Dan Canon, another lawyer for the four gay and lesbian couples who won the case, said he was “cautiously optimistic. The order has been granted without qualification and without a stay.”
He said for now that means same-sex couples in Kentucky who legally wed elsewhere can file their taxes together and apply for spousal health benefits. If one of the spouses has a baby while the order is in effect, the law would presume that the spouse’s partner is the other parent, he said.
Elliott said she is “quietly encouraging” clients to take advantage of the ruling now, before Heyburn rules on Conway’s motion for a stay. She said the benefits that same-sex couples receive in the meantime would only be at risk if Conway appeals and Heyburn’s ruling is reversed.
Citing the importance of the case, Conway’s office asked Heyburn to delay the effective date of his order for 90 days to give him time to decide whether to appeal, and to allow Beshear time to decide how to implement the order if it is not appealed.
The motion suggests that Conway is at least considering joining six other state attorneys general who have decided not to appeal rulings throwing out marriage bans. Those officials, all Democrats, said the laws are discriminatory and violate the right to equal protection under the law.The judge has yet to rule on the separate but related question of whether the laws of Kentucky that ban the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples can withstand legal scrutiny in light of the Supreme Court's Windsor ruling. It seems unlikely that if the state must recognize legal marriages from other states that the state also will have to issue marriage licenses as well.
"I have not heard one example in Arizona where a business owner's religious liberty has been violated. The bill is broadly worded and could result in unintended and negative consequences."There ya have it! Interestingly, the brou-ha-ha over Arizona's measure resulted in the death of several similar "license to discriminate" measures in other states like Mississippi, Georgia and Ohio.
“Today’s court decision is not made in defiance of the great people of Texas or the Texas Legislature, but in compliance with the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court precedent. Without a rational relation to a legitimate governmental purpose, state-imposed inequality can find no refuge in our U.S. Constitution.”In other words, even under rational basis review, the judge ruled that a state constitutional ban on marriage equality fails to be upheld under the most deferential form of judicial review.
The essential duty to which all of us – as attorneys general – have been sworn: not just to win cases, but to see that justice is done. This is the cause that brings us together in Washington this week – working to confront the threats and seize the opportunities before us. And this is the extraordinary task with which the American people have entrusted the leaders in this room – and the challenge that all justice professionals are called to address: not merely to use our legal system to settle disputes and punish those who have done wrong, but to answer the kinds of fundamental questions – about fairness and equality – that have always determined who we are and who we aspire to be, both as a nation and as a people.
These are the questions that drove President Obama and me to decide, in early 2011, that Justice Department attorneys would no longer defend the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act. As I’ve said before, this decision was not taken lightly. Our actions were motivated by the strong belief that all measures that distinguish among people based on their sexual orientation must be subjected to a heightened standard of scrutiny – and, therefore, that this measure was unconstitutional discrimination. Last summer, the Supreme Court issued a historic decision – United States v. Windsor – striking down the federal government’s ban on recognizing gay and lesbian couples who are legally married. This marked a critical step forward, and a resounding victory for equal treatment and equal protection under the law.
More recently – and partly in response to the Windsor decision – a number of state attorneys general, including those in Pennsylvania, Nevada, Virginia – and, just last week, Oregon – have reached similar determinations after applying heightened scrutiny to laws in their states concerning same-sex marriage. Any decisions – at any level – not to defend individual laws must be exceedingly rare. They must be reserved only for exceptional circumstances. And they must never stem merely from policy or political disagreements – hinging instead on firm constitutional grounds. But in general, I believe we must be suspicious of legal classifications based solely on sexual orientation. And we must endeavor – in all of our efforts – to uphold and advance the values that once led our forebears to declare unequivocally that all are created equal and entitled to equal opportunity.Great news! Maybe this will convince even more attorneys general to stop defending discriminatory marriage statutes!
Great news!Attempt to Repeal the School Success and Opportunity Act Fails
(San Francisco) Today, the effort to repeal the School Success and Opportunity Act — California’s new law ensuring that all children have opportunities to do well in school — failed to qualify for the ballot.
The law — also known as Assembly Bill 1266 — went into effect on January 1, ensuring that schools have the guidance they need to make sure all students, including those who are transgender, have the opportunity to do well in school and graduate.
The law is modeled after policies and practices that are already working well in several schools, and gives important guidance to educators so they can work with students and families on a case-by-case basis.
Oakland’s Redwood Heights School is among the California schools with policies in place that provide transgender young people with fair chances. Like other schools with similar policies across the state, the policy has been successful since it was established five years ago.
“We want our students to know that when they walk onto this campus, they are welcomed for who they are,” said Redwood Heights Principal Sara Stone. “Every educator I know went into the education field because they truly care about young people and making sure they have everything they need to do well in school.”
The law helps students like Zoey, a 12-year-old transgender girl from the Los Angeles area who transferred out of her school after administrators there refused to acknowledge her as a girl or allow her to use the girls’ restroom. Her mom, Ofelia Barba, says that the law makes it easier for her daughter to go to school and be herself.
“I love my daughter and want the same things for her that other parents want for their children,” Barba said. “I want what’s best for her, for her to be happy, and for her to be able to do well in school. No one wants to see any kid singled out and excluded from school because of who they are.”
