Taiwan is one step closer to becoming the first country in Asia to legalize same-sex marriage: on Wednesday, Taiwan’s highest court, the Council of Grand Justices, ruled it unconstitutional to bar same-sex couples from marriage. Taiwan’s parliament has two years to pass legislation–either an amended form of the current bill or a new measure altogether–to legalize same-sex marriage.

If the parliament fails to pass legislation, “two persons of the same sex who intend to create the said permanent union shall be allowed to have their marriage registration effectuated… by submitting a written document signed by two or more witnesses,” the 14-member court said.

Taiwan gay marriage supporters cry with joy after landmark Asian ruling pic.twitter.com/V2DhMFDyPq

— AFP news agency (@AFP) May 24, 2017

Taiwan has long been one of the more progressive spots in Asia: it has held a gay pride parade since 2003, and has a thriving LGBT community. But it wasn’t until the Democratic Progressive Party took power last year that marriage equality became a real possibility. President Tsai Ing-wen has expressed support for equal marriage rights, though she has been more subtle in her support in recent months.

In 2015, at Taipei’s gay pride parade, she said: “Every person should be able to look for love freely, and freely seek their own happiness.”

Last November, DPP lawmakers drafted three bills that would have legalized same-sex marriage. Those bills have stalled in recent months, after protests against gay marriage swelled. Despite stiff resistance from the conservative and religious sectors of Taiwanese society, a slim majority of citizens support same-sex marriage. One poll from 2013 found that 53 percent of Taiwanese citizens favor marriage equality.

Well done Taiwan, we needed some good news ️‍ #loveislove pic.twitter.com/mPiDLt7Wgp

— meg is seeing h (@stylesrichonne) May 24, 2017

The court’s ruling was in response to two cases: one request was filed by veteran gay rights activist, Chi Chia-wei, the other by Taipei city officials. Progressive lawmakers in Taiwan cheered the court’s decision.

Yu Mei-nu, a DPP lawmaker, called it “a step forward in the history of Taiwan’s same-sex marriage.” She added: “I hope that the legislators will have the moral courage to pass same-sex marriage into law, however it is hard to predict how long it will take, at this moment…The opposition toward gay marriage in Taiwan won’t just gladly accept it and give up the debate, so the debate will continue.”

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 Same-Sex Marriage in Taiwan Gets a Huge Boost from Supreme Court Ruling 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.

How do Millennials help America build a better future? With over 1,200 business-casual-clad young activists and leaders packed into a chilly ballroom washed with blue stage lights, Generation Progress rallied Millennials in Washington, D.C. at its national summit on Thursday in an attempt to find out.

Now in its tenth year, Generation Progress’s “Make Progress” National Summit offers young people a day packed with well known speakers, inspiring dialogues, and stimulating buzzwords. With keynote speakers on the main stage and breakout sessions on topics ranging from diversity in public office to sexual assault prevention and student debt, attendees throughout the day were empowered through education on critical issues. Through communal support and prodigious encouragement from American leaders, the mood was alive with the goal of the day: creating progress.

Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren opened up the summit with an invigorating speech that earned dozens of standing ovations. Reverberating energy, Senator Warren spoke about college affordability, diversity, and social change inspired by activism. During one pause, an audience member yelled out “Run for president!” to which the Senator responded with a big grin and a chuckle, while everyone else jumped to their feet and erupted in approving cheers and applause. Her most applauded statement was that the progressive Supreme Court decisions over the past weeks were the direct result of young activists who dedicate their lives to fighting for social justice, stating, “We get what we fight for. Are you ready to get out there and fight?”

This morning I told young people at #MakeProgress: You get what you fight for. pic.twitter.com/JhwTtTzGBa

— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) July 16, 2015

Michele Jawando, Vice President for Legal Progress at the Center for American Progress, later took the stage for a sobering panel on reforming the criminal justice system. She expressed her belief that young people putting pressure on their elected officials and demanding change is critical, and commended the Millennial generation for its high level of engagement with issues of importance, simultaneously striking down the notion that our generation is unengaged or uninformed.

