Last month, a video clip of a 12-year-old girl coming out as gay in front of her Mormon church in Utah went viral. Her parents were supportive of her, but her story was interrupted when the microphone was shut off. The church leader then asked the girl, Savannah, to sit down.

After that, a lot of people took Savannah’s side, commending her for her courage and criticizing the church for silencing a child who spoke of something that is so important to her. Last month, she was interviewed in an episode of the Mormon gay podcast “I like to look for rainbows.” Her situation highlights a problem that many people face–how to balance being LGBT with their faith.

But Savannah’s story hasn’t quieted down. Last week, Mormon blogger Scott Gordon criticized Savannah and her parents for giving the speech during the weekly testimony meeting. He wrote that the media is wrongly trying to paint the church leader who interrupted her as the bad guy. Gordon wrote:

This isn’t about whether a girl is struggling with her sexuality, or about how a Church leader handled it. This is a clear case of hijacking a meeting, promoting false teachings, and exploiting a child’s inexperience to create a media event.

Savannah’s mother, Heather Kester, said that those words hurt. But she hopes that in the long run, her daughter’s speech could help bring about some positive change in the church. Savannah said she wanted to support other LGBT Mormons. “There’s been a lot of homicides or deaths, and a lot of them have been kicked out from their house because they have not been accepted by their parents, and that’s really hard,” she said.

The Mormon Church differentiates between “having homosexual feelings,” and acting on those feelings. According to a column on the website of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “People who experience same-sex attraction or identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual can make and keep covenants with God and fully and worthily participate in the Church.” However, as soon as they act on those feelings, they commit a sin.

Last fall, the Mormon Church added a web page to its official website, in support of people that are Mormon and identify as LGBT. But the site still carries the same message; that being gay is wrong. It states that a marriage is to be between a man and a woman and that “will not change,” and warns that sexual desire can be fluid, so that young people shouldn’t rush to conclusions about their sexuality.

Many gay Mormons say this approach is not good enough. As recently as 2015, the church adopted a new policy that said same-sex couples who are married are to be seen as apostates. They could be forced to undergo disciplinary hearings and could be kicked out of the church. Children of a same-sex couple could not join the Mormon church until after they turn 18, and only after moving out from their parent’s home and publicly disavowing same-sex marriage.

This little girl is so brave. I think we can all learn something from her. Great job Savannah. ️‍https://t.co/qlaWuYQtsf

— Ally ️‍ (@ALeeStevens) June 18, 2017

“No part of me is a mistake. I do not choose to be this way, and it is not a fad,” Savannah said in her speech. This is a very brave thing to say when you are 12 years old. And she doesn’t seem to regret it, it even though the leader of the church cut her short by switching off the microphone.

“I think they did that because they didn’t want my message,” Savannah said on Wednesday. “I don’t want to be mean to them if this isn’t true, but I felt like they were scared of me and what I was saying.”

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Mormon Church Cut Off Microphone When Young Girl Came Out as Gay appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Donald Trump’s Chaotic Press Conference

Yesterday, President Donald Trump held a spontaneous press conference and announced that his new pick for the Secretary of Labor is Alexander Acosta, who will be “a tremendous secretary of labor,” according to Trump. But the rest of the presser was a classic Trump-show. He denounced the media and called it “so dishonest.” He said he “inherited a mess” from President Barack Obama and that all the jobs are “pouring out of” the U.S. He said he also wanted to “update the American people on the incredible progress that has been made in the last four weeks since my inauguration.” Trump claimed that reports of chaos in the White House are totally wrong and that the “administration is running like a fine-tuned machine.”

Trump’s press conference achieved virtually nothing, except scaring the bejesus out of the world. https://t.co/zdEEH9RGuh

— The New Yorker (@NewYorker) February 17, 2017

Trump avoided answering questions about whether his campaign had been in touch with Russia, but criticized Hillary Clinton and Obama. And when reporter April Ryan asked whether he would meet with the Congressional Black Caucus, he interrupted her and said, “Do you want to set up the meeting? Are they friends of yours?”

I am a journalist not a convener! But thank you for answering my questions. https://t.co/fe9cGXG46w

— AprilDRyan (@AprilDRyan) February 16, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: February 17, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Taiwan is poised to become the first country in Asia to legalize same-sex marriage. Lawmakers from the country’s ruling Democratic Progressive Party are working on three marriage equality bills at the moment, one of which is expected to pass within the next few months.

Relative to the rest of Asia, Taiwan is progressive in its social attitudes. Polls suggest most citizens, especially young people, support same-sex marriage, and President Tsai Ing-wen, Taiwan’s first female leader, is a marriage equality advocate as well. “Every person should be able to look for love freely, and freely seek their own happiness,” she said at the gay pride parade in Taipei, the largest in Asia, last year. This year’s parade drew thousands of people.

Taiwan has a vibrant LGBT community. Unlike some other Asian nations, same-sex intercourse is legal in Taiwan, as is sexual reassignment surgery. Discrimination based on sexual orientation is banned in workplaces and schools. Taipei has a “gay village,” with gay bars and shops. McDonald’s aired a commercial in Taiwan in which a son tells his father he is gay (over a McCafe coffee). The video came out on YouTube in March, and has garnered over two million views and thousands of likes.

If Taiwan legalizes same-sex marriage over the next few months, it will become the first Asian nation to do so (including the Middle East), and will join a list of over 20 countries that have done the same. Taiwanese citizens seem to support marriage equality, including 80 percent of people ages 20 to 29, according to one recent study.

A 2013 poll found that 53 percent of Taiwan supports gay marriage, with Catholics and Protestants as the main opposition, though both groups combined only account for six percent of the entire population. LGBT people still struggle with coming out to their parents and grandparents, as homosexuality is still a taboo among older generations.

Friction exists among lawmakers as well. Some members of the main opposition Nationalist Party’s Central Standing Committee oppose same-sex marriage. In 2013, they helped halt a bill that would have legalized same sex marriage. But as the effort is gaining support among the public and the Legislative Yuan (Taiwan’s lawmaking body), same-sex marriages will likely be a reality in Taiwan soon enough.

President Tsai would certainly like to lead her country in that direction. “In the face of love, everyone is equal,” she said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Taiwan Set to Become First Asian Nation to Legalize Same-Sex Marriage appeared first on Law Street.

Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore previously ordered local judges to defy federal guidelines allowing same-sex marriage. But on Friday he was suspended from his position by a unanimous vote from the Alabama Court of the Judiciary, the COJ. Moore will also have to pay for the legal proceedings against him and will not be compensated for the remainder of his term, which is set to end in 2019.

But the decision to suspend Moore is not because Alabama has become more open-minded. The court pointed out that the decision was not technically because of the Supreme Court’s ruling that allows same-sex marriage–Alabama adopted a law in 2016 that says only straight couples can marry–but because of Moore’s behavior and decisions.

Roy Moore, Alabama’s chief justice, has been essentially been fired for his defiance to marriage equality. https://t.co/6cc0sa9bv3

— Jamil Smith (@JamilSmith) September 30, 2016

Earlier this year, Moore ordered local judges to go against the federal ruling that allows same-sex marriage and stop the issuance of marriage licenses to gay couples, which created chaos in the state’s marriage license offices. He was charged with six counts of violation of the canons of judicial ethics. Moore on his part claimed he was only providing judges a “status update.” The COJ did not buy that explanation, but couldn’t agree on whether or not to remove him from office, which left them with the option to suspend him. There is no real difference in practice between removing and suspending someone from office.

Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) first filed the complaint against Moore that later led to the charges against him. SPLC President Richard Cohen was relieved on Friday, saying in a statement:

The Court of the Judiciary has done the citizens of Alabama a great service by suspending Roy Moore from the bench. He disgraced his office and undermined the integrity of the judiciary by putting his personal religious beliefs above his sworn duty to uphold the U.S. Constitution. Moore was elected to be a judge, not a preacher. It’s something that he never seemed to understand. The people of Alabama who cherish the rule of law are not going to miss the Ayatollah of Alabama.

SPLC tweeted the six charges against Moore.

Here are the judicial canons Ala. Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore is guilty of violating: https://t.co/H8DqRKzv1A pic.twitter.com/gvmYv6j53F

— SPLC (@splcenter) September 30, 2016

Moore was previously removed from office in 2003 for his refusal to take down a Ten Commandments monument from a judicial building, despite orders from a federal court. He then claimed he was removed because of his acknowledgement of God, and voters re-elected him in 2012. But this time Moore, 69, cannot run again because of the age restriction for the position.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Alabama Chief Justice Suspended Over Anti-Gay Marriage Order appeared first on Law Street.

As the Republican National Convention–which will be held in Cleveland, Ohio–approaches, the GOP is drafting its platform. A party’s platform doesn’t set any requirements or binding language, but it does provide guidance for the party’s direction in coming years. It can be an opportunity for a party to show that it’s made progress on issues, or that it’s ready to move in an optimistic direction. Unfortunately, this year it seems that the GOP is once again taking an archaic view on social issues. Here’s a look at some of the crazy things that have come up in platform talks:

Pornography

The GOP may be taking a stand against porn, deeming it a “public health crisis.” The draft party platform currently includes an amendment written by Mary Frances Forrester, a delegate from North Carolina, that states:

The internet must not become a safe haven for predators. Pornography, with its harmful effects, especially on children, has become a public health crisis that is destroying the life of millions. We encourage states to continue to fight this public menace and pledge our commitment to children’s safety and well-being. We applaud the social networking sites that bar sex offenders from participation. We urge energetic prosecution of child pornography which closely linked to human trafficking.

While fighting human trafficking is certainly laudable, the rest of the amendment is a bit overdramatic, and there’s no real evidence to suggest that porn has destroyed the lives of millions.

Gay Marriage

After  gay marriage’s big SCOTUS win last summer and the fact that almost 60 percent of Americans support same-sex marriage, you would think that the GOP would cool it on insisting that marriage can only be between one man and one woman. You’d be wrong.

Some on the platform committee–including Rachel Hoff, the first gay individual to sit on that committee–wanted to soften the GOP’s language on gay marriage. But they were overwhelmingly voted down. For now, it appears that opposition to same sex marriage will stay in the platform.

Bathroom Mania

There was the HB 2 craziness in North Carolina earlier this year. Now, multiple states are suing the Obama Administration over a directive that requires public schools to allow students to use the bathroom that conforms with their gender identity. So, it follows that there would be language about bathrooms in this year’s GOP platform draft. Here’s a draft of that language:

This is the draft language opposing Obama admin’s guidance to schools re: trans kids and bathrooms/locker rooms pic.twitter.com/OyWfVaxbB5

— Liz Goodwin (@lizcgoodwin) July 11, 2016

Log Cabin Republicans President Gregory Angelo talked to the Daily Signal, and made a good point about how ridiculous this addition seems:

This is a foolish issue to nationalize and talk about within the Republican Party platform. It literally drags the platform into the gutter when so many people who are on this committee seem hell-bent with some obsession with bathroom use.

