The DOMA Project: Our Faces - Families Fight to Defeat DOMA (by gaybinationals)

“17 years ago today, the Defense of Marriage Act was introduced to Congress. (http://www.domaproject.org/2013/05/ma…)

Since it was signed into law by President Clinton it has caused immeasurable harm to lesbian and gay Americans and our families. It has destroyed marriages, torn apart families, depeleted savings, forced us to defer plans to start families, to buy a home, start a business or pursue our education. DOMA has robbed us of years of our lives, it has left us poorer, unable to care for our families, forced into exile, separated from those we love, living in fear of a deportation, hiding in a double closet and enduring a constant, crippling burden of stress that few relationships could survive.

And yet we are still here, tens of thousands of lesbian and gay binational couples, DOMA WARRIORS all of us, not waiting, but fighting. Not sitting on the sidelines, but joining a movement made by us for us. We have empowered each other, and we have created a supportive environment to share our stories and lift ourselves up. DOMA has destroyed much, but our love endures.

We have fought this fight for love, and we will win.

On the anniversary of that dark day, we’d like to extend our thanks to thousands of gay and lesbian binational couples who have joined together in the fight to defeat DOMA. We are closer than ever to winning full equality.

Support The DOMA Project: www.domaproject.org/donate

An Open Letter from a same-sex parent to the Supreme Court (by Jack Montgomery)

“I am not naive enough to think that any verdict of your court will change the opinions or hearts of the individuals we encounter on a daily basis. I accept that the stares our family receives walking down the street on a daily basis elicits both judgment and inspiration. What I do not accept is that the United States of America is willing to devalue my childrens’ family more than others and have a separate grouping of laws and benefits. I pray that as you rule on these cases that you keep Cardel (6), Raine (4), and Ravyn (3) in your hearts and do all in your power to keep deleterious obstacles from their lives.”

Edie Windsor’s remarks on the DOMA case at the Supreme Court (by RespectForMarriage)

“Following the oral arguments in the United States v. Windsor case on 3/27, plaintiff Edie Windsor delivers remarks on the harms DOMA has caused her personally, and how it negatively impacts the lives of married same-sex couples.”

California Attorney General Makes The Case For Equality (by ThinkProgress TP)

“And it is one thing to read the polls, which we have discussed which show again that a majority of Americans are in favor of same sex marriage, but it is more important to read the Constitution. And the Constitution of the United States dictates, I believe, under every court precedent that we have discussed in terms of describing marriage as a fundamental right that the same-sex couples that are before the United states supreme court — Mrs. Windsor, Miss Perry — be allowed to have equal protection under the laws as any Americans when it comes to their ability to join themselves with their loving partners in marriage and raise their children. And 61% of Californians are in favor of same-sex marriage.”

Another nail in the DOMA coffin.

Q.

‘Gay and lesbian people have been subject to a significant history of discrimination in this country’

The Obama administration on Friday filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing why it considers the federal Defense of Marriage Act to be unconstitutional.

Filed in United States v. Windsor, a case challenging Section 3 of DOMA, the administration said “gay and lesbian people have been subject to a significant history of discrimination in this country,” and argued that laws targeting individuals based on their sexual orientation should face additional scrutiny by courts reviewing them.

In the brief, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli asked the court to uphold a federal appeals court ruling that found DOMA to be unconstitutional:

Section 3 of DOMA violates the fundamental constitutional guarantee of equal protection. The law denies to tens of thousands of same-sex couples who are legally married under state law an array of important federal benefits that are available to legally married opposite-sex couples. Because this discrimination cannot be justified as substantially furthering any important governmental interest, Section 3 is unconstitutional.

This case deals with Edith Windsor, who was forced to pay $363,000 in estate taxes in 2009 upon the death of her spouse, Thea Spyer. The two had lived as a couple for 44 years and married in Canada in 2007. Because her decades-long partner was a woman, the federal government did not recognize the same-sex marriage in legal terms, even though their home state of New York did.

Section 3 of DOMA, which bars legally married same-sex couples from any federal benefits or programs based on marriage, has been found unconstitutional in eight federal courts, including the First and Second Circuit Court of Appeals, on issues including bankruptcy, public employee benefits, estate taxes, and immigration.

The brief also mentions Proposition 8, California’s ban on same-sex marriage, and similar measures in other states as evidence of continued discrimination against gays and lesbians.

Briefs were also filed on the question of whether the Court has the authority to decide the case — one of those was from the administration and another from Republican leaders of the House of Representative.

