QUEER QUOTE: Democrats Praise 4th U.S. Circuit Ruling In Favor Of Transgender Student

The 4th U.S. Circuit has upheld the Obama Administration's Education Department non-discrimination policy in a dispute with a Virginia school district over the rights of a transgender student to access education according to their preferred gender identity. The ruling is in the case of transgender male student Gavin Grimm in his lawsuit against the Gloucester County School Board, who has enacted a policy that said that every student had to access restrooms and changing facilities based on their "biological sex at birth" and not their gender identity.

Chris Geidner of Buzzfeed reports:

The decision is a big victory for the Obama administration, which weighed in at the appeals court to support Grimm’s challenge, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which has been pressing the case for protecting LGBT people under existing civil rights laws since 2012.  

The appeals court had heard the arguments in January, and Tuesday’s ruling is the first such ruling on the Obama administration’s policy — which it also has advanced regarding the sex discrimination ban under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 

Among the states included in the 4th Circuit is North Carolina, which recently passed a law limiting restroom use in government facilities — including schools and universities — to that which corresponds with a person’s “biological sex.” The ACLU, which is backing Grimm’s suit, also has brought suit against the North Carolina law.

The Democratic National Committee sent the following statement praising the ruling:

“This court victory affirms that there is no commonsense reason to bar transgender students from using the restroom that aligns with their gender identity and that doing so is discriminatory and harmful. This ruling sets precedent in five states, including North Carolina, where Republican legislators and the Republican governor have embraced the exact type of discrimination that the court today has overruled. Republican legislators who continue to push anti-LGBT measures and the Republican presidential candidates who fan the flames of discrimination with ignorant rhetoric have been exposed by this ruling for what they’re truly peddling. Just this week, one of the Republican presidential candidates told victims of discrimination to ‘get over it.’ Well, it’s time for the Republican Party to get over their anti-LGBT bias and join the rest of the country in embracing the full equality of every American.”

 Congrats!

Uganda Constitutional Court Declares Anti-Homosexuality Act 'Null and Void'

Good news out of Uganda for the first time in a long while! The virulently homophobic Anti-Homosexuality Act was invalidated by a 5-judge panel of Uganda's Constitutional Court, because Parliament passed the bill last December when it lacked a quorum.

The Guardian reports:

A panel of five judges ruled on Friday that the speaker of parliament acted illegally when she allowed a vote on the measure despite at least three objections that not enough MPs were in attendance. 

"The speaker was obliged to ensure that there was quorum," the court said in its ruling. "We come to the conclusion that she acted illegally." 

While celebrating the ruling, activists warned that homosexuality remains a criminal offence in the east African country under colonial-era laws. 

The fiercely controversial statute represented a dramatic toughening of the penalties. It banned the "promotion of homosexuality" and enabled life sentences to be imposed for various same-sex acts, including touching in public or living in a same-sex marriage. 

[...] 

The challenge to the law was brought by 10 petitioners, including academics, journalists, both ruling and opposition MPs, human rights activists and rights groups. They claimed that it violated the constitutional right to privacy and dignity, as well as the right to be free from discrimination and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. 

Friday's ruling was made before a courtroom packed with Ugandans opposing or supporting the measure. Activists erupted in loud cheers after the court ruled the law "null and void". 

Among those present was Frank Mugisha, director of Sexual Minorities Uganda."We welcome this ruling and Uganda's lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community can celebrate a small victory against oppression," he said. 

"However, we are disappointed that the case was not heard on its true merits. The truth is that, not only is the anti-homosexuality act persecutory, it is also unconstitutional and illegitimate. This law has no place in our society, which values dignity, privacy and equality for all our citizens. Until the act has been dismissed on the substance of our arguments, we cannot rest easy."

Congratulations to the brave LGBT Ugandan activists on their legal victory! I'm sure we have not heard the last of this. But today, at least, is a day of celebration.

Wisconsin Supreme Court Upholds Domestic Partnership Law Despite 2006 Initiative

The Wisconsin Supreme Court issued a ruling yesterday upholding the constitutionality of that state's domestic partnership law against a challenge that it violated the 2006 statewide initiative that banned marriage equality and any “legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage.”