Conversion Therapy

Another socially conservative issue that became a topic of discussion was gay conversion therapy. Delegate Tony Perkins, who heads up the Family Research Council introduced conversion therapy language into an amendment and the subcommittee voted to approve it. Gay conversion therapy (sometimes called reparative therapy) is a discredited practice that attempts to change an individual’s sexual orientation, and has been banned by multiple states. Perkins stated:

It’s what it says, it’s whatever therapy that a parent wants to get for a minor child. There’s states that are trying to restrict what parents can do for loving their children. Parents have a better idea I think than legislators or government bureaucrats.

via GIPHY

What’s Next?

And there you have it, all the crazy stuff that could be included in the GOP platform. Nothing is set in stone yet, but the fact that some of these topics were even up for discussion isn’t a great sign when it comes to social progress in the U.S.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will the GOP Platform Stay Stuck in the Past? appeared first on Law Street.

Ever wonder how lawyers and law professionals keep their cool, or lack thereof, while discussing polarizing issues such as abortion, gay rights, or police brutality? I was very curious about this precise topic while I was walking around the halls of the 2016 AALS Annual Meeting, deciding which session to attend. I scrolled through the handy-dandy AALS app and found a session called Law and Religion: a conversation about religious responses to same-sex marriage. Bingo! I took one of the last empty seats in the nearly-full room and prepared for a theological and legislative showdown.

I was slightly disappointed when, to my dismay, moderator Michael Helfand carefully navigated the contentious issue at hand.

A few different viewpoints were represented by the speakers of the panel. New York Times reporter Erik Eckholm spoke about his experiences covering the gay marriage beat. Professor Katherine Franke of Columbia University spoke about discrimination in the LGBT community, particularly surrounding the issues of civil unions and legal marriage. Russell Reno, editor of the conservative religious journal First Things, discussed the role of morality in modern law. Kevin Walsh delivered his views about the changing social view of gay marriage in America, as well as a few (in my opinion, slightly problematic) remarks surrounding the “abandonment” of the definition of marriage. Robin F. Wilson spoke eloquently about same-sex marriage, religious liberty, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (aka RFRA).

Despite the opposing views of a few members on the panel, each speaker presented his or her viewpoint with respect and extremely high levels of academic integrity. (Many of the speakers are published, if not celebrated, legal studies authors.)

I was originally drawn to this topic because I thought same-sex marriage was an extremely polarizing subject. Don’t get me wrong, it is definitely polarizing–especially if you have been unlucky enough to bring up the subject at a family dinner where someone starts citing the Bible and bringing up the argument that “homosexuality is a sin.” But the reality at the AALS meeting was that the topic was not discussed at a dinner table in between servings of mashed potatoes and burnt brussel sprouts. As my seat-neighbor David Pimentel mentioned, everyone presented their views respectfully while still acknowledging that their perspectives were different from that of their peers. It was at this moment that I wished law school students could have sat in on the discussion, because it was truly a master class on professionalism.

I took a very different approach later in the day when I scanned the AALS schedule looking for a second session to attend. Instead of seeking out controversy, I looked for a course where I hoped to learn something new. My wish was granted when I sat in on the Civil Rights session. Gilda Daniels, Professor Lynda Dodd, Angela Mae Kupenda, Audrey McFarlane, and Kindaka Sanders all appeared on the panel. My non-law school educated mind zero-ed in on three main topics that were discussed: affordable housing, the use of technology to facilitate equality, and police brutality. Audrey McFarlane spoke about how inequality leads to housing challenges, especially in urban environments such as New York City. She brought up the “poor door” debacle in New York back in April of 2015. Essentially, the story goes that there was a luxury apartment building that set aside a few units for lower-income tenants, as stipulated by the city’s Inclusionary Housing Program. However, the owner of the building ordered two different entrances to be made; one large and elegant entrance for the luxury tenants, and one smaller, simpler entrance for the lower income tenants. Even after controversy arose regarding the disparity between the two entrances, 88,000 people applied for the 55 available units.

McFarlane noted that even now, in the 21st century, people are opting to “take a little discrimination” if it means that they can move to a safer and more affordable neighborhood. McFarlane questioned the practice of inclusionary housing, and urged her fellow colleagues to think about new and innovative ways to make safe housing available to families living in public housing. Would that mean implementing a lottery system wherein a family could have the chance to move from the Bronx to the suburbs? Is integration the goal, or is access? Will creating more community centers improve a neighborhood?

Gilda Daniels and Professor Lynda Dodd brought up ideas surrounding social equality and technology. Specifically, Professor Dodd mentioned Campaign Zero, which is an online initiative that seeks to end police violence through comprehensive policy reform. Their infographics are easily digestible, and all of their information is carefully researched by four leading Black Lives Matter Activists; Samuel Sinyangwe, Brittany Packnett, DeRay McKesson, and Johnetta Elzie. With the rise of social media, activists in rural areas are not limited to convening only in local areas, where it might be difficult to organize people in a physical space. The internet allows for the organization of like-minded individuals no matter where they are physically located.

When I spoke with Angela Mae Kupenda, she also mentioned the importance of staying connected to civil rights groups through the use of technology. “I think social media plays a major role in reinvigorating a movement, because it gets the information out, so that people know what’s going on,” Professor Kupenda said,

It also inspires students. If you see what’s happening at other schools or other cities, you can immediately know what’s going on. That can inspire you to do something the same way, or to do something different.

Mixing tech-talk with good old-fashioned books, Professor Kupenda also offered up a suggested reading list for professors or students who are interested in civil rights history. Her picks include “Reproducing Racism” by Daria Roithmayr and “Black Like Me” by John Howard Griffin, an account of how a white reporter went “undercover” as a black man in the Deep South of the 1950s.

Kindaka Sanders spoke about police brutality, and the concept of self-policing a local community. When he spoke about the Black Panther Party openly and legally carrying guns until the law was changed to prevent open-carry opportunities, I thought of the recent open-carry announcement in Texas. (Namely, that as of January 1, 2015, any person who has a license for a firearm can legally open carry in the state of Texas, even if they are not a resident of the state).

Many Texans support the new open-carry law, but what would happen if a group of young black men (ala the Black Panther Party) decided to re-appropriate the law and follow Texas police officers while showcasing their right to open-carry?

This session on Civil Rights was food for thought–in fact, it was an entire banquet for me. So often, college graduates (or people who have not sat in a classroom for a long time) can get sucked into their own bubble of issues. Living in the tri-state area, I sometimes take it for granted that many people around me support same-sex marriage and gay rights. Sitting in on the Law and Religion session reminded me that although this country has made progress in the realm of gay rights, we still have a long way to go to bring LGBT issues into mainstream conversations and legislation. Similarly, after listening to the speakers of the Civil Rights session, I have realized that it is imperative that lawyers and policy makers address and rectify the systemic racism that is still very much alive today.

Through attending sessions at the AALS Annual Meeting and interacting with other people involved in law academia, I was able to step outside of my bubble and think of issues that affected Americans on a macro scale, not just on my own teeny tiny micro level. I would urge anyone interested in the AALS to definitely check out their website (found here) and consider attending next year’s meeting in San Francisco.

Corinne Fitamant

Corinne Fitamant is a graduate of Fordham College at Lincoln Center where she received a Bachelors degree in Communications and a minor in Theatre Arts. When she isn’t pondering issues of social justice and/or celebrity culture, she can be found playing the guitar and eating chocolate. Contact Corinne at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Law, Religion, and Civil Rights: Adventure at the AALS Annual Meeting appeared first on Law Street.

Normally when we hear about a parent trying to marry their adopted kid, images of a perverted Woody Allen and his much younger daughter/wife paint a cringeworthy picture. However, this story of a Pennsylvanian father and his adopted son trying to tie the knot is easily one of the most beautifully heartbreaking stories you’ll hear today.

Let me introduce you to Nino Esposito, 78, and his partner Drew Bosee, 68. After meeting at a church in Pittsburgh on Easter in 1970, the pair fell in love and have spent the past 45 years together. But after 40 years together the couple worried that they would never live to see the day when they could legally marry in their state. So in 2012, Esposito took advantage of a legal loophole and adopted Bosee in order to gain inheritance rights and other benefits afforded to straight couples. Now that same-sex marriage is legal nationwide, Esposito is trying to marry his adopted son, but a judge is refusing to reverse the adoption.

Man adopted partner after 40+ years together, but now they’re trying to undo that and marry: https://t.co/BoikNBnave pic.twitter.com/Ct4uasoKY3

— New Day (@NewDay) November 3, 2015

Judge Lawrence J. O’Toole, of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County said that he was “sensitive to the situation,” but still ruled against the couple, recommending that a higher court rule on the issue.

O’Toole noted that revoking an adoption in circumstances other than fraud “would place in jeopardy and imperil adoption decrees generally,” according to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

But this kind of legal maneuver isn’t uncommon for gay couples. The ACLU of Pennsylvania told CNN that it learned of many couples across the country who “lawfully took advantage of adoption laws in order to protect their relationships.” Esposito and Bosee even knew of other couples who successfully annulled their adoptions in order to get married.

Bosee, who is a former freelance writer, talked about his predicament saying,

It’s sort of ironic that by doing the adoption, we thought we were getting ahead of the game. But instead of being a help, it’s become a roadblock, a hindrance, to what we should be allowed to do now.

Esposito and Bosee have already take O’Toole’s advice and filed an appeal to the state Superior Court to annul the adoption. Arguments are expected to get underway in early December. Yet, the elderly couple still feels like they’re in a race against the clock to finally have their union recognized. Bosee said,

We thought we wouldn’t live to see what the Supreme Court did this year with same sex marriage throughout the country. Now, we’re concerned we’re not going to live to see our own marriage happen

Hopefully that doesn’t happen, and Esposito and Bosee get a happy ending to their story.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Man Tries to Marry Adopted Son: Don’t Worry, it’s Not Actually Creepy appeared first on Law Street.

It may only be Stephen Colbert’s second week in the “Late Show” chair, but that didn’t stop him from seriously quizzing Texas Senator and Republican Presidential Candidate Ted Cruz  Monday night on Ronald Reagan, gay marriage, and the Constitution.

Reagan and his policies have been at the forefront of the Republican race following last week’s second Republican primary debate in the Reagan library. So much so, that candidates have begun comparing themselves in one way or another to the 40th president, despite their actual positions on key topics proving the contrary.

So when Cruz brought Reagan up, Colbert jumped at the chance to weed out another Reagan wannabee.