After asking the audience to “stand up if you have participated in a march, a protest, or an online day of action in the past six months,” more than half of the room was standing. Jawando stated, “the only time Congress pays attention is when there is enough action that forces them to pay attention.” She praised those who partake in activist movements, particularly the sit-ins that forced members of Congress to face the consequences of adverse decisions, and encouraged all to become involved. The discussion then led to a breakdown of the 1994 crime bill that increased mandatory minimums for those sentenced to prison, created the “tough on crime” rhetoric that is only recently beginning to be critically questioned, and created a definition of criminals as young people of color. Jawando said that many current members of Congress were members in 1994 when this draconian bill was passed and that “some of those members don’t really want to concede, they don’t want to admit they were wrong.” She then expressed that while discussing reform is important, action needs to be immediate. “Yeah we are tweeting about it, we’re writing about it, we’re marching in the streets…But we still have to pass a bill y’all.”

Jawando made a few key remarks that resonated deeply with the young, social justice-minded audience; first, that there is a strong connection between the people who are elected and the changes we see in society. Second, that humanizing issues and telling personal stories of injustice is the most powerful way to inspire change. And third, that there is a dangerous misconception that people who are in prison always deserve to be there; Jawando stated that this mindset of “otherization,” or the “us versus them” mentality, will continue to act as a barrier to change until these divisions are broken.

.@MicheleJawando shares her personal experience on discrimination & the criminal justice system #MakeProgress pic.twitter.com/43TsktDXrl

— LCLAA (@LCLAA) July 16, 2015

My favorite breakout panel occurred in the afternoon: “It’s On US: Advocates Creating Cultural Change” featuring keynote speaker Tina Tchen. Tchen, Assistant to President Obama, Chief of Staff to Michelle Obama, and Executive Director of the White House Council on Women and Girls, gave an inspiring and informative speech on Generation Progress’s national campaign to prevent sexual assault. One in five women on college campuses will be sexually assaulted or experience some form of sexual violence by the time they graduate college. “We know, and you know, that this is a crisis on campuses,” Tchen said. The It’s On US movement on college campuses aims to fundamentally change the environment of rape culture and shift the conversation to be empowering for survivors and encouraging for those who have the ability to intervene in situations that could end in assault. “We are fundamentally on our way to a society that recognizes and supports survivors,” Tchen said over snaps and applause. Panelists encouraged students to join or start It’s On US on their respective college campuses, and to take the pledge to end sexual assault.

"It's not just about stopping sexual assault on campus. That is just the start."-Tina Tchen at #MakeProgress @ItsOnUs pic.twitter.com/apyLvEcAlR

— Chante Harris (@chante__harris) July 16, 2015

The final speaker of the day, and the most anticipated, was Vice President Joe Biden. All smartphones were whipped out to welcome the Vice President and most summit-goers found themselves on tiptoe in their chairs to catch a better glimpse of the esteemed guest. Mr. Biden gave a powerful, insightful, but occasionally lighthearted speech, that felt much more like sitting down for an after-dinner conversation with an affectionate grandfather than an address by the Vice President. The VP touched on a range of topics, from the need to create affordable education, to climate change, to closing the expanding wage gap in the country. He even called on politicians to resist donations from millionaires and billionaires to fund their primary election campaigns, potentially an allusion to Senator Bernie Sanders who also cares deeply and advocates against the privatization of political donations.

"If you could do only 1 thing to increase equality what would it be?" @VP asks the #MakeProgress crowd. "Get private money out of politics"

— Generation Progress (@genprogress) July 16, 2015

The Vice President expressed his sincere appreciation and confidence in the Millennial generation, stating “There’s more reason today than ever before to be idealistic, optimistic, tenacious, passionate, and principled.” The most prominent message Mr. Biden delivered during his time on stage was that passion, just like the passion in the room before him, is what generates social change and makes progress.