So, people who oppose same-sex marriage in Wisconsin are also so heartless that they want to oppose domestic partnerships as well. Wisconsin also has a bizarre statute on the books which can subject you to prosecution if you attempt to violate their marriage laws.

Luckily, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that domestic partnerships are distinct from marriage. Remember, we're not talking about civil unions here, which are (or were) another legal entity created on the way from complete non-recognition of same-sex relationships to full marriage equality.

Interestingly, right now Wisconsin is just a federal judge's stay away from having full marriage equality be the law of the land. Until then, same-sex couples at least have access to domestic partnership benefits in the meantime, thanks to the state's highest court.

Hat/tip to Joe.My.God

MAP: State of Marriage Equality Right Now

Joe Jervis posted this map of the current state of marriage equality nationwide from Wikipedia. Blue states indicate where same-sex marriage is currently legal, red where it is banned and yellow where laws banning marriage equality have been struck down by judges but the ruling are on hold by a court.

10th U.S. Circuit Affirms Ruling Invalidating Oklahoma Ban On Marriage Equality

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit has affirmed a lower court ruling striking down Oklahoma's ban on marriage equality. The same 3-judge appellate panel that struck down Utah's ban on marriage equality earlier this year (making history to become the highest court to issue a ruling that bans on marriage equality are unconstitutional in Kitchen v Herbert) has now ruled in Bishop v Smith that Oklahoma's marriage equality ban is also unconstitutional.

Freedom to Marry notes that this case is one of the longest running legal battles over marriage equality (originally filed in 2004!) and is the twenty-sixth consecutive win in court for marriage equality. Eval Wolfson said:

“Today’s ruling arises out of the oldest active marriage case in the country, filed in Oklahoma ten years ago; and follows more than two dozen favorable rulings for marriage in the past year. The legal consensus is clear: marriage discrimination is unconstitutional and inflicts concrete harms on committed gay and lesbian couples and their families.  From the heart of the Southwest and as far as the Mountain West, the federal rulings from the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals from Oklahoma and Utah affirm that all of America is ready for the freedom to marry. It is time for the Supreme Court to end this patchwork of discrimination and bring our country to national resolution as soon as possible.”

The Washngton Blade reports that the vote count was 2-1 and that the 46-page opinion was written by Carlos Lucero, a Clinton appointee. The court basically says that its decision in Bishop is controlled by its earlier decision in Kitchen.

Interestingly, the Department of Justice and the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group are defendant-appellants in this case because the original lawsuit also challenged the now-defunct Defense of Marriage Act. I don't know if that makes it more or less likely to be taken up by the Supreme Court on appeal (I would think, less likely, but who knows.)

Colorado Marriage Law Struck Down (Decision Stayed); Marriage Licenses Being Issued In Boulder and Denver

Well, well, well! Good things are happening in Colorado regarding marriage equality this week. Just yesterday, a state judge ruled that Colorado's ban(s) on marriage equality are unconstitutional. Colorado enacted a civil unions law last year (doesn't that idea seem quaint now, post-Windsor?) and the judge used its existence as part of his reasoning for why Colorado's marriage laws are discriminatory in his opinion in Brinkman v. Long:

“The Court holds that the Marriage Bans violate plaintiffs’ due process and equal protection guarantees under the Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution." 

“The existence of civil unions is further evidence of discrimination against same-sex couples and does not ameliorate the discriminatory effect of the Marriage Bans.”

But wait, there's more! After the 10th U.S. Circuit issued a ruling striking down Utah's marriage law a few weeks ago, the County Clerk of Boulder read the decision (which was stayed pending appeal) and decided to start issuing marriage licenses. In order to get her to stop doing that, the Governor and Attorney General agreed to file a statement with the court that the marriage laws of Colorado are unconstitutional but to agree to wait until a final ruling is issued by the Colorado Supreme Court or the U.S. Supreme Court to issue marriage licenses. However, the judge in that lawsuit ruled in favor of the Boulder County clerk and said she can continue issuing marriage licenses:

Boulder County clerk who has been issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in defiance of Colorado’s gay-marriage ban can continue, a judge ruled Thursday. Boulder County Judge Andrew Hartman decided county clerk Hillary Hall can ignore a federal stay on a ruling from the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver that states cannot set gender requirements for marriage. The judge said gay marriage is still technically illegal in Colorado but that Hall’s behavior was not harming anyone. But he said all who receive a license should be warned that they could still be invalid if a judge finds after trial that Hall didn’t have the authority to issue them. Hartman also noted that every judge — including one in Colorado the previous afternoon — in the past year has ruled that gay marriage bans are unconstitutional and that Colorado’s prohibition is “hanging by a thread.”