Here’s a clip from the interview below:

But if you either a. don’t have a pair of headphones handy, b. don’t have four and a half minutes to spare, or c. would prefer to read my attempt at witty commentary, enjoy some of the interview highlights below:

Colbert: “Reagan raised taxes, okay. Reagan actually had an amnesty program for illegal immigrants. Neither of those things would allow Reagan to be nominated today. So to what level can you truly emulate Ronald Reagan?”

Noting that Reagan worked across the aisle with Democratic Speaker of the House Tip O’Neil to get shit done, he continued:

“Isn’t that what people want more than anything else. Not just principles, but actions.”

Cruz:  Says no voter has told him that they want him to “give in more to Barack Obama.”

Colbert: Continued to press Cruz on whether or not he agrees with Reagan on raising taxes and amnesty for illegal immigrants.

Cruz: “No, of course not. But Ronald Reagan also signed the largest tax cut in history. He reduced government regulations from Washington, and economic growth exploded.”

Colbert: Quickly reminds Cruz that “when conditions changed in the country, he reversed his world’s largest tax cut and raised taxes when revenues did not match the expectations, so it’s a matter of compromising.”

(Did you hear that Cruz? Successful government requires compromise, not forced shutdowns.)

Cruz: Steers the conversation to his platform, telling Colbert that in a nutshell he thinks the country should “live within our means, stop bankrupting our kids and grandkids, and follow the Constitution.”

Colbert: “And no gay marriage?”

Cruz: “Well no , let’s be precise: Under the Constitution, marriage is a question for the states.”

Colbert: “It doesn’t mention marriage in the Constitution.”

(Oh snap.)

Cruz: “The 10th Amendment says that if the Constitution doesn’t mention it, it’s a question for the states. … I don’t think we should entrust governing our society to five unelected lawyers in Washington.”

Colbert: Has to silence the audience’s boos for Cruz.

Cruz: “If you want to win an issue, go to the ballot box and win at the ballot box.”

Touche, Cruz. So how about you get back to me after you win at the ballot box. But right now i’m awarding this political showdown Colbert-1, Cruz-0.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Stephen Colbert Owns Ted Cruz on Reagan, Gay Marriage, and the Constitution appeared first on Law Street.

There has been quite a bit circulating in the news recently about a certain Kentucky clerk who refused to give marriage licenses to gay couples. The clerk in question, Kim Davis, ended up in jail for contempt of court and was released a few days later. She emerged from prison to a crowd of supporters and did a victory march to a song some of you may have heard of:

“Eye of the Tiger” is the most recognizable song written and performed by band Survivor, who, needless to say, was not happy.

I have not authorized the use of Eye of the Tiger for use by Kim Davis and my publisher will issue a C&D. This does not reflect my views.

— Jim Peterik (@jimpeterik) September 9, 2015

Peterik co-wrote the song, and after the band’s intention to serve a cease and desist order was publicly shared, a rumor began circulating that Davis would soon find herself sued for $1.2 million dollars.

But as much as we would all enjoy seeing this display of homophobia punished with such a hefty price tag, unfortunately, there is no evidence that it will happen.

The rumor seems to have spread from this article posted on NBC.com.co–a blog site with no actual affiliation to the National Broadcasting Company and a reputation for fake stories. Fake news tends to travel fast.

But, while it may have been untrue, it is just an exaggeration of Survivor’s outrage and legal intent. In a comment to CNN, Peterik said “I was gobsmacked. We were not asked about this at all. The first time we saw it was on national TV.”

Davis has not commented on the cease and desist order, but it looks like she will be “rising up to the challenge” of finding a new theme song.

The use of the motivational song “Eye of the Tiger” for Kim Davis’ purposes is disturbing for several reasons, not the least of which being that her actions are not inspirational. At all. And while we do enjoy freedom of religion in this country, what Davis did was not a reflection of that freedom. We are given the right to practice–or not practice–any religion. We are not, however, given the freedom to deny someone else’s rights, or to force our beliefs on other people. Especially when doing so would go against the commitment made to a job with the United States government.

The United States is a country that has a diverse mix of cultures, religions included. So, Kim Davis, while you may not agree with U.S. law, not everyone shares your viewpoints. If you cannot perform the job you agreed to perform, then quit. Problem solved.

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post No, Survivor Isn’t Suing Kim Davis–But They Aren’t Happy With Her appeared first on Law Street.

Kim Davis, the clerk who has now gained national notoriety from her refusal to issue marriage licenses to anyone in Rowan County, Kentucky, is in quite a bit of trouble. After her refusal to do her job in the name of protesting the legalization of gay marriage, she was put in jail. But if Davis is looking for crowdsourced help to get her out of that trouble, and the possible fines she may face moving forward, she’s going to have some issues. One of the biggest crowd-funding sites–Go Fund Me–has updated its policies to make it impossible for her to set up a fundraiser.

GoFundMe’s New Policy Prevents Conservatives From Raising Cash For Kim Davis http://t.co/KYWrwX2YgF pic.twitter.com/Obhk1d28dK

— Lnonblonde (@Lnonblonde) September 4, 2015

Go Fund Me has traditionally been a tool for good. Many use it to raise money for those suffering from a debilitating illness or for some other worthy cause. But many Go Fund Me campaigns have also led to plenty of controversy. For example, fellow Law Streeter Taelor Bentley recently wrote an article on how Dylann Roof’s sister attempted to use Go Fund Me to raise money for her dream wedding.

But, that probably won’t be the case for Davis. When another controversial Go Fund Me made the news–a couple whose bakery was fined $135,000 for refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple–Go Fund Me cancelled it. The company then updated its policies. According to its terms and conditions, Go Fund Me will not allow “campaigns in defense of formal charges or claims of heinous crimes, violent, hateful, sexual or discriminatory acts.”

Go Fund Me has been consistent with this policy. When supporters tried to raise money for the legal fees of the police officers charged in the death of Freddie Gray, a Go Fund Me spokeswoman elaborated on the policy to the Baltimore Sun, stating:

GoFundMe cannot be used to benefit those who are charged with serious violations of the law. The campaign clearly stated that the money raised would be used to assist the officers with their legal fees, which is a direct violation of GoFundMe’s terms. Specifically, ‘campaigns in defense of formal charges or claims of heinous crimes, violent, hateful, sexual or discriminatory acts’ are not permitted on GoFundMe.

So, Davis probably won’t be able to crowdsource her potential fines, as well as some most likely hefty legal fees, at least not by using Go Fund Me. That doesn’t mean she is without supporters. For example, there was a rally full of Davis supporters at the Carter County Detention Center earlier today. Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee is also holding a rally in support of Davis. But, you probably won’t be seeing any invitations to “fund” her pop up anytime soon.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post No Kim Davis: We Won’t “Go Fund You” appeared first on Law Street.

UPDATE: A federal judge sent Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis to jail after ruling that she was in contempt of court. Judge David L. Bunning said that Davis will remain in jail until she tells her staff to begin issuing marriage licenses again. Although the lawyers suing Davis asked the judge to use fines rather than jail to compel her to follow the court order, Judge Bunning ultimately decided that a fine would not be sufficient to do so. Judge Bunning also warned that allowing Davis to disobey the court order could create a “ripple effect” allowing other officials to refuse to follow orders on religious grounds.

“I pay your salary, I’m paying for you to discriminate against me right now. That’s what i’m paying for.”

That’s what an exasperated David Moore had to say to a Kentucky clerk, after she again refused to issue him and his partner David Ermold a marriage license Tuesday morning–this time in violation of a judge’s order.

Rowan County clerk Kim Davis’ emergency request to deny marriage licenses on the basis of her religious beliefs was rejected without comment Monday by the Supreme Court. Davis, who is an Apostolic Christian, has said that issuing marriage licenses to gay couples would be in violation of her conscious, and is what she calls a “heaven and hell decision.”

Davis stopped issuing marriage licenses all together in her county just days after the Supreme Court’s landmark marriage equality ruling determined gay couples had the legal right to wed. Her reason for denying all couples licenses was that she didn’t want to discriminate.

Shortly after, two gay couples and two straight couples sued her, arguing that as an elected official the government required her to issue licenses despite her religious beliefs. But even after a federal judge, an appeals court, and her governor ordered her to begin issuing licenses, Davis continued to deny eligible couples. Instead she retaliated, filing her own suit against Governor Steve Beshear [D] claiming that he violated her rights by instructing her to do her job.

At the court house Tuesday, when Davis repeatedly announced that her office would continue to forgo issuing all marriage licenses despite the Supreme Court’s ruling, Moore and Ermold asked “under whose authority?” “Under God’s authority,” she replied.

According to CNN, other clerks in the state have expressed concern over issuing same-sex couples marriage licenses, but Davis is the only one turning away eligible couples. However, in Alabama 13 of 67 counties have stopped issuing marriage licenses altogether.

Now for most people, repeatedly refusing to do your job would get you fired, but sadly Davis is somewhat protected as an elected official. The Kentucky state legislature could decide to impeach her, but they are currently not in session and many politicians in her conservative state share her sentiments. And yet despite the threat of hefty fines and even potential jail time she still refuses to resign.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a motion in federal court to hold her in contempt of court for continuing to act in resistance to the Supreme Court’s ruling. Rather than seeking incarceration, the ACLU said that they have urged the court to impose financial penalties that are “sufficiently serious” to compel her immediate compliance. But if her track record is any indication of how she’ll act moving forward, there’s little that can be done to stop her agenda.

Some have asked why the couples being turned away by Davis don’t just go to another county to get a license. To that, April Miller, who was denied a marriage license with her partner Karen Roberts for a third time Tuesday in Rowan County said, “it would set a dangerous precedent to let it go.” She continued saying,

I respect her for standing up for what she believes in — I know that’s hard to do, because we’re doing that, too. I’m just sorry that she’s interjecting her personal beliefs above her government job duties.

Davis has been ordered to appear before a judge at 11 am on Thursday to determine if she is in fact in contempt of court. Till then, couples in Rowan County hoping to get hitched may have to put all plans for nuptials on hold.

Kevin Rizzo contributed to this story.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Update: Kentucky Clerk Still Refuses to Issue Same-Sex Marriage Licenses appeared first on Law Street.

The White House is the center of power and the home of the president. But what’s going on outside the hallowed halls? We sent Law Streeter Symon Rowlands to go check out “Who’s at the White House.” Check out the results below:

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Who’s at the White House appeared first on Law Street.

Same-sex marriage is legal in all 50 states and a majority of Americans are thrilled with the landmark Supreme Court decision. Millions of people used Facebook’s rainbow flag photo-editing tool to shade their profile pictures in “celebration of pride.” On Twitter, #LoveWins became the victory cry of marriage equality proponents. On Instagram, prominent celebrities such as Beyoncé, Miley Cyrus, and Lady Gaga posted pictures of themselves to show support. A nation that was overwhelmingly against gay marriage just 15 years ago is suddenly in agreement that this is a good thing.