"I applaud your passion. Never apologize for it. Never explain it away." @JoeBiden at @genprogress #MakeProgress pic.twitter.com/T5cowdiCLT

— Emily Dalgo (@DalgoEmily) July 16, 2015

Generation Progress’s Make Progress National Summit concluded with a slew of selfies with Joe Biden and a ballroom full of young activists stepping back into the D.C. sun with newfound inspiration and admiration for the causes they believe in. The summit, though only one day long, has the power and the potential to ignite young minds for years to come. Make Progress is proof that Millennials do care about the issues. They are engaged, they’re active, and they’re ready to fight. Outside, the only audible sound was of heels clicking and dress shoes clacking on the sidewalks as the attendees trickled out of the summit. But one sound still echoed in everyone minds: applause and cheers for change, for action, and for progress.

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 Generation Progress Encourages Millennials to “Make Progress” 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.

Today the Supreme Court handed down an historic ruling on marriage, striking down state laws that ban same-sex marriage. Always one to out-do himself, Justice Scalia delivered a dissenting opinion of immense rhetorical heft, perhaps even better than his Obamacare dissent. Here are the highlights:

10. “The stuff contained in today’s opinion has to diminish this Court’s reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis.”

Hey, Ginsburg was drunk at ONE State of the Union, don’t hold it against her.

9. “Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court.”

No, I’m pretty sure this guy still rules everything that the light touches.

8. “Hubris is sometimes defined as o’erweening pride; and pride, we know, goeth before the fall.”

Hey, as long as you fall with style, it’s all good.

7. “The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic.”

Good thing Scalia’s got his glasses on.

6. “But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today’s judicial Putsch.”

Putsch. noun \ˈpu̇ch\ :  a secretly plotted and suddenly executed attempt to overthrow a government.

Is Ginsburg the Mockingjay?

5. “Buried beneath the mummeries and straining-to-be-memorable passages…”

Yikes. I hope they have some ice at the Supreme Court

4. Referring to the makeup of the Supreme Court: “Not a single South-westerner or even, to tell the truth, a genuine Westerner (California does not count).”

You’re not even real California, just get over it!

3. “…but anyone in a long-lasting marriage will attest that the happy state constricts, rather than expands, what one can prudently say.”

Scalia’s wife may have some words for him when he gets home today.

2. “The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me.”

I don’t think he found any.

1. “Ask the nearest hippie?”

Upon inquiry, the hippie responded, “Who’s Antonin Scalia?”

Bonus:  (Huh? How can a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives [whatever that means] define [whatever that means] an urgent liberty [never mind], give birth to a right?)

Takeway of the day: Scalia is very confused. And those brackets certainly aren’t helping.

To read more Scalia fun, make sure to check out the Top 10 Most Creative Quotes from Antonin Scalia’s Obamacare Dissent.

Maurin Mwombela

Maurin Mwombela is a member of the University of Pennsylvania class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer 2015. He now blogs for Law Street, focusing on politics. Contact Maurin at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Top 10 Most Creative Quotes From Antonin Scalia’s Marriage Equality Dissent 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.

The North Carolina House of Representatives voted to override Governor Pat McCrory’s veto of Senate Bill 2 on Thursday, a move that will allow officials to abstain from performing marriages that conflict with their beliefs. Magistrates may now refuse to perform marriages and deed registrars can refuse to issue certificates for couples if they have a “sincerely held religious objection.”

Both the senate and the house voted to override the governor’s veto in the last two weeks, making the bill North Carolina law. Under the new law, once a magistrate claims a religious objection he or she cannot perform marriages for a six-month period, after which the district court judge may allow them to resume their duties.

McCrory vetoed the bill following a district court ruling earlier this year that struck down North Carolina’s Amendment 1, a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. After the court’s ruling, McCrory vowed to uphold the decision despite his personal opinions of the issue. In a statement shortly before his recent veto, he said,

Whether it is the president, governor, mayor, a law enforcement officer, or magistrate, no public official who voluntarily swears to support and defend the Constitution and to discharge all duties of their office should be exempt from upholding that oath; therefore, I will veto Senate Bill 2.

Some citizens and members of the state senate disagree with McCrory’s stance. Senate Leader Phil Berger commented that “if someone takes a job, they don’t park their First Amendment rights at the door. They are entitled to exercise those rights.”