The Support All Students campaign comprises a broad coalition of nearly 100 state and national organizations supporting the new law. The coalition includes Equality California, Transgender Law Center, National Center for Lesbian Rights, ACLU of California, Gay-Straight Alliance Network, L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center, Gender Spectrum, LGBT organizations, racial justice organizations, statewide teacher and parent organizations, and others committed to ensuring that all kids have the opportunity to do well in school and graduate.
Said Transgender Law Center Executive Director and Campaign Chair Masen Davis: “This law gives schools the guidelines and flexibility to create an environment where all kids have the opportunity to learn. We need to focus on creating an environment where every student is able to do well and graduate. This law is about doing what’s best for all students — that’s why it’s supported by school boards, teachers, and the PTA.”
To learn more about the School Success and Opportunity Act and the Support All Students campaign, visit www.SupportAllStudents.org.
LOS ANGELES — Jason Collins, a 35-year-old N.B.A. center who announced last year that he was gay, has signed a 10-day contract Sunday to join the roster of the Nets.
The signing is a significant step in transforming American professional sports into a welcoming environment for gay athletes. No N.B.A. game has ever taken place with an openly gay player on the floor. The N.F.L., Major League Baseball and the N.H.L. — which round out the continent’s four traditional major sports leagues — have also never had an publicly gay participant.
The very act of Collins’s suiting up and stepping onto the court, then, would represent a milestone in the effort to change a sports culture that some feel has lagged far behind society at large in acceptance of gay people. Collins was expected be in uniform when the Nets played the Los Angeles Lakers on Sunday night at the Staples Center.Congratulations to Jason (and the Nets) for breaking this lavender barrier!
Senate Bill 1062 re-defines and expands the state's definition of "exercise of religion" and "state action" to protect businesses, corporations and people from lawsuits after denying services based on a sincere religious belief.
According to the bill, "A person whose religious exercise is burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or a defense in a judicial proceeding, regardless of whether the government is a party to the proceeding."
The bill also establishes a set of needed guidelines for when this potential defense could be used in court:Who would have thought that a Republican-dominated legislature would be the first legislative body in the United States to support Sharia law? If SB 1062 becomes law, the legislature has thus endorsed the idea that religious belief should trump law. That includes religious belief by Muslims, Scientologists or Christian Scientists. Under this law, Muslim taxi drivers would be able to refuse to carry unmarried female passengers traveling alone, or a person could claim they were able to run a red light because their religion told them they could not be late for church.
- The person's action or refusal to act is motivated by a religious belief
- The person's religious belief is sincerely held
- The state action substantially burdens the exercise of the person's religious beliefs
State Defendants will not defend the Oregon ban on same-sex marriage in this litigation. Rather, they will take the position in their summary judgment briefing that the ban cannot withstand a federal constitutional challenge under any standard of review. In the meantime, as the State Defendants are legally obligated to enforce the Oregon Constitution’s ban on same-sex marriage, they will continue to do so unless and until this Court grants the relief sought by the plaintiffs.Interestingly, Rosenblum joins at least 5 other attorneys-general who have refused to defend their state's laws banning marriage equality. California's Jerry Brown was one of the most prominent (and significant) to do so way back in December 2008 and the election of Kamala Harris in 2010 insured that California's attorney general would continue to support marriage equality. Others have been Illinois's Lisa Madigan in June 2012, Pennsylvania's Kathleen Kane in July 2013, Virginia's Mark Herring in January 2014 and Nevada's Catherina Cortez Masto in February 2014.
"If we get marriage (from the federal court) in the spring and nobody appeals and marriage licenses are being issued, nobody has any hunger for a ballot measure we don't need."It should be noted that every federal judge who has ruled on a marriage equality lawsuit since last year's United States v. Windsor Supreme Court ruling has found in favor of equality, and this has often been under a rational basis level of review and not the heightened scrutiny required in the 9th circuit.
PHOENIX — The Arizona Legislature passed a measure on Thursday that allows business owners asserting their religious beliefs to refuse service to gays and others, drawing backlash from Democrats who called the proposal “state-sanctioned discrimination” and an embarrassment.
The 33-to-27 vote by the House sent the legislation to Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican.
Governor Brewer does not comment on pending legislation, but she vetoed a similar measure last year. That action, however, came during an unrelated political standoff, and it was not clear whether she would support this plan.
Similar religious protection legislation has been introduced in Ohio, Kansas, Mississippi, Idaho, South Dakota, Tennessee and Oklahoma, but Arizona’s plan is the only one that has passed. The efforts are stalled in Idaho, Ohio and Kansas.It should be noted that Phoenix, the nation's 6th largest city, only enacted an LGBT rights ordinance last year and that if this measure becomes law all someone would have to say is that the have a "sincerely held religious belief" to justify denying service to LGBT people in Phoenix or anywhere in the state.
"To be No.1 was a goal of mine this year. Su-Wei and I were very close at the end of last year. It is something I have worked very hard for," Peng commented. "With Li Na going to No.2 in singles, and Hsieh Su-Wei taking the No.2 doubles ranking, this is a big breakthrough for Asian tennis. We are looking forward to the rest of the year and hopefully the WTA Championships in Singapore."
"To go to No.2 in the world is definitely a proud accomplishment for me and my team," Li said. "We have worked very hard and look to improve every week. It is an exciting time for tennis in China.Congratulations to Li and Peng!
