Archives

Commentary

Gay marriage 3Regular NC Policy Watch contributor Charles Beem weighs in this morning with is thoughts on the painfully slow process of finalizing America’s embrace of marriage equality.

The waiting game: Marriage equality and the Supreme Court
By Dr. Charles Beem

It has been nearly three months since the triumph of marriage equality in North Carolina, and it appears that the institution of heterosexual marriage has survived intact. For the LGBT community in North Carolina, it is the one bright spot in an otherwise dismal couple of years, which has seen this state slide from purple to red and all the attendant regression in health care, education, and civil rights that has accompanied the slide to the right.

Most notorious, of course, was the passage of Amendment One, a sucker punch thrown at the electorate in a May 2012 primary election in which a whopping 34% of registered voters participated, which, from hindsight, was sort of like a state passing a law prohibiting interracial marriage on the eve of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Loving v. Virginia (1967). After a federal appeals court declared the amendment unconstitutional last October, we witnessed the spectacle of conservative legislative leaders spending your tax dollars to try to defend the amendment, which reminds me of the soldiers who fanatically defended Hitler’s bunker from the Russians after he was dead!

Yet despite the momentous gains made for marriage equality in 2014, there is still cause to worry. Quite unlike the Warren Court that ruled unanimously in Loving in 1967, the current U.S. Supreme Court is quite obviously divided on an issue that a majority of Americans are coming to believe is a natural and logical, if not inevitable, progression of civil rights. Read More

News

As same-sex marriage bans continue to fall in the courts, states on the losing side of the battle are finding themselves on the hook for attorneys’ fees incurred by proponents of marriage equality, to the tune of more than $800,000 thus far, according to Zoe Tillman in this National Law Journal post.

And requests for millions more are still pending in cases making their way through the appellate courts, Tillman notes.

In the cases pending here, the requests themselves have been put on hold while appeals play out.  State Senate President Phil Berger and former House Speaker Thom Tillis intervened in those cases to appeal district court judgments overturning the state’s same-sex marriage ban, following the Fourth Circuit’s ruling on a similar ban in Virginia in Bostic v. Schaeffer.

But several of the attorneys in the Bostic cases are recovering fees.  Says Tillman:

After the Fourth Circuit declared Virginia’s marriage ban unconstitutional, officials reached fee agreements with the plaintiffs’ lawyers. Virginia will pay $60,000 to lawyers in Harris v. Rainey, a class action joined with another case, Bostic v. Rainey, on appeal. A spokesman for the attorney general’s office said the terms of an agreement with the Bostic lawyers were still being finalized.

In Harris, Jenner & Block worked with the ACLU of Virginia and Lambda Legal. Attorney fees will go to the nonprofit lawyers. In Bostic, Theodore Olson of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and David Boies of Boies, Schiller & Flexner were co-lead counsel. Olson argued in the Fourth Circuit. Representatives from Gibson Dunn and Boies Schiller declined to comment about fees.

 

 

News
(Source:  Freedomtomarry.org and Mic via Vox.com)

(Source: Freedom to Marry and Mic via Vox)

Color the state of Florida red in the maps above, as a state court judge in Miami-Dade County today allowed gay and lesbian couples to marry there.  The judge’s action followed an August 21 federal court ruling striking down the state’s same-sex marriage ban, a decision which the U.S. Supreme Court subsequently refused to stay.

That makes 36 states now where same-sex marriage is legal, including North Carolina, which followed suit after the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond overturned Virginia’s marriage ban in July 2014 — a decision that was binding here and in all other states in the circuit.

Another nine states have court rulings pending appeal.

Against that backdrop, the U.S. Supreme Court will consider petitions for review from five states — Tennessee, Louisiana, Ohio, Michigan, and Kentucky — at conference on January 9, and it is likely that the court will take at least one, given that conflicting decisions have now been issued by federal courts of appeal.

Read the Vox update on where each state stands here, and read more from Freedom to Marry on the cases pending before the Supreme Court here.

Commentary

When my family first started attending Pullen Memorial Baptist Church in Raleigh several years ago, there was a little boy who was about the same age as our youngest daughter. His name was Max and he had a younger sister named Erin. The kids stood out a little because both Max and Erin were African-American and their two dads, Nathan and Dave, were white. I learned at the time from a close friend who knew the family well that the two kids had been adopted out of extremely rough, impoverished circumstances. The term “crack baby” was used.

By all appearances, though, the kids seemed pretty doggone normal and the parents were clearly loving and attentive. I have a vivid memory of one of the dads holding a wriggling Erin, dressed in her finest holiday dress, as Max portrayed one of the animals in the children’s Christmas play.

As the years went on and Max and his family moved away, I heard occasionally through my friend that they were doing well (Max had actually been admitted to West Point!) and took it as a remarkable testament to the power of love to overcome some of the worst things that society has to dish out — namely the grinding poverty from which the kids were rescued and the absurd and hateful discrimination that I knew the family still found itself subjected to regularly.

And then last night, my Pullen friend passed along this amazing story from writer S.L. Price of Sports Illustrated that fills in a lot of the details I had missed in recent years. Unless you are one of the shrinking number of troubled souls still clinging to a closed heart and mind on the question of LGBT equality, I promise you will be unable to read it or watch the accompanying video without feeling a lump in your throat. Indeed, it may happen even if you are — I sure hope so.

News

Supreme courtYesterday in a 2-1 decision the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Ohio became the first federal appeals court to uphold a state ban on same-sex marriage. In doing so, it created the split among federal circuits needed to get a marriage equality case before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The justices already considered a flurry of cases early in the term — including one from the Fourth Circuit — but declined to take any up for review. Although they gave no reason, many experts suspected that the lack of any circuit split at that time was at least one reason for their refusal. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said as much in public comments.

But the Sixth Circuit decision now directly conflicts with federal appeals courts in the Fourth, Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits.

“Now there is a split, and it is a stark one,” SCOTUSblog’s Lyle Denniston wrote :

In one sweeping decision, the Sixth Circuit has given all of the states in its geographic region a victory for their bans on both initial marriages of same-sex couples and official recognition of such marriages performed outside of the couples’ home states.  By contrast, other federal courts have nullified identical bans in thirteen states just over the past few months, with the prospect that the number would soon rise to sixteen — for a total of thirty-five states, plus Washington, D.C., allowing such marriages.

A number of options now exist for parties to get a marriage case before the high court, Denniston explained later —  including asking for a direct review of the Sixth Circuit case, a review of an appeals court decision that has not yet gone to the Supreme Court (the Ninth Circuit, for example), or a review of a case pending in an appeals court.

The first option — review of the Sixth Circuit case — is the best and most likely, Denniston said, for these reasons:

Among those three options, Option 1 might have the most promise of gaining Supreme Court review because the Sixth Circuit’s decision is the one that broke the pattern, because it involves an array of cases from four states, raising the constitutionality of bans on both new same-sex marriages and the official state recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages, because it was written by a highly respected court of appeals judge (Jeffrey S. Sutton), because it brought a stirring dissent by another well-regarded jurist (Senior Circuit Judge Martha Craig Daughtrey), and because the opinions swept across all of the issues that have been raised in case after case — even the rather obscure question whether a refusal to recognize an out-of-state same-sex marriage violates the constitutional right to travel, and the emotional question of whether a death certificate for a same-sex spouse who has now died should show that there was a surviving spouse.

And indeed lawyers in that case  have already indicated that they will move quickly, with the hope they’ll get the nod on review and then get the case on the calendar in time for argument and an opinion before the term ends in June.