Schwarzenegger, which seeks to invalidate Prop 8 in California. The lawsuit was filed in May after the California Supreme Court upheld the amendment.
Lawyers for the American Foundation of Equal Rights — Theodore Olson and David Boies, who represented opposite sides in the Bush v. Gore case — argue that Prop 8 violates the equal protection clause and singles out gays for discrimination.
The case is pending before the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California. Judge Vaughn Walker has called for an expedited trial process. He has asked both sides to brief him on facts germane to the lawsuit by Aug. 7 and has scheduled a management hearing on Aug. 19.
California Attorney General Jerry Brown has backed the lawsuit and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) said he doesn’t dispute the allegations in the filings — even though both officials are named as defendants in the case.
[ ... ]
Yusef Robb, an AFER spokesperson, said he expects the case to go to the U.S. Supreme Court “given the quality of the case, the issues raised and the stature of [the] legal team.”
Should the plaintiffs succeed with their arguments at the Supreme Court, the decision would not only invalidate Prop 8, but all state constitutional amendments and statutes banning same-sex marriage throughout the country.
Perry v. Schwarzenegger could end up being the Lawrence v. Texas of marriage equality. While Lawrence more or less liberated GLBT folks from the waist down, achieving full and unconditional marriage equality means we finally win first class citizenship and, with that, acceptance that we are human beings with the right to exist and live and love openly.
As activist Robin Tyler recently told an audience at the San Diego Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Community Center: “Marriage has become the Trojan horse that contains all our other rights. Marriage humanizes us.” Get that and they can’t deny us the rest.
Click for Printable Version