In light of this decision, according to the Denver Post clerks in Denver and Pueblo counties have also started issuing marriage licenses. So, unless a court steps in soon (which at this point would probably have to be the Colorado Supremes) marriage equality is coming to the Centennial State in hours instead of months!

Hat/tip to Joe.My.God

QUEER QUOTE: ACLU Urges Wisconsin To Decide Marriage Equality Appeal Soon

The ACLU of Wisconsin is managing the lawsuit Wolf v. Walker for marriage equality which led to a federal judge striking down the ban on same-sex marriage (and then issued a stay on her order enjoining the state from enforcing her ruling). The state of Wisconsin has 30 days from the date of the judge's ruling (issued 11 days ago) to file its appeal to the 7th U.S. Appellate Circuit, which by my count would be Sunday July 6.

The ACLU has issued a public letter to Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen asking him to make  a decision earlier so that the marriage equality question can be resolved sooner than later and same-sex couples will know whether their marriages will stand or not.

Our clients and other same-sex couples in Wisconsin are faced with the continuing indignity of seeing their families denigrated by the state’s refusal to allow them to marry or to recognize their marriages entered elsewhere... Even if you [Van Hollen] believe you will win, please file your appeal promptly to resolve the uncertainty that same-sex couples, their children, as well as employers and other businesses and government offices who interact with same-sex couples are facing until the constitutionality of Wisconsin’s ban on marriage is resolved.

 Van Hollen is not running for re-election this year, but Republican Governor Scott Walker is. Fellow Republican Governor Tom Corbett (who is also running for re-election but is unlikely to win) earlier this year made his state the 19th state to have permanent marriage equality when he didn't appeal a marriage equality ruling.

QUEER QUOTE: Milwaukee Paper Editorializes In Favor Of Marriage Equality

The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel published an editorial today in favor of the state of Wisconsin dropping its appeal of the recent ruling by federal district court judge Barbara Crabb allowing marriage equality in the Badger State. This excerpt is today's Queer Quote:

Nearly a year ago, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which barred the federal government from recognizing or providing federal benefits for same-sex couples married in states where such unions are legal. At the same time, it also declined in a California case to say whether state bans on gay marriage were constitutional or not. While not a clear victory for same-sex marriage advocates, the ruling did mean that California became the 13th state to permit same-sex marriage. 

Since those rulings, federal courts have struck down state bans in 11 states. Now, it's Wisconsin's turn: The decision that same-sex couples in Wisconsin — and all who believe in equality — were awaiting finally came Friday afternoon. U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb ruled that Wisconsin's ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. 

This was not just a victory for gay couples; it was a victory for equal rights for all Americans, and it follows a pattern from the civil rights era, when federal courts played a key role in striking down laws that had imposed second-class citizenship on African-Americans. These bans had done the same to gay couples; it's good to see the bans meeting the same fate. 

[Wisconsin Attorney General] Van Hollen argues that Crabb's ruling should be stayed so as not to create confusion for the nearly 300 couples who have been issued marriage licenses in Milwaukee and Dane counties since Friday's ruling. Other counties are holding off on issuing such licenses, awaiting the state's appeal. And, in truth, Crabb could have been clearer in her ruling, which, unlike other courts' rulings, doesn't explicitly say what county clerks should be doing. Crabb is asking for more information before deciding whether to stay her own decision while it is appealed. There is a chance the ruling will be stayed even though Crabb did deny Van Hollen's request on Monday. 

