Prop 8 Proponents Want En Banc Re-Hearing

As expected, the heterosexual supremacists defending Proposition 8 in federal court (who have now lost twice, at the federal District Court level on August 4, 2010 and before a 3-judge panel on February 7, 2012) have applied for an en banc re-hearing by a randomly selected 11-member subset of the 29-member 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

A majority of the activie judges on the Court of Appeals must vote to agree to hear the case, and then an en banc panel of 11 judges consisting of Chief Judge Alex Kosinski and 10 randomly selected other judges will hear the case, probably issuing a ruling (if no further briefs are requested!) by the end of the summer. According to Wikipedia, at 64%, the 9th Circuit has the highest proportion of judges appointed by Democratic presidents, and is thus considered the most liberal.

Whoever loses at the en banc level can appeal to the 9-member United States Supreme Court level, where it takes 4 votes to agree to hear a case, but 5 votes to decide it. A final ruling by that court would probably not happen before June 27, 2013.

Lesbian Plaintiffs In CA Marriage Case Divorcing

The landmark California ruling in Re Marriage Cases which resulted in the legalization of marriage in my home state was a consolidation of multiple lawsuits challenging legal provisions prohibiting same-sex couples from getting married. One of those lawsuits was brought by famed feminis attorney Gloria Allred and featured the lesbian plaintiffs Robin Tyler and Diane Olson suing the state of California to recognize their fundamental right to marry each other. Tyler has been a fixture in lesbian and gay activist circles for at least a quarter century.

This week came word that even though they were one of the first couples to get married in Los Angeles County on June 14, 2008, Olson and Tyler have recently filed for divorce.

NBC-LA reports:

We're human and we went through difficult times," Tyler said. The marriage ran its course, she said.  

Tyler and Olson have known each other for 40 years and were together as a couple for 18. They were the poster couple for gay and lesbian rights.

When they wed, in June of 2008, they had gone to the Beverly Hills Courthouse every year for seven years to apply for -- and be denied- a marriage license.

The ceremony on the steps of the same courthouse was a monumental moment for gay couples everywhere. 

People will also be reminded that the lead plaintiffs in the Massachusetts marriage case, Hilary Goodridge also divorced a few short years after winning the right to marry. What some people fail to realize is that these couples were often together for years if not decades before they could get legally married, which has only been available since May 17, 2004  in this country. My husband and I will celebrate our 4th wedding anniversary this August (on Roger Federer's birthday!) but we have been together as a couple since 1991 (over 21 years).

Where there is marriage there will also be divorce. But just as marriage is a happy public moment, so is divorce the flip side.

ACLU Sues Michigan Over Anti-Gay DP Benefits Law

Previously MadProfessah had blogged about a new discriminatory law signed into effect by Republican Governor Rick Snyder which would ban public employees (at the state, county, or city level) from receiving benefits based on domestic partner status. Now comes word that the American Civil Liberties Union is suing the Governor and the state of Michigan to strike down the law in court.

The case is known as Bassett v. Snyder:

The lawsuit charges that the new law discriminates by categorically denying domestic partners access to benefits and violates the constitutional right to equal protection by forcing gay and lesbian employees in committed relationships to carry the financial hardship and anxiety of being uninsured, while allowing heterosexual couples to marry and receive family health protections. In addition, the law only bars domestic partners from receiving health care coverage, while allowing government employers to offer benefits to all other family members, including parents, siblings, uncles and cousins.

“It’s unconstitutional for the state of Michigan to deprive a small number of workers the means to take care of their loved ones when other similarly situated workers do have access to family coverage,” said Amanda C. Goad, staff attorney for the ACLU LGBT Project. “In an economic downturn, the state should be passing laws to make it easier for families to take care of each other, not to take protections away.”

Proponents point to the “high cost” of domestic partner health care coverage as the motivating force to enact such a law. However, an analysis of programs across the state proves these numbers to be wildly inaccurate. In fact, studies show such coverage, in addition to attracting and retaining the best employees, costs well under one percent of the health care budget of public employers who voluntarily provide these benefits. In addition, unlike married couples, domestic partners must pay taxes to the state on their health insurance benefits – revenue the state would lose under the new law.

As Ari Ezra Waldman over at TowleRoad comments, this case is really about more than just domestic partnership benefits, it's about whether the state can discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation without a legitimate governmental purpose or compelling justification.

The answer is, of course, "heck no!"

133 House Members Sign Brief Challenging DOMA

133 Democratc congressmembers signed their names to a brief filed before the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Gill v Office of Personnel Management in which the central question is whether the  so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional.

The case was brought (and won) by Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders before U.S. District Court judge Joseph Tauro in July 2009. The Department of Justice appealed the decision, but then in February 2011 the United States changed sides in the case after the President determined that DOMA is inherently unconstitutional and laws that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation warrant heightened scrutiny.

DOMA is being defended in federal court by superlawyer Paul Clement for BLAG, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, on behalf of the U.S. House Republican majority.

Hat/tip to Joe.My.God

Boehner Triples Budget For DOMA Legal Defense

Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH)

This is pretty astonishing news. While Republicans are repeatedly bloviating about cutting Medicare and Social Security and reducing the size ofthe federal government, that doesn't apparently apply to defending homophobic laws in court.

Joe.My.God reports that the the "Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group" (which is controlled by the Republican House majority) has authorized a new contract with super-lawyer Paul Clement which triples the potential cost of defending the so-called Defense of Marriage Act in federal court.

Talking Points Memo has the details:

House Republican leaders have tripled theamount allocated for a legal team arguing in support of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) from $500,000 to $1.5 million of taxpayer money.

A modified contract between the General Counsel to the House of Representatives and former Solicitor General Paul Clement of Bancroft PLLC sets a cap of $750,000 which can be raised up to $1.5 million.

"It is absolutely unconscionable that Speaker Boehner is tripling the cost for his legal boondoggle to defend the indefensible Defense of Marriage Act," Drew Hammill, a spokesman for Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, said in a statement.

"At a time when Americans are hurting and job creation should be the top priority, it just shows how out of touch House Republicans have become that they would spend up to $1.5 million dollars to defend discrimination in our country," Hammill continued.

It should be noted that the Obama administration has concluded that DOMA is unconstitutional and is no longer defending it in court. DOMA has been declared unconstitutional by at least three federal judges this  year, in cases which are still under appeal.