Mary Bonauto Wins 2014 MacArthur "Genius" Grant Of $625K

Mary Bonauto, one of the primary architects of the LGBT equality revolution in the courts for the last two decades in her long association with Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, has been awarded a prestigious MacArthur Foundation "Genius" grant.

Bonauto is a civil rights lawyer whose powerful arguments and long-term legal strategies have led to historic strides in the effort to achieve marriage equality for same-sex couples across the United States. The Civil Rights Project Director at Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) since 1990, much of her early work focused on adoption and parenting, censorship, hate crimes, and discrimination in jobs and public accommodations. 

Mindful of the risks of loss and political backlash when social reform litigation advances ahead of public understanding, Bonauto and her GLAD colleagues initially pursued an incremental, state-based strategy to secure government marriage licenses for same-sex couples in the New England states. Bonauto and Vermont colleagues formed a critical partnership in 1997, which is widely acknowledged as a pivotal time and place to challenge a state's exclusion of gay and lesbian couples from marriage. The Vermont Supreme Court's ruling in Baker v. Vermont (1999) was the first to hold that same-sex couples must be provided all of the same protections and obligations provided to married couples, and the state legislature established the first civil union law in the nation in 2000 to comply with that ruling. GLAD's subsequent filing of Goodridge v. Department of Public Health in Massachusetts, relying again on state constitutional guarantees of equality and liberty, resulted in the 2003 landmark decision that made that state the first to extend marriage equality to same-sex couples. Bonauto's constitutional arguments in Goodridge articulated the breadth of the practical and social harms imposed by the state's exclusion on real families and their children. In defending the marriage ruling from attempts to substitute civil unions, she drew on painful lessons from our nation's past, most notably the history of unjust "separate but equal" doctrines as substitutes for racial and gender equality, and the Massachusetts high court was the first to reject civil unions as a substitute for marriage. The Goodridge ruling, the transformative effect of same-sex couples marrying on the public's views, and subsequent legal (in Connecticut), legislative (in Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire), and ballot-based (in Maine) victories all provided a solid foundation and roadmap for future strategies across the nation, including at the federal level. 

In 2009, Bonauto led a team from GLAD and private law firms in the first strategic challenge to section three of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and argued that the federal government's non-recognition of the lawful and rapidly growing number of marriages unconstitutionally denied same-sex couples more than 1,000 federal protections and obligations usually available to married persons. Her case--Gill v. Office of Personnel Management--provided the first federal court wins in challenges to DOMA (in 2010 and 2012 rulings), and served as an important model for United States v. Windsor, the landmark case that ultimately resulted in the U.S. Supreme Court striking down DOMA in 2013 and on which she served as a strategist and external coordinator of friend-of-the-court briefs. In the name of equal treatment and dignity for all people, and in concert with other litigators and advocates across the country, Bonauto is breaking down legal barriers based on sexual orientation and influencing debates about the relationship between the law and momentous social change more broadly. 

Mary L. Bonauto received a B.A. (1983) from Hamilton College and a J.D. (1987) from Northeastern University School of Law. She has been the Civil Rights Project Director at the Boston-based Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) since 1990. Since 2013, she has been the Shikes Fellow in Civil Liberties and Civil Rights and Lecturer on Law at Harvard Law School.

This is amazing news. Two other openly LGBT people also won MacArthur Genius grants this year: Alison Bechdel, the creator of the comic strip "Dykes To Watch Out For" and Samuel Hunter, a playwright.

Preparing For Prop 8 Decision Day: The Options

John Gara/Buzzfeed

The Day of Decision for California's Proposition 8 is fast approaching. LGBT legal guru Chris Geidner summarizes the 4 possibilities that the United States Supreme Court will most likely be deciding on Friday November 30th:

• The court takes multiple DOMA cases and the Proposition 8 case. This outcome would be the “all in” option, and it would make clear that at least four justices want the court to resolve the legal questions surrounding these issues, from what level of scrutiny that laws classifying people based on sexual orientation should be given (see more about this here) to whether gay couples have a constitutional right to marry. (The DOMA cases also feature the unusual circumstances, in place since February 2011, of the Obama administration opposing the law's constitutionality and the House Republican leadership defending the law.)
• The court takes one DOMA case, while holding the other DOMA cases pending that decision, and takes the Proposition 8 case as well. This is not very different from the first possibility, although the choice of one DOMA case over another could be seen as narrowing the type of argument about the law that the court would like to hear. More likely though, it would simply be a sign of the justices having picked a case in which Justice Elena Kagan, who served as the top appellate lawyer in the Obama administration before joining the court and may choose to recuse herself from one or more of the DOMA cases because of that, can participate.
• The court takes one DOMA case and holds the rest of the cases, including Proposition 8, pending the outcome of the DOMA case. This prospect, advanced as a possibility by Georgetown law professor Nan Hunter, could be taken by a cautious court, wanting first to resolve some general questions — including the level of scrutiny to be applied to sexual orientation classifications — before acting on the other, more direct, question about whether same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry that is raised in the Proposition 8 challenge. This, as with taking the Proposition 8 case, would delay when same-sex couples in California might be able to marry.
• The court takes a DOMA case, but denies certiorari in the Proposition 8 case. This option, once considered by advocates to be the most likely possibility, would lead to same-sex couples being able to marry in California within days. The Ninth Circuit’s ruling in the case did not broadly resolve the marriage question, instead holding that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional because it took back rights formerly held by Californians. As there are other cases in the legal pipeline about same-sex couples marriage rights that could make their way to the Supreme Court, the court could decide to let the narrow Ninth Circuit decision stand.

Tune in to this space on Friday for the news of what happens with Proposition 8!

House GOP Has Wasted $1.5M Defending DOMA

Ever since the President and the Department of Justice made their decision public that the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional in February 2011, the House Republicans, led by Speaker John Boehner have been paying superlawyer Paul Clement to defend the federal statute in federal court. The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House (BLAG) authorized $1.5 million to defend DOMA and today comes word they have basically spent $1,447,996.73 of that amount.

BLAG has not gotten much for spending  nearly $1.5 million of taxpayer funds to defend discrimination, because DOMA has been declared unconstitutional by 5 courts in at least 3 federal circuits (the 9th, 1st and 2nd) with the most prominent loss at the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management (along with the companion case Massachusetts v DHHS) widely expected to be taken up by the United States Supreme Court in its current term.

The Democrats in the U.S. House, led by former Speaker Nancy Pelosi have vociferously opposed the legal actions by BLAG as well as the wasteful spending of federal taxpayers to defend a statute which has been declared unconstitutional by multiple federal judges, is opposed in court by the Attorney General of the United States and whose repeal has been endorsed by the President of the United States.

Hat/tip to Washington Blade.