I have mixed feelings about all of this.

On one hand, I support gay marriage and the notion that gay people should have the legal right to marry and start a family. At the same time, there is a difference between promoting tolerance and forcing acceptance. The Supreme Court decided to force acceptance when it declared laws banning gay marriage unconstitutional, refusing to wait for the gay marriage discussion to reach its natural conclusion in each state. After reading hundreds of social media posts about gay marriage, a vast majority of which mock gay marriage opponents with a “you are ignorant if you don’t agree with me” attitude, it appears most Americans are following suit. This is sad because American society was so close to achieving the wholesale attitude change necessary for true tolerance. Now, in an ironic twist of fate, gay marriage opponents are victims of the condescension of another “majority.”

The gay marriage debate is really a matter of semantics that revolves around one question: What is the definition of marriage? The most intriguing argument against gay marriage is that of the “slippery slope,” or the idea that legalizing same-sex marriage may lead toward legalizing all sorts of “unconventional” marriages. In his dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts argued, “much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.” The same can be said for incest.

Nearly all arguments against gay marriage apply to incest and polygamy. It’s unnatural, they say–marriage is meant to be between a man and a woman. Think about the social problems. Children should be raised in traditional households. What about people taking advantage of the tax incentives? Drawing the line at incest and polygamy is fine. Justifying that line with the notion that incest and polygamy offend modern sensibilities is not. This is a justification that gay marriage supporters, now the majority of Americans, should be disgusted by.

When I brought up this issue to a gay friend, he had an interesting point. Polygamists and people who enjoy incestuous relations still have the right to marry a member of the gender they are attracted to despite being barred from marrying a family member or having multiple spouses. For gays, a ban on gay marriage eliminates the possibility to marry the entire population segment they are attracted to, he reasoned.

I don’t buy this argument.

In LSAT circles, they call this Begging the Question fallacy, or assuming the conclusion of an argument. My friend set out to find an argument that validates gay marriage in a way that doesn’t also validate polygamy or incest, and this is the situation-specific justification he arrived at. It is entirely possible that a person is only attracted to people within his own family, or is only capable of expressing love when he has multiple partners. I have yet to find a reasonable justification for allowing gay marriage while banning polygamous and incestuous marriages.

So, I have mixed feelings about all of this. I have mixed feelings about the role of government in the institution of marriage. I have mixed feelings about the new “celebrate pride” majority and their pompous definitions of ignorance and love. I have mixed feelings about my own sensibilities and the hypocrisy of supporting gay marriage while opposing polygamy and incest.

I have mixed feelings about marriage equality, and what it really means.

Hyunjae Ham

Hyunjae Ham is a member of the University of Maryland Class of 2015 and a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Hyunjae at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post I Have Mixed Feelings About Gay Marriage appeared first on Law Street.

The Supreme Court delivered a landmark decision today that will change America forever. After a 5-4 ruling, same-sex couples finally have the right to marry across the country. States are now required to license and recognize same-sex marriages, making marriage equality the law of the land.

I headed down to the Supreme Court at 9:30 AM to witness this landmark decision. The happiness outside the Supreme Court this morning was palpable. Rainbow flags adorned with equal signs, same-sex couples with intertwined fingers, and allies wearing smiles of hope all gathered this morning to celebrate, to congratulate, and to experience the exhilarating momentum of the decision.

Media crews await the court’s word moments before the marriage equality decision is delivered.

Image Courtesy of Emily Dalgo, Law Street Media

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Love Is Loud and Now It’s Legal: America Celebrates Marriage Equality appeared first on Law Street.

Today, there is a historic vote in the Republic of Ireland. It’s poised to become the first country to legalize same-sex marriage through a referendum. While select other nations allow same-sex marriage, those laws have come about as the result of a court decision or through legislation being passed. Ireland would be the first nation to legalize gay marriage through a popular vote, which is required to change its constitution. Given Ireland’s complicated relationship with religion, the fact that this nation has become the battleground for a gay marriage vote says quite a bit about the waning influence of Catholicism in the country.

The question posed to voters about the matter will be a “yes” or “no” one; they’ll be asked to confirm or deny the statement that: “Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.” The vote has been widely discussed on social media, with hashtags like #YesEquality and #VoteYes taking the lead. There’s also been social media coverage of many Irish citizens living in various places abroad who are returning home to cast their votes.

Many young people had travelled from as far as New York and Brussels especially to cast their vote #hometovote pic.twitter.com/2j0zMgCNC0

— Carole Leger (@CaroleLeger) May 22, 2015

Look at this!! #hometovote Dublin Airport last night with People coming home to VOTE pic.twitter.com/G2U4MdyD5k

— David O’Reilly (@DavidOReilly25) May 22, 2015

Ireland has an incredibly long and storied Catholic tradition, and roughly 85 percent of Irish people identify as Catholic. The Catholic Church in Ireland has stood in opposition to the campaign to legalize same-sex marriage. For example, the Catholic Iona Institute, along with other groups, have advocated for a “no” vote in today’s referendum. Common arguments cited in this debate over marriage equality appear to include the old argument about “redefining” marriage, despite the fact that this would only create the opportunity for same-sex civil marriages. There’s also concern from “No” voters over the prospect of children being raised by gay parents, despite the fact that such concerns have been handily debunked in numerous studies.

The fact that polls are looking very promising for the “Yes” voters–from what I’ve seen they’ve ranged from about 70-80 percent voting yes–really does say a lot about the future of Ireland as a Catholic stronghold. Of course, it hasn’t just been the Catholic Church’s hesitancy when it comes to social issues like gay marriage that have led to waning support. The highly publicized sexual abuse and pedophilia scandals of the last few decades garnered the Catholic Church significant amounts of criticism. For example, in 2011 a survey found that just 18 percent of Catholics in Ireland were regularly attending mass. That’s an incredibly sharp decline from 1984, when it was reported that 90 percent of practicing Catholics attended mass on a regular basis.

So, despite Ireland’s Catholic tradition, the campaign to allow marriage equality has moved forward. While the vote totals probably won’t be released until tomorrow, there’s been a large wave of support for the “Yes” vote to legalize marriage equality. Ireland, despite all odds, does seem in a good position to make history and become the first nation to legalize same-sex marriage by popular vote.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is Ireland About to Make History? appeared first on Law Street.

Last week I wrote about the Supreme Court beginning to hear arguments in a historic gay marriage case that could potentially lead to same-sex marriage being approved nationally. And while many rejoiced at the possibility of loving couples across the country finally being able to marry in all 50 states, others adamantly disapproved, turning to their keyboards to share their objections online. However, one Nebraska woman took her opposition to same-sex couples to new heights by deciding to sue all homosexuals. Yes, you read that correctly, the defendant in this case is listed as “Homosexuals.”

According to the Omaha.com, Sylvia Ann Driskell, 66, a self-identified ambassador for God and his son, Jesus Christ, is asking the U.S. District Court of Omaha to decide if homosexuality is a sin or not.

In an apparent seven-page letter sent to the court, Driskell cited Bible passages describing homosexuality as an abomination arguing,

That homosexuality is a sin and that they the homosexuals know it is a sin to live a life of homosexuality. Why else would they have been hiding in the closet(?)

Patheos was able to obtain a copy of the Driskell’s lawsuit, and let me tell you, it is just as bizarre as you would think. Besides being completely handwritten, the letter is written as if Driskell herself believes the true plaintiffs are God and Jesus, and she is merely representing them.

This is a Nebraska woman’s actual (handwritten) petition to sue all “homosexuals.” #LGBT http://t.co/z4iKfv2sBl pic.twitter.com/rJzIGCPcJ6

— Robert Crawford (@jurassicpork59) May 5, 2015

She ends her letter with the following passage (misspellings and all):

I’m sixty six years old, an I never thought that I would see the day in which our Great Nation or Our Great State of Nebraska would become so compliant to the complicity of some peoples lewd behavior.

Why are judges passing laws, so sinners can break religious and moral laws?

Will all the judges of this Nation, judge God to be a lier?

Driskell is said to be representing herself–and apparently, by extension God and Jesus–in the case, which comes as no surprise since no lawyer in their right mind would want to take her case. She is reportedly not answering calls for comments, but I think it’s fair to say both this lawsuit and this woman are a little crazy.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Nebraska Woman Sues “All Homosexuals” appeared first on Law Street.

This week the Supreme Court began its historic consideration into the federal legality of gay marriage. The nine justices are attempting to decide whether or not the Constitution’s Due Process and Equal Protection clauses give same-sex couples marriage rights. Currently 37 states have laws permitting same-sex marriage, but a ruling from the court in favor of the challengers would make gay marriage legal in rest of the states.

The legality of #gaymarriage on a federal level is being decided right now: https://t.co/1XiJaJyG3G

— AJ+ (@ajplus) April 29, 2015

Even though the court’s decision won’t be announced until June, people have already begun to categorize the justices in order to decide who could be the deciding factor in the case. The court’s four liberal judges appear to be ready to approve gay marriage, with moderate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy being declared the one to watch. Many are speculating that he’ll be the swing vote, like he’s been in the past. However people shouldn’t count conservative Chief Justice John Roberts out as a deciding factor. He was quoted yesterday in the court transcripts as saying,

I mean, if Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue can marry him and Tom can’t.  And the difference is based upon their different sex.  Why isn’t that a straightforward question of sexual discrimination?

Framing the legality of gay marriage in such a way may be convincing enough to move Roberts to vote with the liberal side of the court. 

The delay in a decision didn’t stop demonstrators from both sides of the argument from flooding the steps of the Supreme Court to share both support and opposition for a change in the way our country defines marriage.

Overflow crowd awaits entry to historic #SCOTUS hearing on gay marriage #WTOP pic.twitter.com/acHOOLCVIB

— Kristi King (@kingWTOP) April 28, 2015

People wait before SCOTUS ahead oral arguments on gay marriage cases Tuesday. (@pmmichalski) http://t.co/tMx9gxrxnu pic.twitter.com/jFChRMv2yo

— Your Take (@yourtake) April 28, 2015

Today KY couples will be part of history. Covering #SCOTUS case on #gaymarriage,protesters by the hundreds outside pic.twitter.com/beoBLcPWae

— Lindsay Allen (@LindAllenWDRB)

Lots of people in front of #SCOTUS ahead of gay marriage oral argument #AFP covers pic.twitter.com/SMCzVWcYBW

— Chantal Valéry (@chantalvalery) April 28, 2015

href=”https://twitter.com/LindAllenWDRB/status/593033167667392512″>April 28, 2015

Early crowds are to be expected in a landmark case of this magnitude. We can be sure to see even more people show up in June when the decision will be announced. As for now things are looking good for marriage equality supporters, but you never know which way the case could turn.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Historic Gay Marriage Case appeared first on Law Street.