But Van Hollen only has a point if he appeals Crabb's ruling. If he doesn't, the argument and the confusion are over. He should refrain from such an appeal and recognize that Crabb's ruling — like other such rulings across the country — is a victory for freedom for all Americans.

There is precedent here, of course. Republican Governor Tom Corbett decided not to appeal a similar ruling bringing marriage equality to Pennsylvania. Republican Governor Scott Walker could do the same thing in Wisconsin, but Walker has presidential ambitions, so such a progressive decision is unlikely to occur anytime soon.

Hat/tip to Joe.My.God

Now There Are 20! Wisconsin's Ban on Marriage Equality Struck Down!

Of course, just hours after I wrote a post with a map depicting the 19 states that have marriage equality, a 20th was added when a federal judge ruled in Wolf v. Walker that Wisconsin's state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.

The lawsuit was filed by the ACLU, which celebrated thusly:

"We are tremendously happy that these loving and committed couples will now be able to access the security and recognition that only marriage provides,” said Larry Dupuis, legal director of the ACLU of Wisconsin. “These discriminatory laws are falling around the country and it is only right that Wisconsin move forward as well.” 

"Wisconsin’s constitutional ban on marriage for same-sex couples is a striking example of intentional discrimination towards lesbians and gay men in Wisconsin,” said John Knight, staff attorney with the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Project. “The marriage ban has sent a powerful message  that same-sex couples are undeserving of the dignity and important legal protections associated with marriage. Judge Crabb’s decision that same-sex couples are equal under the law sends an entirely different message -- one inviting and encouraging fair treatment and respect for these couples."

Couples are getting married in Madison and Milwaukee:

There are now 20 states in which same-sex couples can get legally married and twenty consecutive federal court ruling since last year's Supreme Court ruling in U.. v. Windsor. Apparently Justice Antonin Scalia's dissent in that case was cited no less than a dozen times in Judge Crabb's decision striking down Wisconsin's marriage law!

Hat/tip to Joe Jervis

SCOTUS Denies NOM Request For Stay On Oregon Marriage Equality

Marriage equality came to Oregon on May 19 when openly gay federal district court judge Michael McSchane struck down the state's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. The National Organization for Marriage was displeased with this and filed a motion to intervene in the case when the attorney general and governor of the state indicated they agreed with the decision, going to the extreme position of asking Supreme Court justice Anthony Kennedy to issue a stay while they appeal the decision of the court to deny their request to intervene in the case.

Today the United States Supreme Court denied NOM's motion for a stay so marriage equality is safe for the near and foreseeable future in Oregon, as well as 18 other states where marriage equality is the law of the land.

The appeal of the intervention denial now continues at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, but same-sex couples will continue to be able to marry during the time that is happening. 

The 9th Circuit, which is hearing that appeal, denied NOM’s request to stop the trial court decision striking down the ban from going into effect during the appeal. NOM then went to Justice Anthony Kennedy to ask him to stop the marriages while that appeal is pending before the 9th Circuit. 

Kennedy, who hears procedural matters brought to the court from the 9th Circuit, referred the request to the full court, which denied the request without comment on Tuesday. 

NOM’s appeal of the denial to intervene is the only matter left pending in the case because Oregon state officials had not fought the lawsuit, having agreed with the plaintiffs that the ban is unconstitutional. They had said that they would not appeal the decision if U.S. District Court Judge Michael McShane struck down the ban.

The only state that has had marriage equality is California, and it has since had marriage equality restored since last summer's Supreme Court decision in Hollingsworth v Perry.

Hat/tip to Buzz Feed

PA Ruling Not Appealed; 44% Of Americans Live In Marriage Equality States

Wow! Republican Governor Tom Corbett announced today that he would not be appealing yesterday's decision striking down Pennsylvania's ban on same-sex marriage, thus confirming the Keystone state's status as the 19th marriage equality state in the Union; Now 44% of Americans live in state with marriage equality. Another 17% live in jurisdiction where the marriage law has been invalidated but the decision is on hold pending a higher court resolution.

Happy Birthday to me, indeed!

Oregon Becomes 18th Marriage Equality State!