The law stirred up controversy over the intersection of personal religious beliefs and the rights of LGBT citizens. Supporters of marriage equality point to the law as another way to set up roadblocks for same-sex couples. In the time leading up to an important Supreme Court ruling on marriage equality, North Carolinians who support gay marriage accuse the state legislature of preemptively seeking loopholes.

Despite some media coverage, the law is not as radical as opponents may claim, especially because it states that all couples who are issued a marriage license will be given a magistrate to marry them. This means that same-sex couples will still be granted licenses, but individual magistrates may now claim an exemption from the process. This law is not as expansive as some other religious liberty laws, such as Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which saw a significant backlash after its passage. North Carolina’s law places the burden on individual magistrates to claim an objection then wait the six-month period before performing marriages, rather than allowing for blanket exceptions.

Although this law likely will not hinder same-sex marriages in North Carolina, the message and precedent behind it are still important. Allowing public officials  to exempt themselves from laws that bind other citizens is a complicated issue. But as McCrory and Berger’s opinions reveal, there is a significant divide among people over the supremacy of religious beliefs. It makes sense, as Governor McCrory stated, to require public officials to fulfill their sworn duties regardless of their personal opinions. Even in the strongest religious liberty protections, a “compelling government interest” can supersede religion. Although it is seen as one of the strongest and most unalienable rights, religious liberty–both in the courts and in the legislature–has never had supreme authority. The question then remains: where does personal freedom end and civic duty begin? That debate is far from decided.

Maurin Mwombela

Maurin Mwombela is a member of the University of Pennsylvania class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer 2015. He now blogs for Law Street, focusing on politics. Contact Maurin at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Will Same-Sex Couples Be Affected by North Carolina’s Newest Law? appeared first on Law Street.

Update: 10:30am June 25, 2015

Two high-profile decisions will impact millions of lives this month, including millions of millennials, as the U.S. Supreme Court issues its opinions on ObamaCare and same-sex marriage. These cases face what many regard as the most conservative court in decades, but center on two of the most prominent and progressive social justice movements in decades. At a recent Center for American Progress (CAP) event focused on the important cases of this term, I was able to hear the implications of these cases, and they’re definitely worth our attention. In the justices’ hands rests the future and stability of the American health care system and legality of marriage equality for all. The stakes couldn’t be higher this month, and that’s exactly why you should be informed of what’s going on. Here’s a breakdown—in plain English—of what you need to know:

King v. Burwell: Battle Over ObamaCare

Just because you’re young and healthy doesn’t mean you don’t need health insurance, and this particular court case will definitely impact young people. A little background is important to grasp how, though. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) was signed into law in March 2010. It established health insurance exchanges–marketplaces that facilitate the purchase of health insurance in each state. Exchanges provide a set of government-regulated, standardized health care plans from which individuals may purchase health insurance policies. If the individual has a limited income, the exchange allows that person to obtain premium assistance (AKA: premium subsidies) to lower the monthly cost of the health care plan, making the plan affordable.

The ACA provides states three options for the establishment of exchanges: state run exchanges, a partnership with the federal government, or complete federal control of the exchange within the state. In 2014, appellants in Virginia, D.C., Oklahoma, and Indiana argued that premium subsidies are only available under a state-run exchange, citing one clause that says that premium subsidies are available “through an Exchange established by the state.” Using this phrase, litigants argue that the ACA provides premium assistance exclusively to individuals purchasing health care on state-run exchanges.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected that argument, saying that the context of the phrase reveals that Congress obviously intended for the subsidies to apply in all exchanges. But in July 2014 David King, a Virginia resident, and his co-plaintiffs  petitioned the Supreme Court and in November, the court agreed to accept the case. Oral arguments were in March 2015 and in June the outcome will be released, which has the potential to strike a detrimental blow to the Affordable Care Act. Since the ACA was signed into law, thirty-four states chose not to set up their own exchange marketplace and instead allow the federal government to operate the exchange, accounting for 75 percent of the people nationwide who qualify for premium subsidies. If the Supreme Court reverses the previous decisions and rules that only state-run exchanges qualify for premium assistance, that 75 percent will no longer be considered eligible for assistance. If the Court rules against the Obama Administration this month, about 6.4 million Americans could lose their health care premiums.