Much ado has been made about the potential impacts of gay marriage on immigrants, and the potential impacts of comprehensive immigration reform on LGBTQ people. But what does all that mean? How do laws aimed at immigrants and laws aimed at LGBTQ people impact those who are both immigrants and LGBTQ? Read on to learn about the different difficulties of LGBTQ immigration, what progress is being made, and what problems still exist.

“Don’t Separate my Family”: Marriage and Immigration

When people hear about immigration and gay rights together in mainstream media sources, chances are that the conversation is about the impacts of gay marriage on immigration policy and individual couples in which one partner is an immigrant and the other is a citizen.

In the build up to the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in United States v. Windsor, which provided full federal recognition of legally married same-sex couples by striking down a critical component of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), many couples in which one partner was not a citizen were featured in efforts of advocacy for gay marriage. A perfect example is the couple featured in the YouTube clip above. In the aftermath of federal recognition of same-sex marriage, a good deal of media coverage focused on long-term lesbian and gay relationships in which one of the partners was granted legal immigration status through marriage to a citizen partner. This New York Daily News article, for example, frames the triumph of gay marriage advocates in New York through the lens of immigration, discussing same-sex marriage as a win for a binational couple’s ability to obtain a green card for one of the partners.

Legal recognition for same-sex marriage has somewhat been a boon for proponents of more accessible immigration. LGBTQ couples no longer need to live in fear that they will not be able to live together in the U.S. because their marriage isn’t recognized: after the DOMA decision, same-sex couples have the right–as straight couples do–to have an immigrant partner obtain a green card through their marriage to a citizen spouse. Prior to the DOMA decision, no federal rights of marriage, including federal taxes and federal benefits, were afforded to same-sex couples, even if they were married in a state where it was legal. There was a lack of ability to obtain a green card for an immigrant partner in a binational couple; these rights are now assured. Transgender immigrants in a binational marriage, rest assured–whether you’re in a straight or  gay/lesbian relationship, the DOMA decision ensures that you or your partner can qualify for a green card.

New Concerns After the DOMA Decision

After the DOMA decision, however, concerns remain for LGBTQ immigrant couples. For example, investigative reporter Seth Freed Wessler writes for Colorlines.com that,

The parts of the marriage-based visa process that include investigation by federal immigration officers into the validity of a marriage… [can pose a problem for] LGBT couples who may not be out to their families, communities, neighbors or bosses, the prospect of a United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) officer showing up at their apartment building or calling their mother to ask about the relationship poses a pretty serious risk.

This is indeed something to be concerned about, and it may well bar access to green cards for many LGBTQ immigrants. Yet it is precisely this articulation of the U.S. as a liberal bastion and safe-haven for LGBTQ people–juxtaposed against “homophobic” countries–that causes many LGBTQ people to critique the entire framing of same-sex marriage as a vehicle for positive immigration policy.

Many LGBTQ people argue that fighting for marriage takes away attention, energy, and resources (millions and millions of dollars worth) from addressing the underlying issues of structural racism, state oppression and heteronormativity that shape anti-immigrant and anti-LGBTQ attitudes to begin with. Queercents writer Yasmin argues that marriage “being presented as THE immigration cause for LGBT people” detracts crucial attention away from comprehensive immigration reform, which she and many others assert should be the focal point of immigration efforts. Responding to American Apparel’s same-sex marriage-inspired “Legalize Gay” shirts Yasmin writes that:

Do people wearing this t-shirt have a clue what it really means to be illegal? To be, for instance, an ‘illegal alien’ who gets swept up in an Immigration and Customs Enforcement raid and be deported soon thereafter? To not be able to travel freely because they lack the proper documentation? To pay for their school tuition and rent in cash because they lack social security numbers? [And i]t’s not just the undocumented whose lives are effectively erased by this t-shirt, but the millions who are being funneled into the prison industrial complex in order to increase its profits.

Even if an undocumented immigrant who is LGBTQ is familiar with the fears and oppressions discussed here, they may not have marriage available to them–or may not desire marriage–if they want a green card.

Executive Action and Legal Challenges

President Obama’s executive action in November 2014 that attempted to grant relief from deportation for millions of undocumented immigrants is being legally challenged by 26 states. These legal challenges have left millions of people in limbo, without knowing their status or rights, because the parents of U.S. citizens and families who were protected from deportation under his executive orders now must wait to learn what courts will decide about the legal challenges.

The impacts of Obama’s exercise of executive power (and, then, the impacts of the legal challenges to this power) for LGBTQ people have been much debated in LGBTQ communities. Staff correspondents Rachel Roubein and Lauren Fox argue in the National Journal that Obama’s actions on immigration were a tremendous help to LGBTQ people. They cite, among other things, the life-saving potential of prosecutorial discretion in immigration cases, which can prevent many LGBTQ people from being deported.

Other critics are less optimistic about the potential of Obama’s executive action to serve as the immigration overhaul that many desire, even if the cases against it are unsuccessful. Colorlines.com reporter Julianne Hung reminds her readers that:

The terms [of the action] are stringent: It will apply only to those who have been in the U.S. for five years or more; those who came to the country as young teens; and parents of U.S. citizen children and green-card holders. People with various criminal violations on their records will be barred from relief.

While these familial provisions were portrayed as being meant to keep families together, they do not grant access to many of the 267,000 undocumented LGBTQ adults who will not qualify for relief under Obama’s action because they lack these kinds of familial connections. These stringent terms may be particularly prohibitive for many of the 20,000-50,000 undocumented transgender immigrants in the country, for whom accessing potential relief will likely be particularly difficult due to virulent institutional transphobia that trans immigrants face.

“Mass Incarceration of Immigrants”

Currently, there’s a “mass incarceration of immigrants” in which the state and prison corporations generate many billions of dollars of profit from privately run and revenue-generating facilities that lock up people who are immigrants. In light of that, many LGBTQ immigrants are concerned about prisons generally, and the ways transgender people are targeted for especially horrific treatment in prisons and immigration detention centers. When the Department of Homeland Security came out with new immigration detention policies in 2014 that were aimed at preventing sexual abuse in immigration detention facilities, many lauded the changes as a victory. LGBTQ immigrants in these centers often experience much higher rates of abuse than their non-LGBTQ peers, so the changes were often welcomed by LGBTQ immigration advocates.

However, transgender immigrants did not receive adequate protections under the new guidelines. National Center for Transgender Equality director of policy Harper Jean Tobin referred to the new policies in the following way:

A tremendous missed opportunity which adds urgency to ending our multibillion-dollar mass incarceration of immigrants… The lack of adequate protections for transgender immigrants in particular makes it clear that these vulnerable individuals are not safe in detention facilities and should no longer be detained.

Many transgender asylum seekers are detained in the wrong facilities, particularly women being placed in all-male facilities, making those women targets of extreme sexual violence in immigration detention facilities.

This kind of abuse is experienced at higher rates by transgender immigrants, but LGB immigrants also are sexually abused at 15 percent higher rates than their non-LGB peers in detention facilities.

Organizations like the National Center for Transgender Equality, the National Immigrant Justice Center, and the Sylvia Rivera Project’s Immigrant Rights Project work at the intersections between immigration and LGBTQ justice. They operate in ways that attempt to make detention safer for LGBTQ immigrants specifically while also working to make detention and deportation non-existent for all immigrants.

Conclusion

For immigrants who are LGBTQ, obstacles to obtaining a green card and safety from deportation can be much greater than for immigrants who are not LGBTQ, though the obstacles and the stakes are quite high for all immigrants. Same-sex marriage may chip away at these obstacles for some LGBTQ immigrants in binational, married relationships, but more overarching reform of the system of detention and deportation of immigrants may be a more holistic way forward for LGBTQ immigrants.

Resources

Primary

Oyez: United States v. Windsor

Additional

National Immigrant Justice Center: Stop Abuse of Detained LGBT Immigrants

Sylvia Rivera Law Project: Immigrant Rights Project

National Center for Transgender Equality: Our Moment For Reform

ABC News: DOMA Ruling Could Mean Green Cards for Gay Immigrants

Colorlines: LGBT Immigrants Could Face Hard Road Applying for Green Cards

Washington Post: Gay Marriage Fight Will Cost Tens of Millions

MakeZine: Is Gay Marriage Racist?

Queercents: Legalize Gay: Or, So You Think You’re Illegal?

Queercents: Uniting American Families Act: Fact, Fiction, Money, and Emotions

Immigration Policy Center: A Guide to the Immigration Accountability Executive Action

AlJazeera: 26 States Sue Obama Over Immigration Plan

National Journal: In Immigration Action, the LGBT Community Once Again Feels Left Behind

Feministing: Is Mass Incarceration and Detention of Women Becoming the New Normal?

Center for American Progress: Dignity Denied: LGBT Immigrants in U.S. Immigration Detention

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post LGBTQ Immigration: Not Just About Marriage appeared first on Law Street.

According to the American Values Index, a project created by the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI), the United States is becoming increasingly multi-religious. The tool, which allows users to see the religious and political views of people around the country, is a fascinating use of public data and polling. It’s also an interesting look into the changing demographics and ideological priorities in the U.S.

PRRI is a nonpartisan research organization that declares its goals as follows:

PRRI’s mission is to help journalists, opinion leaders, scholars, clergy, and the general public better understand debates on public policy issues and the role of religion and values in American public life by conducting high quality public opinion surveys and qualitative research.

The United States has long been seen as a consistently white Christian nation, and demographically speaking, that characterization was fair for a long time; however, according to the American Values Index, white Christians are now a minority in 19 states. The percentage of white Christians has fallen to as low as 20 percent in Hawaii, 25 percent in California, and 33 percent in New Mexico.

Furthermore, America’s Protestant tradition is also on the decline. Only 47 percent of the nation overall is Protestant. Notably, some of these shifting statistics come from the increasing amount of religious unaffiliated Americans. Twenty-two percent of Americans now don’t identify with any particular religious tradition, and given that those ranks are dominated by young people, those numbers are on the rise.

It will be interesting to see if these revelations play any part in the 2016 elections that are already ramping up. A national survey by Public Policy Polling in February revealed that 57 percent of Republicans polled answered “yes” to the following question: “Would you support or oppose establishing Christianity as the national religion of the United States?” Thirty percent of those polled said “no” and 13 percent said they weren’t sure. Regardless of the fact that such a proposition blatantly flies in the face of the First Amendment, it also shows a blind disregard of the actual demographics of the United States.