As widely expected, openly gay federal judge Michael McShane today issued the 13th federal ruling since last year's Supreme Court decision in U.S. v. Windsor deciding in favor of marriage equality. The judge's 26 page decision in Geiger v. Kitzhaber was issued promptly at noon after an emergency stay in the proceedings filed by the National Organization for Marriage was denied by the 9th U.S. Circuit.

The Washington Blade reports:

Neither the timing nor the outcome of the case was a surprise. On Friday, McShane had announced he would make his decision in the litigation on Monday at noon Pacific Time (3 pm local time). In fact, Oregon United for Marriage had planned media coverage for the ruling and same-sex couples marrying afterward over the weekend without knowing the decision.  

McShane also rules against the state ban on same-sex marriage after not a single party would defend the law in court. It’s the first time ever that no party defended a ban on same-sex marriage during the course of a lawsuit seeking marriage equality.  

Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum announced in February the law was indefensible, as did attorneys for Multnomah County, who were also named as a defendant in the lawsuit and had pledged to hand out licenses to same-sex couples as soon as law was struck down. 

[...] 

Oregon’s ban on same-sex marriage, Measure 38, is a state constitutional amendment approved by voters in 2004 by a 57-43 margin. But public opinion on marriage equality in Oregon is just about reversed since that time. Last year, Public Policy Polling found that 54 percent of Oregon residents would vote to legalize same-sex marriage at the ballot. 

Marriages should begin shortly in Oregon, although typically a 3-day waiting period is required after getting a marriage license, it can be waived in extenuating circumstances.

The judge's ruling means that an expensive ballot measure campaign to overturn measure 36 will not be unnecessary.

Congratulations to Oregon to joining the rest of the West Coast in Marriage Equality!

Arkansas Supreme Court Issues Stay Halting Marriage Equality

Bad news out of Arkansas today. The Arkansas State Supreme Court issued a stay which suspends a lower court order that had invalidated all legal prohibitions on same-sex marriage in the state. The stay will last through the consideration of the appeal of the lower court ruling and could take up to a year.

At 4:30 p.m. today, with many of the justices at an out-of-state conference, the Arkansas Supreme Court issued a stay of Judge Chris Piazza's ruling last Friday that Arkansas law and constitutional bans on same-sex marriage violated the U.S. Constitution. It was a one-sentence order without any elaboration. Piazza's decision will now go through the appeal process. A record of the lower court case must be prepared. A briefing schedule must be set and probably oral arguments. The court takes a two-month recess each summer. Even with an expedited schedule, it's uncertain if the case can be decided this calendar year, when two of the current justices — Cliff Hoofman and Donald Corbin — will be replaced by Rhonda Wood and the winner of a race between Judge Robin Wynne and Tim Cullen.

Hat/tip to Joe.My.God

Marriage Equality Back On In Arkansas, Off (For Now) In Idaho

Although judges have struck down the laws banning marriage equality in Idaho and Arkansas in the last week, the status of marriage equality in each jurisdiction is in different states of flux in these two states.

The 9th U.S. Circuit has issued a stay in the case of Latta v. Otter which will prevent the judge's order from going into effect on Friday until the 9th Circuit formally considers the request for a more permanent stay tha would last the duration of the period it takes to decide the appeal from the state of the ruling allowing marriage equality to go into effect in Idaho.

In Arkansas, same-sex couples have been able to get married since last Saturday but after the Arkansas State Supreme Court refused to issue a stay to stop those marriages but noted that the original order did not invalidate the state law which prohibited clerks from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples marriages had stopped in the state. The judge responded by issuing a new order today making it clear that any prohibition on issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples is null and void, resulting in Arkansas's largest county (Pulaski) to resume issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Exciting times in deed!

4th U.S. Circuit Hears Oral Arguments in VA Marriage Equality Case

Today the 4th U.S. Circuit heard oral arguments in Bostic v. Schaefer (previously Bostic v. Rainey) which is better known as Virginia's marriage equality case. This past February a federal judge struck down Virginia's ban on marriage equality and today's oral arguments were the appellate circuit level appeal of this decision.