In the separate Administration brief, also filed Friday in the Windsor case, the government’s lawyers argued that their appeal challenging the constitutionality of DOMA is properly before the Court, and thus can be decided in that case, reported SCOTUS Blog.

In the other brief, GOP members of the House’s Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group argued that it has a right under the Constitution’s Article III to be in court to support the law’s validity, because the administration has stopped defending the law and instead is “attacking” it.

Oral arguments in the case, United States v. Windsor, have been scheduled for March 27.

Earlier this week, the Obama administration was said to also be considering urging the Court to overturn Proposition 8, but has yet to take a position in that case. The Court will hear arguments in that case on March 26.

What makes a gay soldier different from a straight soldier? (by FreedomToMarry)

Lest we forget.

Q.

In Sickness & In Health (by Amanda Lucidon/LucidPix)

Why marriage equality is important. Support our troops, anyone?

Q.

And the wait goes on but sometimes, no news is good news…

Q.

Ken Williams - SDGLN Editor in Chief
October 1st, 2012

WASHINGTON – For the second consecutive week, the Proposition 8 and Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) cases did not make the list of cases that the U.S. Supreme Court will take up this session, nor were they placed on the list of cases they decline to review.

The nation’s high court begins its new term today, and each Monday the justices publicly announce which cases they will review and which ones they will drop.

The nine justices have reviewed hundreds of cases, including several important ones involving gay rights.

After four long years, Californians are awaiting the resolution of the Proposition 8 case that was ruled unconstitutional by the lower courts in 2010. With no action on the gay rights cases today, the next possible date for an announcement is Oct. 8 and leaves two possible scenarios:

1. The Supreme Court, on Oct. 8, will release the list of cases that it will not consider. If the Prop 8 and/or DOMA cases are placed on that list, then the lower court rulings will stand. Gay and lesbian couples in California would again be able to marry, as soon as the lower courts sign off on the case.

2. However, if the Prop 8 and/or DOMA cases are not on the list, that means the Supreme Court could be postponing any decision on those cases until after the presidential election, making Nov. 19 a highly watched date. There is also the distinct possibility that the justices will merge several high-profile gay-rights cases to review en masse.

Adam D. Umhoefer, executive director of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, said today in an email to supporters:

“News outlets and legal scholars are speculating that we might not hear from the Supreme Court until around Thanksgiving, when all the cases challenging the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) will be eligible for consideration by the Justices.”

Proposition 8 was ruled unconstitutional by the federal district court in San Francisco on Aug. 4, 2010 and upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Feb. 7, 2012.

Nice summary.

Q.

By Christopher Stoll, Esq.
Senior Staff Attorney, National Center for Lesbian Rights

On Monday the United States Supreme Court returns from its summer break. From their very first day back on the job, the justices will begin considering what is surely the largest number of LGBT equality cases that they have ever faced in a single term.

And these aren’t just any cases, either. The cases on the Court’s fall docket have the potential to become watershed moments in the history of the LGBT movement.

Depending on what the justices do over the next several weeks, marriage equality may soon be restored in California, the Court may be on its way to striking down a destructive and discriminatory law that denies federal benefits to every married same-sex couple in America, and an important precedent about same-sex domestic partners could be set.

So here’s a breakdown of what to expect.

The Supreme Court Conference

First, some background: The Supreme Court is not required to accept all the cases it is asked to review. In fact, it rarely accepts more than 100 or so of the thousands of cases it is asked to hear each year. The justices hold a conference several times a month at which they vote on whether or not to accept cases that they have been asked to review.

If they take a case, they set the case for argument within a few months and generally issue their decision no later than the last day of the term, in June. If they do not accept a case, the decision of the lower court stands and becomes the final ruling in the case. The justices also have the option to postpone deciding whether to take a case and consider it at a later conference.

On Monday, Sept. 24, the justices will hold their first conference of the new term. It’s a lengthy agenda, given that it includes all the cases that the Court has been asked to review since they held their last conference before the summer break.

The Cases

Three of this year’s potential landmark LGBT equality cases are on that Sept. 24 agenda. The first is the decision of the Ninth Circuit court of appeals earlier this year to uphold Judge Vaughn Walker’s 2010 ruling striking down California’s Proposition 8, which banned marriage for same-sex couples in that state.

The second is a decision from the U.S. District Court in New York striking down Section 3 of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which prohibits the federal government from recognizing the legal marriages of same-sex couples for any purpose, such as Social Security spousal benefits. The Court has also been asked to review three other challenges to DOMA, and those cases will be on the Court’s conference calendar in the coming weeks.