There are specific areas where this attitude is more prevalent. Just a few weeks ago, members of the Kootenai County Idaho Republican Party put up a proposal that Idaho be declared a “Christian state.” That measure was eventually tabled, however.

The American Values Index also highlighted some interesting statistics about ideological views in the United States. For example, the conservative split on social issues, particularly abortion and gay marriage, is very noticeable. Young white evangelical protestants are pretty much split on the issue of gay marriage, while their older counterparts stand in strong opposition. However, both generations agree on the topic of abortion, with roughly two-thirds saying it should be illegal in all or most cases.

The American Values Index, in addition to being a fun tool to play around with for those like myself who love data, creates in interesting window into the minds of American voters, particularly on socio-cultural issues. As we move closer to the hotly anticipated 2016 elections, it will be interesting to see what part these values issues play.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post American Values Index Highlights Increasing Multi-Religious Culture appeared first on Law Street.

Happy almost Valentine’s Day, my lovelies!

How many of you are planning to spend this Saturday with your wonderful, Cupid-bestowed, significant others?

Awesome. All of the single people want to punch you lovebirds in the face.

But, despite the wave of existential dread this holiday brings to single people everywhere (#foreveralone, am I right?), SCOTUS seems to be in a weirdly lovey mood. In what can only be interpreted as an early Valentine’s Day gift to coupled-up gay people nationwide, SCOTUS dropped a solid hint on Monday that it’ll be making gay marriage a nationwide reality soon.

Early Monday morning, SCOTUS refused to extend the stay on a lower court’s decision that declared Alabama’s ban on gay marriages unconstitutional. Basically, that means that SCOTUS is allowing gay marriages to happen in Alabama right now, despite the fact that the constitutionality of state-level gay marriage bans isn’t on deck to be decided upon until later this summer.

Folks, this is a big fucking deal for gay marriage.

The validity of state-level gay marriage bans are currently under SCOTUS’ consideration, and it’s uncertain which way the court will rule. Will SCOTUS decide that individual states totally have the right to ban gay marriage? Will it decide that that’s bullshit, and all of the states have to allow marriages of all people, regardless of the couple’s gender pairing?

Basically, until this summer, the answer on that is TBD.

With that understanding, SCOTUS could do well to allow states that currently have gay marriage bans to continue on with their marriage banning. If these states were forced to allow gay marriages during this current limbo period—and if SCOTUS ultimately decided that state level marriage bans were A-OK—then a whole mess of married couples would suddenly find themselves in a legal quagmire.

So, why create all that mess? It would make more sense to wait until the decision is final, and then marriages can proceed or not, depending on the official decree.

But that’s the opposite of what SCOTUS did on Monday morning!

The justices ruled, without further comment, that the federal district court in Alabama’s ruling could go forth, allowing thousands of gay couples in the state to get married.

Why would SCOTUS do that if it was planning to uphold the constitutionality of gay marriage bans this summer?

Monday’s decision strongly suggests that, come summertime, SCOTUS will rule that state-level gay marriage bans are unconstitutional, and unfettered gay marriage will reign throughout the land.

I’m really hoping that decision comes through in time for Gay Pride. Can you imagine the parties? GOOD LORD. I’m already excited.

For marriage equality advocates across the nation, SCOTUS’ decision Monday morning comes as a welcome victory. Gays in Alabama are happily marrying, and most likely, all of the gays in all of the states will be able to follow suit very soon.

Hurray for all the gay couples who want to get married, for lots of totally valid reasons! Tax benefits, inheritance, hospital visitation rights, health insurance sharing, co-parenting and custody benefits, and citizen sponsorship are just a few of the myriad benefits that legal marriage affords to couples. Signing your name on that dotted line is a huge deal for a lot of people, and it’s a right that tons of people—many of whom I personally know and love—are fighting really hard to secure.

However.

Let’s not forget that marriage is a discriminatory and problematic institution. It’s not the magical cure-all for the LGBT community’s marginalization and disenfranchisement. It’s not even the most pressing issue on our list of things to fix, despite what organizations like the HRC and Lambda Legal might have you believe.

Violence, poverty, unemployment, criminalization, and homelessness are all issues that are—or should be—more highly prioritized on the docket of LGBT issues than gay marriage. Because let’s face it—while well-to-do gay couples are busy planning their weddings, queer youth of color are dying in the streets.

Literally. I’m not exaggerating. Nearly half of the homeless population is comprised of LGBT kids. Trans women of color are getting murdered left and right. This shit is real.

So, while I’m totally enthused about SCOTUS’ hat tip this week in favor of the gay marriage fight, I’m not waving the rainbow flag of victory just yet. No matter which way their final decision goes this summer, we’ll still have a lot more work to do before the queer community can live safely and equitably in American society.

So Happy Valentine’s Day, lovelies! You might be able to get married soon. And then, after your wedding bells have died down, we’ll all have to keep working towards real justice.

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Happy Valentine’s Day! Gay Weddings May Soon Be Sanctioned by SCOTUS appeared first on Law Street.

Gay marriage is now legal in the majority of American states. The Supreme Court declined to take on cases in Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin in which lower courts struck down the gay marriage ban. Given that the states of North Carolina, South Carolina, Kansas, Colorado, Wyoming, and West Virginia fall under the purview of the same appeals courts, gay marriage essentially has been legalized there as well.

Most Americans now live in a state where same-sex marriage is legal http://t.co/7XbvlUuirz pic.twitter.com/DPbAoZUf5T

— Conrad Hackett (@conradhackett) October 6, 2014

The speed with which the legalization of same-sex marriage has spread through the United States is nothing short of remarkable. The first state to legalize gay marriage was Massachusetts in 2004. Back then, it was pretty much revolutionary. The Defense of Marriage Act still existed, states were voting to ban same-sex marriage by droves, and sodomy laws had only just been struck down.

In just ten years the trajectory has changed dramatically. In 2004, less than a third of the American population supported legalizing same-sex marriage, now a clear majority does.

With the opinion on gay marriage shifting so dramatically, it’s easy to wonder what role the debate will play in the 2016 election. Will it even be a topic of conversation? Or is this a done deal — states are going to continue to legalize same-sex marriage, probably slowly, until we get to the point where same-sex couples can marry no matter where they are in the United States. Ten years ago, Massachusetts was almost revolutionary, now the practice is common place. In another ten years, will prohibiting gay marriage seem as archaic as the ban on interracial marriage?

Those questions, especially what will happen in 2016, are difficult to answer. There’s a chance that it will still be a topic of conversation, after all, GOP presidential hopeful Ted Cruz had a strong reaction to the news of the Supreme Court’s decision yesterday. He took issue with the court, saying:

This is judicial activism at its worst. The Constitution entrusts state legislatures, elected by the People, to define marriage consistent with the values and mores of their citizens. Unelected judges should not be imposing their policy preferences to subvert the considered judgments of democratically elected legislature.

Ted Cruz essentially said that it should be to the voters to decide whether or not to legalize same-sex marriage. He won the straw poll at the Values Voters Summit, held in Washington D.C. just a few weeks ago. The Values Voter Summit this year apparently focused heavily on anti-Muslim and anti-ISIS rhetoric, but there was still some LGBT-rights bashing as well. The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) was present, and it worked hard to try to convince attendees that the fight against same-sex marriage was by no means over. And some of the speakers did wax poetic about traditional marriage — Rick Santorum, for example, made an appearance.

But the question is, is the Values Voter Summit still representative of a large chunk of the Republican Party? And that’s not just a question that I, as an observer, am trying to answer. It seems to be a question that the Republican Party itself is having difficulty with.

The Republican Party is in a tough place — an issue that it’s worked on for a very long time is no longer really an issue. While it’s tough to tell whether or not the Party will still put any focus on the issue in the 2016 elections, it’s a choice that it is going to have to make for itself. But as more states move toward legalizing gay marriage and more Americans show their support, it will be a difficult choice to make.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Same-Sex Marriage Legal in Most States: What Does the GOP Do Now? appeared first on Law Street.

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN) has been an outspoken opponent of marriage equality for years. She’s campaigned on traditional marriage and supported it at both the state and federal levels. In an interview after yesterday’s Values Voter Summit however, Bachmann responded to a question about gay marriage by calling it “boring” and “not an issue.” Oh really? That’s interesting news considering the source. Just for giggles (or let’s be honest, groans), let’s take a look at some of Bachmann’s greatest hits on gay marriage and what she so sweetly terms the “gay lifestyle” and cross our fingers that she’s actually going to give this topic a rest during future diatribes to her hometown paper after leaving congress this year.

1. In response to the Supreme Court’s DOMA ruling:

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to join the trend, despite the clear will of the people’s representatives through DOMA. What the court has done will undermine the best interest of children and the best interests of the United States.

This, of course, is the statement that garnered the very best Nancy Pelosi response of all time: “Who cares?”

2. In response to Arizona’s vetoed ‘Right to Discriminate’ bill:

The thing that I think is getting a little tiresome is the gay community have so bullied the American people and they have so intimidated politicians that politicians fear them and they think they get to dictate the agenda everywhere.

3. In response to Minnesota legalizing gay marriage:

I’m proud to have introduced the original traditional marriage amendment, and I thank all Minnesotans who have worked so hard on this issue.

4. In response to the question, ‘Why can’t same-sex couples get married?:

They can get married, but they abide by the same law as everyone else. They can marry a man if they’re a woman. Or they can marry a woman if they’re a man.

5. Ahead of Minnesota’s legalization of gay marriage:

The Bible is very clear on this issue. Homosexuality is a sin, and God will punish communities that support it. Sodom and Gomorrah thought they could defy the will of God, and we all know what happened to them. If the governor signs this legislation into law the Minneapolis-St. Paul region will be next…These are very scary times. I don’t want my family to be the last ones out.

6. On the ‘deviancy’ of the gay community:

(The gay community will) abolish age of consent laws, which means we will do away with statutory rape laws so that adults will be able to freely prey on little children sexually. That’s the deviance that we’re seeing embraced in our culture today.

7. On the possibility of gay marriage in Minnesota:

We will have the immediate loss of civil liberties for five million Minnesotans. In our public schools, whether they want to or not, they’ll be forced to start teaching that same-sex marriage is equal, that it is normal and that children should try it.

8. In response to President Obama’s support of same-sex marriage:

The President’s announcement today shows how out of touch he is with the values of American families…Americans know better and support traditional marriage…I will do everything in my power to support and preserve traditional marriage and to protect American families…despite our president’s decision to thumb his nose at the traditional institution of marriage.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Michele Bachmann Calls Gay Marriage Boring, But Her History Says Otherwise appeared first on Law Street.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit recently ruled that states cannot deprive a person of the fundamental right to marry simply because he or she chooses a partner of the same sex. This marked the first time that a federal appeals court has weighed in on the matter, and the early thinking is that the Supreme Court may take this case. Finally, marriage equality in all 50 states, right?