You can hear the audio of the oral arguments yourself at this link. The three judges on the panel are Paul Niemeyer (Appointed by President George H.W. Bush), Roger Gregory (Nominated by President Bill Clinton and then George W. Bush),  and Henry Floyd (Nominated by President Obama). The lawyers conducting the argument for the side of marriage equality were Ted Olson (on behalf of American Foundation for Equal Rights), James Esseks (on behalf of the ACLU) and Stuart Raphael (Virginia's Solicitor General).

Most observers seem to think that the panel will split 2-1 in favor of upholding the lower-court ruling, which would then be appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which could decide whether it wants to use this case to decide the question of marriage equality squarely in 2015 or let marriage equality go into effect in the 4th Circuit (Virginia, South Carolina, West Virginia and North Carolina).

Hat/tip to Equality on Trial

Arkansas Becomes First Southern State With Marriage Equality!

Well, well, well! The first Southern state in which same-sex couples are issued marriage licenses has become Arkansas! With a state judge  striking down statutory bans on Friday, today same-sex coupes are being issued marriage licenses in Eureka Springs, AK.

The AP reports:

Gay marriage arrived in the Bible Belt on Saturday, beginning with two women who had traveled overnight to ensure they'd be first in line. 

"Thank God," Jennifer Rambo said after Carroll County Deputy Clerk Jane Osborn issued a marriage license to her and Kristin Seaton, a former volleyball player at the University of Arkansas. The Fort Smith couple wed moments later on a sidewalk near the courthouse; the officiant wore a rainbow-colored dress. 

In total, 15 licenses were issued for same-sex couples in northwest Arkansas' Carroll County, Osborn said. 

Pulaski County Circuit Judge Chris Piazza paved the way Friday with a ruling that removed a 10-year-old barrier, saying a constitutional amendment overwhelmingly passed by voters in 2004 banning gay marriage was "an unconstitutional attempt to narrow the definition of equality." Piazza's ruling also overturned a 1997 state law banning gay marriage. 

But because Piazza didn't issue a stay, Arkansas' 75 county clerks were left to decide for themselves whether to grant marriage licenses. 

Rambo, 26, and Seaton, 27, were the first gay couple to be legally married. 

Fascinating to see how things are developing. It was only a question of when, not if, marriage equality would actually come to  the South but I had though it would be a purple state like Virginia or Florida, not a deep-red state like Arkansas. Does anyone doubt now that marriage equality will be a reality in all 50 states sooner rather than later?

India High Court To Reconsider Controversial Sodomy Ruling

Good news! The High Court of India has announced that a 5-member panel will consider its problematic December 2013 ruling that upheld India's ban on sodomy, criminalizing the sexual behavior of literally more than a hundred million people in the world's most populous democracy. The original ruling included some shockingly homophobic language, and unfortunately the two judges that signed that decision will be participating in the re-hearing.

Buzzfeed reports:

This is LGBTI rights advocates last chance to toss out the decision, which was a harsh blow after a 12-year litigation process. In January, a two-judge panel (which included one of the judges who issued the original ruling) rejected their first attempt to have the case reconsidered, what is known as a review petition. The current motion, known as a curative petition, still faces long odds, because the five-judge panel that will consider it includes the two judges who rejected the review petition. The other judges on the panel will be the three most senior judges on the court.

But the lawyers in this case got a major boost last week when a different two-judge Supreme Court panel issued a sweeping verdict recognizing broad rights for transgender people. Though the judges in the transgender rights case were careful to explicitly say they were not offering an opinion on the 377 case, their ruling reads almost like a point-by-point rebuttal to the ruling.

Recently the India High Court declared that transgender identity is a protected category.

Lambda Legal Files Marriage Equality Lawsuit In Arizona!

Good news out of Arizona regarding LGBT equality! Lambda Legal has filed a lawsuit seeking to gain the right to marriage for same-sex couples in Arizona.

In the lawsuit, Lambda Legal, joined by pro bono co-counsel from Perkins Coie LLP, argues that the Arizona constitutional amendment and state statutes barring same-sex couples from marriage violates the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution.  