The third is another Ninth Circuit ruling, which said that an Arizona law that stripped domestic partner benefits from state employees is very likely unconstitutional, so Governor Jan Brewer cannot enforce the ban on benefits until the federal courts issue a final decision in the case.

Read More

NEW YORK, NY - JULY 24: Maira Garcia (R) and Maria Vargas wait on line to get married at the Brooklyn City Clerk’s office on July 24, 2011 in New York City. (Mario Tama/Getty Images)

MONTPELIER, Vt. — Vermont’s attorney general says the state is the latest to ask an appeals court to rule that the federal law defining marriage as between a man and a woman is unconstitutional.

Attorney General William Sorrell said Friday that the Defense of Marriage Act deprives same-sex couples of federal benefits and unfairly discriminates against them.

He says Vermont, New York and Connecticut, all states where gay marriage is legal, filed a brief in a case brought by a New York woman who had to pay $350,000 in estate taxes when her partner died. New York had joined the case in 2011.

The federal government said last year it would stop defending DOMA. Several federal judges have ruled the law is unconstitutional, including a ruling this year in a lawsuit filed by Massachusetts.

Click on the source link to read the full brief.

Q.

More than 100 House Democrats filed a new amicus brief in the federal case against the Defense of Marriage Act on Friday, according to a statement issued by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

Here’s an excerpt of the release:

Washington D.C. – Today, Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer, Assistant Democratic Leader James E. Clyburn, Congressman Jerrold Nadler, Congressman John Conyers, Congressman Barney Frank, Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin, Congressman Jared Polis, Congressman David N. Cicilline and other House Democrats filed an Amicus Brief in the case of Edith Schlain Windsor v. United States of America.

Pelosi, Nadler and 143 other House Members filed the brief today in this landmark case, which has reached the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit following a U.S. District Court ruling that Section 3 of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional. Last year, President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder reached the same conclusion and announced that the Department of Justice would no longer defend the law in certain court cases. By a divided 3-2 vote of the House’s Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) with Pelosi and Hoyer strongly objecting, Speaker John Boehner hired outside lawyers to defend DOMA in court at considerable taxpayer expense.

Edith “Edie” Windsor, 83, a constituent of Rep. Nadler’s in New York City, challenged DOMA in court after the federal government taxed her more than $363,000 when her spouse, Thea Spyer, passed away in 2009. Edie and Thea first met in 1963 and married in 2007 after an engagement that lasted more than 40 years. Yet, when Thea died, the federal government treated them as complete strangers because of DOMA, significantly reducing Edie’s inheritance by depriving her of the marital deduction that otherwise allows a married couple to pass property to the surviving spouse without tax penalty.

Married But Not Equal (Full Episode) (by itlmedia)

The latest from ‘In The Life’.

Q.

There are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections that married heterosexual couples get from the Federal Government. But because of the Defense of Marriage Act, gays and lesbians are denied every single one of them — even if they are legally married in the state they live in.

IN THE LIFE sits down with five married, same-sex couples for a look at the real-life impact of the Defense of Marriage Act.

Cancer-Stricken Soldier Fights for Her Life and Her Family’s Equality (by FreedomToMarry)

lila@huffingtonpost.com

 

On Monday, lawyers filed a petition on behalf of Edith “Edie” Windsor, an 83-year-old lesbian from New York, asking the Supreme Court to review her case, thus bypassing a second round in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, where the case is scheduled to appear next. Earlier this month, the Obama administration asked the high court to review two other cases challenging DOMA’s constitutionality. With Windsor’s petition, there are now three cases, from three of the most significant gay marriage states, that could challenge DOMA at the Supreme Court as early as next spring, if the court consents to hear them.

Windsor sued the government in 2010, after the death of her partner of more than 40 years forced Windsor to pay more than $363,000 in federal estate tax on her partner’s estate.

Windsor and Thea Spyer were married in 2007, in Canada, and while New York recognized the marriage, the federal government did not. When Spyer got sick, she chose to leave her entire estate to Windsor. Had Windsor been married to a man, she would not have had to pay any estate tax, according to court documents; therefore, her suit argues, DOMA violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.

On June 6, the New York District Court sided with Windsor. Last month, Mayor Michael Bloomberg and City Council Speaker Christine Quinn filed a joint amicus brief in support of Windsor.

Read More

07/11/2012