This is all good, yeah, woohoo! (Sidenote: my gaydar sucks big time. Straight guys are gay, gay guys are straight. Hell, lesbians are twinks and vice versa, but I thought I had developed a fail-safe. To determine if a guy is family, I simply look down at his ring finger. Last week, I caught myself doing this. I looked down at this dude’s finger, which indeed was adorned with a ring. Done — he’s straight. Then I remembered the whole marriage equality thing: he’s gay! But, as he opened his clearly European mouth and uttered something about the weather, his Belfast burr turning “air” to “ire,” I remembered the Euro-metrosexual-monkey-wrench! Gay or straight, damnit?! Alas, I resigned myself to utter cluelessness.)

Courtesy of Quick Meme

In all seriousness, it’s really awesome that the lines between gay relationships and straight relationships are increasingly blurry. That’s not the endgame, though. Even if the Supreme Court takes this Utah case and sides with the 10th Circuit about the fundamental right to marry (big assumptions with the Roberts Court), it won’t affect other types of discrimination against the LGBTQ community. Marriage equality is only the opening salvo in a still-uphill battle for full equality. We ought not lose sight of that.

Don’t get me wrong, ever the Machiavelli in me says sure, get to marriage equality by any means necessary. Those means, under the reasoning of the 10th Circuit, would be the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. That is, if the Supreme Court rules favorably in this case, and on due process grounds, it would mean that no person, gay or straight, can be deprived of the right to marry. But due process deals only with “fundamental rights.” What about laws that discriminate against gay men in blood donation? What about workplace discrimination?

Courtesy of Matt Buck via Flickr

A decision on due process grounds would not touch these other types of discrimination, but a ruling under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause would. That would deal with all manner of discrimination against the LGBTQ community, including marriage equality.

Brief Equal Protection primer: Under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, laws that single out a specific group for differential treatment or disproportionately impact that group, if challenged, are subject to judicial review. If the law discriminates on the basis of a suspect classification, such as race, it must satisfy the most exacting degree of review — strict scrutiny. Thanks to second-wave feminism, discrimination on the basis of sex/gender is subject to intermediate scrutiny. As it stands now, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is subject to the lowest, most deferential level of judicial review — rational basis review.

Blah, blah, blah, I’m losing you so let me get to the point. Until the Supreme Court rules on equal protection grounds rather than due process that sexual orientation-based discrimination merits a higher level of judicial scrutiny, discriminatory laws will continue to receive minimal judicial scrutiny.

I’m glad that marriage equality is sweeping across the country, and that the Supreme Court may finally have occasion to legalize it nationwide. Indeed, by no means would this be a pyrrhic victory. However, it would only nominally affect other issues of discrimination against the LGBTQ community, issues that are arguably more important than marriage equality.

—

Chris Copeland (@ChrisRCopeland) is a staff attorney at a non-profit organization in the Bronx, a blogger, and a California ex-pat living in Brooklyn. When he’s not reading, writing, or watching horror, he explores the intersection of race and LGBT issues with Law Street.

Featured image courtesy of [Victoria Pickering via Flickr]

Chris Copeland

Chris Copeland is a staff attorney at a non-profit organization in the Bronx, a blogger, and a California ex-pat living in Brooklyn. When he’s not reading, writing, or watching horror, he explores the intersection of race and LGBT issues with Law Street. Contact Chris at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Due Process is the Red Herring in the LGBTQ Movement appeared first on Law Street.

Ever since Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum announced she would not defend her state’s ban on gay marriage, news coverage has been somewhat vague regarding what her announcement actually means.

Rosenblum joins attorneys general from five other states – Nevada, Virginia, Illinois, Pennsylvania and California – in refusal to support a state gay marriage ban, saying the law would fail to withstand a federal constitutional challenge. According to Rosenblum, while the ban will no longer be defended, it will continue to be enforced in Oregon unless overruled in court.

“State Defendants will not defend the Oregon ban on same-sex marriage in this litigation. Rather, they will take the position in their summary judgment briefing that the ban cannot withstand a federal constitutional challenge under any standard of review,” Rosenblum explained. “In the meantime, as the State Defendants are legally obligated to enforce the Oregon Constitution’s ban on same-sex marriage, they will continue to do so unless and until this Court grants the relief sought by the plaintiffs,” she added.

In simpler terms, Rosenblum, after careful study, has determined that the ban conflicts with federal law and will therefore no longer be defended by state attorneys. The word “defended” is typically where confusion arises.

Rosenblum’s decision was ultimately part of a brief filed with U.S. District Judge Michael McShane, who is currently presiding over a legal challenge to the state ban, which was added to the Oregon constitution in 2004.

In January 2014, Judge McShane consolidated two lawsuits filed by two different same-sex couples, both challenging Oregon’s ban on same-sex marriage. Both cases cite the 2013 Supreme Court case US v. Windsor, which established that the US federal interpretation of marriage could not exclusively apply to heterosexual unions.

So, what Rosenblum is effectively saying is that with regard to the current litigation (the consolidated lawsuit brought forth by the two sets of same-sex couples), the gay marriage ban will not be defended (by Oregon State Defendants) before the presiding federal judge (US District Judge McShane).

As The Oregonian points out, “Rosenblum’s action means that both the plaintiffs – who include four same-sex couples – and the main defendant in the case oppose the ban as unconstitutional.” Although it could take longer, Judge McShane is expected to issue a ruling in the coming spring or summer.

Since the Supreme Court ruling in June 2013, there has been a notable rise in nation-wide litigation over same-sex marriage, with state bans being overturned in four courts. At the moment, three of the four decisions are being held pending appeal.

While the issue of same-sex marriage remains divisive on a national level, Oregon is no exception.

“[Rosenblum] is shamefully abandoning her constitutional duty to defend the marriage amendment overwhelmingly enacted by the people of Oregon,” said Brian Brown, president of the National Organization of Marriage, in an interview with ABC News. “She swore an oath of office that she would enforce all the laws, not just those she personally agrees with,” he continued.

According to US Attorney General Eric Holder, however, Rosenblum has in no way overstepped her boundaries. In an interview with The New York Times, Holder said that “state attorneys general are not obligated to defend laws that they believe are discriminatory.” Holder made it clear that he was not encouraging Rosenblum and others to disregard state laws, but declared that “officials who have carefully studied bans on gay marriage could refuse to defend them.” “When laws touch on core constitutional issues like equal protection,” Holder continued, “an attorney general should apply the highest level of scrutiny before reaching a decision on whether to defend it.”

An admitted supporter of gay marriage, Rosenblum released her own statement saying “there is no rational basis for Oregon to refuse to honor the commitments made by same-sex couples in the same way it honors the commitments of opposite-sex couples.” Still, she insists personal opinion did not influence her decision.

Back in November 2004, when the state ban on gay marriage was enacted, 57 percent of Oregonians voted in favor of the ban. At the time, federal law banned recognition of same-sex couples. In ten years however, the political landscape has shifted and federal law has evolved.

“Because we cannot identify a valid reason for the state to prevent the couples who have filed these lawsuits from marrying in Oregon, we find ourselves unable to stand before (the federal judge) to defend the state’s prohibition against marriages between two men or two women,” Rosenblum said during a press conference.

Supporters of same-sex marriage hope Rosenblum’s decision is a step forward not only for the state of Oregon, but also for the country as a whole. According to Thomas Wheatley, director of organizing at Freedom to Marry, “the rapid momentum for the freedom to marry in states across the country underscores the understanding that the Constitution’s guarantee of the freedom to marry and equal protection under the law apply to gay and non-gay people alike.” “America – and Oregon – are ready for the freedom to marry,” he added.

In Oregon, supporters of gay marriage have nearly reached their goal of collecting enough signatures to put an initiative on the ballot that would ask voters to strike the ban on gay marriage from the state Constitution. Come November, voters will likely have a chance to weigh in on the issue.

[The Oregonian] [ABC News] [The Guardian] [Buzzfeed] [Bloomberg] [The Washington Post] [The New York Times]

—

Matt DiCenso (@mdicenso24)

Featured image courtesy of [Benson Kua via Flickr]

Matt DiCenso

Matt DiCenso is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What’s the Deal with Oregon Not Defending Its Own Gay Marriage Ban? appeared first on Law Street.

How many of you remember Emi and Hannah, my super cute friends who live in Virginia? Last time we saw them, they were cautiously excited about the prospect of Va. striking down its gay marriage ban.

Well, they’re pretty happy right now. U.S. District Court Judge Arenda Wright Allen struck down the state’s prohibition on same-sex marriage just in time for Valentine’s Day. Yay!

Congratulatory baby goat kisses for Emi! Courtesy of Hannah R. Winsten.

I promised y’all (that one’s for you, Southern readers) that we’d check in with Emi and Hannah again as this case progressed, and I wasn’t about to disappoint you. Seriously — as soon as news about Judge Wright Allen’s decision dropped, I started getting social media requests for a follow-up story about these two lovebirds. Apparently everyone agrees with me that they’re the cutest.

So! I asked Emi and Hannah what their reaction to the news was, and it took over a week for them to respond! Don’t worry, though, they had a good reason. Here’s what Hami (celebrity couple name-merge suggestions?) told me:

“I think I’ve been avoiding sending you a ‘response to the news’ because I’m still waiting for the other shoe to drop,” said Hannah. “With everything on hold as the opposition appeals, my pessimist side is waiting until something ‘real’ happens until it commits to any sort of celebration.”

Hannah and her cat are only mildly amused. Courtesy of Hannah R. Winsten.

LOL GUYS. Hami was totally right. Literally 15 hours ago, The Virginian Pilot reported that appeals have been filed. Le sigh.

Appeals were filed on behalf of Norfolk Circuit Court Clerk, George Schaefer, and State Registrar of Vital Records, Janet Rainey — two Virginia court clerks who don’t like to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. And, since Judge Wright Allen delayed implementation of her ruling until after all appeals have been heard, same-sex marriage still isn’t actually recognized in the state of Virginia. Thanks, guys.

But, for all the irritation and inconvenience this delay is causing, it’s also providing us with some serious entertainment value. The reasoning behind the opposition’s anti-gay-marriage stance is truly hilarious.

If Hami’s pig Alice wasn’t busy being so cute, she’d be laughing so hard right now. Courtesy of Hannah R. Winsten.

The lawyers trying to stem the tide of Southern gay weddings are citing Virginia’s 400-year tradition of heterosexual marriage as a reason for upholding the ban on same-sex marriages. They’re just not traditional enough to be allowed, apparently.

You know what else is in Virginia’s 400-year tradition? They’ve got an impressive history of blocking school integration in favor of racial segregation, stopping interracial marriage, and denying women the right to attend the Virginia Military Institute. And that’s not even mentioning the Native American genocide that essentially served as Virginia’s debutante ball.