"Nearly 1 in 3 uninsured Americans have already been covered—more than 16 million people" —@POTUS #ACAWorks pic.twitter.com/rXVNHrkiW1

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) June 9, 2015

But there’s no certainty which way this will go. At the panel discussion on Monday at CAP, Elizabeth G. Taylor, Executive Director at the National Health Law Program expressed her skepticism of the Supreme Court’s decision to hear this case. “What I fear is that not only do we not have an activist court, but that it is standing in the way of efforts by publicly-elected officials to name and address social problems.” Ian Millhiser, Senior Fellow at CAP, argued that the King v. Burwell case is the “weakest argument that I have ever heard reach the Supreme Court.”

It’s especially important to keep in mind that young people will be disproportionately impacted by a SCOTUS ruling against Obamacare; over 2.2 million enrollees are between the ages of 18-34, making millennials the largest group insured under the ACA. For example, a decision against the ACA could cause young people under the age of 26 (who are automatically covered under their parents’ plans, thanks to ObamaCare) to lose their health care plans if their parents can no longer afford health insurance without federal subsidies. Whether or not SCOTUS protects those Americans remains to be seen.

Obergefell v. Hodges: Marriage Equality’s Latest Frontier

Obergefell v. Hodges will decide whether or not states are required to license a marriage between same-sex couples, as well as if states are required to recognize a lawfully licensed, out-of-state marriage between two people of the same sex.

Obergefell v. Hodges – the case #SCOTUS is considering, whether #LGBT couples have a constitutional right to marry http://t.co/FCJ6yo0ZGD

— V R Gaitonde (@weareji) June 9, 2015

Again, this decision will be important for young people, particularly because of the part we’ve played in the debate. Of Americans under age 50, 73 percent believe in marriage equality. Roberta A. Kaplan, Partner at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, stated at the CAP event Monday that the arguments in favor of marriage equality have remained the same over the years, but what has changed is the ability of judges to hear those arguments. “There’s no doubt that what made this change is the American public,” she said. While the Supreme Court does not exist to respond to the public, it certainly appears to be aware of the momentum behind the marriage equality movement. Just weeks after Ireland became the first country to legalize same-sex marriage on a national level by popular vote, SCOTUS will issue an opinion that could put the U.S. in the same progressive bracket as 18 other countries, allowing same-sex couples to marry nationwide.

Regardless of the decision though, the fight for equality won’t be over. Let’s say the Supreme Court rules in favor of marriage equality both ways. States will be required to marry same-sex couples and recognize marriages performed out of state. But the next concern for these couples is the potential for more subtle discrimination. “Same sex couples will be allowed to marry but states will be able to discriminate in other ways,” warned Millhiser. Losing jobs, healthcare, or being denied housing and loans without explicitly stated homophobic motivations are classic examples of discrimination that could very well be implemented on the state level by authorities who are adamantly against same-sex marriage. If the ruling does come out in favor of gay couples, increasing skepticism is a must to keep unlawful, prejudiced actions in check.

Both of these cases have a lot on the line, although obviously for very different reasons. Michele L. Jawando, Vice President of Legal Progress at CAP said, “I would like to believe that the court is paying attention, and I do believe that the American people have a role to play when it comes to these decisions.” This is where you come in. Speaking loudly and acting louder can truly change the course of history. Lobbying Congress, rallying for your cause, educating yourself and speaking out to educate the public on the importance of these issues are crucial methods of putting public and political pressure on the justices. I’d like to believe that the American Constitution is a living and breathing document that transforms throughout history, expanding to encompass progressive views and constantly redefining what it means to be an American; let’s hope I feel the same way at the end of June.

Update: 10:30am June 25, 2015: 

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 The Two Supreme Court Cases We Should All Be Watching 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.

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.

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.