The lead plaintiffs, Nelda Majors, 75, and Karen Bailey, 74, of Scottsdale, have been together for more than 55 years, and together have raised two children, Karen’s great grand-nieces Marissa and Sharla, as their own daughters since the girls came into their home as toddlers. Marissa is now 15 and Sharla 21. 

“Karen and I have been together since 1957,” Majors said.  “We’re a committed, loving family, have raised two amazing girls together, have seen each other through thick and thin, in sickness and in health. After five decades together, we want to celebrate and affirm our deep love for each other as other couples do, before our friends and family, through marriage. We’re also getting up there in years. I want to know that, should anything happen to me, there would be no question about Karen being allowed to be with me at the hospital, and vice versa. If we were married, there would be no question and we both would feel more secure.” 

“Arizona’s ban on marriage for same-sex couples serves no legitimate state interest, brands these loving couples and their children as second-class citizens, and encourages private bias and discrimination,” Pizer said. “And because the State does not even offer a lesser status such as civil union or domestic partnership, these loving couples live every day with the uncertainty that their families and relationships lack even basic protections.”

The name of the lawsuit is Majors v. Horne. As I have said, repeatedly, the fact that in the 9th U.S. Circuit (Washington, California, Oregon, Arizona, Idaho, Nevada and Montana) laws in these states that classify based on sexual orientation must receive heightened scrutiny that they are not violating the equal protection rights of LGBT people makes it very likely that bans on same-sex marriage in these states are toast. The deadline to appeal the decision that declared sexual orientation subject to heightened scrutiny passed last Friday, and this lawsuit I'm sure is a consequence of that decision.

Important Deadline Passes To Appeal Landmark LGBT Equality Case

The Human Rights Campaign noticed that today was the deadline for the appeal to be filed in the landmark case of Abbott Laboratories v. SmithKline Beecham in which the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled recently that laws that classify based upon sexual orientation require heightened scrutiny.

Abbott is an incredibly significant ruling that already has had immediate impacts on the lives of LGBT citizens. As a direct result of the issuance of this ruling the Attorneys General of Nevada and Oregon declined to continue to defend their state's marriage licenses.

It is hard to see how marriage laws that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation survive judicial review anywhere in the 9th Circuit as long as Abbott is good law.

Juror Discrimination Case Will Not Be Appealed
Ninth Circuit's Application of Heightened Scrutiny for Sexual Orientation Will Stand
WASHINGTON – In January, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in a pharmaceutical contract dispute, Abbott Laboratories v. SmithKline Beecham, that it violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection to exclude someone from jury service because of his or her sexual orientation.  In doing so, the court also concluded that discrimination based on sexual orientation should be subject to heightened scrutiny, a higher standard of judicial review that requires a stronger justification for laws and policies that treat gays and lesbians differently.  Only days after the Ninth Circuit's decision, the Attorney General of Nevada ended the state's defense of its marriage ban in another case before that court, concluding that Nevada's justifications for excluding same-sex couples from marriage could not withstand that higher level of review.  

Yesterday, the deadline passed for AbbVie (the pharmaceutical spin-off of Abbott Laboratories that is a party in this litigation) to seek review of the January decision by a larger panel of the Ninth Circuit.  Furthermore, HRC has learned that AbbVie will not seek review by the U.S. Supreme Court.     

 “AbbVie’s decision not to appeal this ruling may turn out to be a pivotal moment in the quest for marriage equality in every state in this country and greater constitutional protections for all LGBT Americans,” said HRC President Chad Griffin.  "We thank the company for standing on the right side of history."   

The Human Rights Campaign is America’s largest civil rights organization working to achieve lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equality. By inspiring and engaging all Americans, HRC strives to end discrimination against LGBT citizens and realize a nation that achieves fundamental fairness and equality for all.

###

MAP: Current State of Marriage Equality In The States

Compiled by Andrew Turnbull, this handy graphic depicts the current state of marriage equality in the states. Look at all the ticking clocks, reflecting pending legal challenges to state bans on marriage equality, as well as the places where the ban has been struck down but is in abeyance due to a stay (Texas, Virginia, Oklahoma and Utah) as well as the two states where out-of-states same-sex marriage is recognized but you can't get married in the state (Kentucky and Oregon).

The map looks good!