Also, SLAVERY.

Hami’s cats are throwing some major shade for the obvious omission of SLAVERY. Courtesy of Hannah R. Winsten.

Let’s all take a moment and collectively laugh (to keep from crying) at Virginia’s ridiculous attempt at painting its traditional history as something to proudly preserve. Come on, guys, you’re better than that.

But maybe they’re not, because it actually gets worse. The super awesome attorneys representing Schaefer and Rainey are also arguing that marriage should only be granted to couples who can procreate. By this reasoning, tons of existing, straight marriages would be considered null and void. Couples who are infertile, who include a post-menopausal woman, or who just plain old don’t want to have kids would all be locked out of the marriage club.

This is just getting silly.

Almost as silly as Emi in a corn suit. Courtesy of Hannah R. Winsten.

Amid all this ridiculousness, it would be easy to get discouraged. But Emi and Hannah have it all in perspective.

“While this ruling could make life a lot simpler for Emi and me, it doesn’t mean that magically everything is fixed for queers in this country,” said Hannah. “I’ll be happy to have our marriage recognized and to get some of the very practical legal elements that go along with that, [but] this isn’t by any stretch of the imagination the final goal. Homophobia isn’t over any more than sexism is over or racism is over or classism is over.”

PREACH. Courtesy of Hannah R. Winsten.

Right on, lovebird. Marriage is just one piece in a giant and complex puzzle, in which queers, women, people of color, and poor people are systematically marginalized in the U.S. I’ve written a ton about why marriage is kind of a shitty deal, and about how fucked queers still are, even if marriage equality is achieved. Wedding bells don’t change the fact that we’re statistically more likely to be unemployed, impoverished, and incarcerated than our straight counterparts. These are still giant problems.

And non-queers, or super privileged queers, sometimes forget about that.

“I actually had one of my lovely, kind, straight friends make a comment along those lines,” said Hannah. “[T]hat once gay marriages are legal and recognized throughout the country, the ‘war’ will have been won.”

Nope. Courtesy of Hannah R. Winsten.

Not so, loves. The war will be far from over. Until queer kids have stopped dominating the homeless population, until trans women of color stop getting murdered, until gay-bashing stops being a thing the war won’t be over.

In the meantime, though, let’s all shop at Heart Moss Farm and laugh at Virginia’s ridiculousness to keep from crying, OK?

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

All images courtesy of [Hannah R. Winsten]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Our Favorite Gay Couple in Virginia Might Have a Legally Recognized Marriage Soon! appeared first on Law Street.

In a speech on Saturday, February 8, 2014 to a gay rights group in New York City, Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. outlined the plan for the United States government to extend legal rights to same sex couples in order to decrease the inequalities between gay and straight marriages. “In every courthouse in every proceeding, and in every place where a member of the Department of Justice stands on behalf of the United States, they will strive to ensure that same-sex marriages receive the same privileges, protections, and rights as opposite sex marriages,” promised Holder to the gay community.

The latest changes applied to protect same-sex married couples include:

1. Same-sex spouses are eligible to file jointly for bankruptcy, providing joint relief from debts. This excludes debts of one spouse owed to another or former spouse, which will still need to be paid as well as domestic support obligations.

2. Federal inmates who are in same-sex marriages will have the same rights and privileges as those in heterosexual marriages, including the rights to visitation, to be with the other spouse in times of crisis, to be escorted to the funeral of an inmate spouse, protection of communication between same-sex spouses, and the early release of an inmate if the spouse becomes debilitated.

3. Individuals in same-sex marriages now qualify for multiple Justice Department Benefit Programs including the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund, as well as benefits offered to spouses exposed to radiation.

4. Death and educational benefits in the case that one spouse is killed or injured in the line of duty as a public safety officer.

5. The right to decline to give testimony against a spouse in civil and criminal cases. This will be applicable to all states, even those that do not extend this right to same-sex couples.

Multiple agencies falling under the Department of Justice are affected by this extension of privileges, including the FBI, the Bureau of Prisons, the Bureau of alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

These privileges can be seen as an extension to the Supreme Court case decided in June 2013, United States vs. Windsor, which struck down the idea that same-sex couples could not receive federal marital benefits under the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Finally, the conclusion of this case is being applied within the justice system, as same-sex couples are receiving the benefits they deserve within a legal marriage.

This extension of legal rights to same-sex couples was made official on February 10, 2014 through a policy memorandum. These privileges immediately ensure that all same-sex married couples are treated equally under the law.

In the larger picture, this extension has amounted to a step closer to equality in our country. These are provisions that all heterosexual couples are granted and it seems absurd to consider being married without such security. The fact that one spouse in a same-sex marriage could be killed in the line of duty and the other was previously not granted death benefits is almost unethical. A marriage should always include such protection in cases of death, imprisonment, and criminal offenses. The extension of these privileges  by the government has made real the marriage vows that many same-sex couples have promised to one another, allowing them to support each other whatever circumstances they may face. If marriage is granted to same-sex couples, the benefits enjoyed by heterosexual couples should also be extended.

[La Times] [New York Times] [SCOTUSblog]

—

Taylor Garre (@TaylorLynn013)

Featured image courtesy of [Marc Love via Flickr]

Taylor Garre

Taylor Garre is a student at Fordham University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Taylor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 5 Ways Same-Sex Couples Are Finally Winning in the Justice System appeared first on Law Street.

Good morning folks! Who’s enjoying this polar vortex 2.0? Not me!

To all of you in the Law Street D.C. office, is this really what you all do on a snow day? Inquiring minds want to know.

Thanks matthewstasoff.com!

Anyway! A bit south of D.C., exciting things are happening for the gays. At least, the gays who want to get married. Newly elected Virginia Attorney General Mark R. Herring is announcing that he finds the state’s ban on same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional. As a result, Virginia will ask a federal court to strike it down, alongside two same-sex couples.

Am I the only one who finds it a tad bit amusing that Virginia is going to court against itself? Anyway.

This is very exciting news! If the ban on same-sex marriage in Virginia is lifted, gay couples all across the state will gain access to the gazillion benefits afforded to legally married couples. Not to mention, they can stop navigating the legal minefield that results from having your marriage recognized by the federal government, but not by the state government. That shit’s a mess.

In order to win his case, Herring will base his argument on the Supreme Court’s 1967 ruling in Loving vs. Virginia, which struck down parallel laws banning interracial marriage. According to Herring, Loving didn’t just open doors for interracial couples, but for couples of all types. In his view, Loving found that couples have a fundamental right to marriage itself, and that right cannot be withheld based on a couple’s race, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

Pretty exciting stuff.

But I’m not just excited because, obviously, yay for civil rights and an end to marriage discrimination. (Also, let’s not forget that marriage is a pretty problematic institution all to itself. Grain of salt here, people.)

I’m also super pumped because this law affects two of my dear friends—Emilia Jones and Hannah Martin.

Aren’t they the cutest? They’re the cutest. Courtesy of Hannah R. Winsten.

I met Emi and Hannah back in 2010. We all went to NYU together, and we were all big lezzies. Naturally, we ran in the same circles.

Not really. I actually met Emi once at an LGBT club meeting in September 2009, and thought she seemed cool but was too shy to talk to her. (Socially awkward lesbian moment, over here.) The following semester, we wound up having two classes together and seeing each other literally every single day of the week, so we became fast friends.

Guys, Emi was awesome. She was my college bestie that year, and I was totally bummed when she graduated.

But! Emi’s life got all kinds of fabulous when she graduated from NYU. The state of New York legalized gay marriage in June 2011 — just in time for Gay Pride — and in July, she married her longtime lady love, Hannah.

They are so cute I can’t even handle it. Courtesy of Hannah R. Winsten.

Anyway, they got married, I babysat their awesome cat in Brooklyn during their honeymoon, and then a few months later, they randomly moved to a farm in Virginia.

When I say randomly, I mean RANDOMLY. It literally felt like they were here one day, and gone the next. I secretly wondered if they were running from the CIA or something. Probably not. Anyway, they run Heart Moss Farm now, and they’re super happy, and they’re super cute.

With their adorable dog, Zach. Courtesy of Hannah R. Winsten.

But! Being married in Virginia is complicated business, as Emi told me this morning.

“We recently re-filed our 2011 taxes — after my lawyer aunt who works for the IRS suggested it — when we were forced to file as married for NYC and NY state taxes but single federally. When we got our refund, it was A LOT of money,” Emi said. “If Va. doesn’t at least recognize gay marriage, we’ll have to file separate for Va. but joint federally, which essentially means you pay tons and tons of extra taxes. It is nasty business, especially when we are not making a lot as it is.”

So, basically, if Herring succeeds in his quest to get Virginia to recognize gay marriages, Emi and Hannah will be in a much better financial situation. And that’s awesome.

Courtesy of Hannah R. Winsten.

But there are other benefits to be had as well. Most of these run along the lines of basic respect for an individual’s safety and well being–like being allowed to visit each other and make decisions if one of them lands in the hospital. That shit’s a whole lot easier when there aren’t a bunch of contradictory, inconsistent laws arguing over whether you’re legally married or not.

So basically, we’re all rooting for Attorney General Herring over here, and also for Hannah and Emi. We’ll check back in with them once the ruling goes through.

In the mean time, all you Virginians should check out Heart Moss Farm’s pasture-raised chickens at your local farmer’s market. Yay for supporting queer businesses!

What do you think about Herring’s actions and Virginia’s gay marriage ban? Tell us in the comments!

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [Hannah R. Winsten]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Look at This Adorable Couple Who Will Be Super Pumped if Virginia’s Gay Marriage Ban is Lifted appeared first on Law Street.

The Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision Wednesday to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act is a monumental victory for advocates of same-sex marriage.

But what happens now that the 1996 federal law that confines marriage to a man and a woman has been declared unconstitutional?

Will federal benefits flow only to same-sex married couples living in states that recognize their unions?

What about same-sex spouses who are legally married but living in states that ban such unions?

And how will federal agencies, already with myriad rules and regulations regarding spousal eligibility for benefits, deal with the court’s edict?

“Striking down DOMA is a great step forward, obviously,” says Ari Ezra Waldman, legal editor at Towleroad, a widely read LGBT-oriented website, “but there will be difficult complications to work out.”

The court’s decision does not embrace a national constitutional right to same-sex marriage, but would make married gay couples living in states where their unions are legal eligible for federal benefits already enjoyed by married heterosexual Americans.

[Full Article]

—

Featured image courtesy of [masterdesigner via Flickr]

Davis Truslow

Davis Truslow is a founding member of Law Street Media and a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Davis at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post After DOMA: What’s Next For Gay Married Couples appeared first on Law Street.