Ehe für alle (marriage for all) may soon become the law of the land in Germany after Chancellor Angela Merkel softened her stance on same-sex marriage during an interview on Monday. Merkel said the Parliament ought to carry out a “vote of conscience” on the issue. The body intends to do so on Friday.

Germany is one of the only Western European countries that has yet to legalize same-sex marriage. The country allowed same-sex couples to enter civil partnerships in 2001 and numerous legal battles since then have also won couples the right to inherit items and property. The bill, proposed by the left and green parties following Merkel’s call for a free vote, would add to this list the rights to marry and adopt.

The bill is expected to pass easily on Friday, in part because many believe this law is long overdue. A YouGov poll estimates that two thirds of Germans would advocate for a law allowing LGBTQ individuals to wed and over half of Germans support adoption.

A political move, more than a historic one?

Amid the excitement surrounding the vote, many are speculating that Merkel’s pivot emerged as a political play in her campaign for Germany’s September election, in which she is running for a fourth term.

Merkel, a member of the center-right Christian Democratic Union, has long resisted demands for same-sex marriage to be passed. “For me, personally, marriage is a man and a woman living together,” Merkel said. But, in recent months, she has faced pressure to follow in the footsteps of more progressive parties on this issue.

Her main opponent in the race, Martin Schulz, is the chosen candidate for the Social Democratic party. On Sunday, Schulz promised that same-sex marriage would be legalized in any government involving his party. Family “is not only father, mother, child,” Schultz told supporters. Family is “there wherever people take responsibility for each other.”

We will push through marriage equality in Germany. This week.

— Martin Schulz (@MartinSchulz) June 27, 2017

Two other parties, the Free Democratic Party and the Green Party have said they would not form a coalition with Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU) if same-sex marriage was not on the agenda.

Merkel’s call for the vote may have broadened her pool of potential voters, however she risks alienating the CDU’s sister party: the Bavarian conservative Christian Social Union (CSU).

“Germany has more paramount issues to address,” said CSU legislator Peter Ramsauer.

Despite the political motivations behind this decision, many Germans, Europeans, and LGBTQ advocates have expressed their delight that Germany will likely soon join the ranks of countries where same-sex couples can legally marry and establish families–and just in time for the end of Pride month.

For my English speaking followers: German parliament will vote on gay marriage tomorrow – on the 48th anniversary of Stonewall. #Ehefueralle

— Stina ⛱ (@Stinalotte) June 28, 2017

Now only 48% of EU citizens live with marriage equality. From Friday it will be 64%.

#Ehefueralle

— Filipe Henriques (@FHenriques) June 28, 2017

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Merkel Softens Stance On Same-Sex Marriage, Prompting Snap Vote appeared first on Law Street.

A lesbian filed an appeal in the Mississippi Supreme Court on June 1 to be recognized as the legal parent of a child she raised with her ex-wife.

After Chris Strickland and her ex-wife, Kimberly Day, divorced in 2016, a lower court recognized only Day as the legal parent of the couple’s children.

Strickland sought joint custody of their younger child, but was told she did not have a legal option to seek joint custody of their older child. The judge did not grant Strickland joint custody, but did grant visitation with both boys.

Strickland and Day adopted their older son in 2007. Since same-sex couples could not yet get married or adopt children in Mississippi at the time, only Day legally adopted the child and was listed on his adoption papers. However, Strickland still considers him to be her child.

“Me personally, that’s my child,” Strickland told NBC. “A piece of paper doesn’t mean anything to me.”

Strickland and Day decided to get married in 2009 and traveled to Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage was legal, to tie the knot.

Two years after the couple married, Day got pregnant via in vitro fertalization and gave birth to their younger son. Again, same-sex marriage was not yet recognized in Mississippi, so only Day’s name was  listed on their son’s birth certificate.

Following the lower court’s decision, Strickland appealed to the Mississippi Supreme Court for legal parentage of her younger child. Strickland is being represented by Lambda Legal and attorney Dianne Ellis. Day is being represented by attorney Prentiss Grant.

In a similar case in May, Judge Greg McMillan of the Knox County 4th Circuit Court recognized a Tennessee woman as the “husband” in a relationship during a same-sex couple’s divorce proceedings. The couple, Sabrina and Erica Witt married in Washington, D.C., in 2014.

The couple had a child via artificial insemination with Sabrina carrying the child. Since same-sex marriage was not legal in Tennessee at the time, Erica was not included on the birth certificate. While McMillan initially ruled that only Sabrina was the legal parent, he eventually reversed that ruling. McMillan named Erica as the “father” of the child and granted both parents custody.

That ruling came days before the Tennessee legislature passed a bill requiring judges to give “natural meaning” to gendered words such as “mother” and “father.” However, McMillan’s decision remained standing.

When children are born from opposite-sex relationships, both parents are more often listed on the child’s birth certificate and child custody disputes are less complicated–if only slightly so.

However, in cases which deal specifically with same-sex couples, those couples are especially affected by parental rights disputes arising from births and adoptions prior to marriage equality.

Depending on the decision by the Mississippi Supreme Court, a new precedent could be set for Mississippi and potentially lay the groundwork for future child custody cases nationwide.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lesbian Appeals to Mississippi Supreme Court for Child Custody appeared first on Law Street.

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.

Last September, New Yorker Kelly Gunn went to court to argue that she should be considered a legal parent and gain parental rights to the son her ex-partner adopted in 2011. Last week, she lost her case, but she is now planning to appeal. It’s a complex story that was made possible after a different case led to a new, broader definition of “parent” in New York last fall.

Gunn was in a relationship with Circe Hamilton when they started planning an adoption. The couple split up before the adoption agency had identified Abush, the seven-year-old boy who later became Hamilton’s son. But Gunn still felt like Abush was her son too. She argued in court that her participation in the adoption planning, as well as her support and care after Abush arrived, should qualify her as a legal parent.

On the other side of the argument, Hamilton said that their joint adoption plan ended when they broke up. She claimed that Gunn’s role in her and her son’s life after the breakup was more like that of a close friend or maybe a godmother.

In Gay Rights Case, Woman to Appeal for Parental Rights to Ex-Partner’s Son https://t.co/k7lVw6Mn80 pic.twitter.com/4hdYdqxuWC

— Sara Buitrago (@x3aamphv) April 20, 2017

The case is possible thanks to a decision authored by recently deceased Judge Sheila Abdus-Salaam. In a ruling last August, the New York State Court of Appeals decided that a person who is not related by blood to, or the legal adoptive parent of, a child can still ask for custody rights. The ruling came after a case in which another unmarried gay couple, named as Brooke S.B. and Elizabeth A. C.C. in court documents, had a child together.

Elizabeth was impregnated through artificial insemination in 2008. After giving birth to a boy, the three of them lived together as a family until 2010, when the women’s relationship ended. Three years after that, Elizabeth tried to sever Brooke’s ties with their son and didn’t let them have any contact. When Brooke sued for visitation rights, a lower court turned her down, as the law didn’t accept a non-adoptive caretaker with no biological ties to the child as a parent.

But the appeals court overturned the ruling on August 30. Judge Abdus-Salaam wrote that the legal definition of a parent was outdated and didn’t fit how many of us view “family” today. They considered the law especially unsustainable since New York started allowing same-sex marriage in 2011. The ruling stated:

Where a partner shows by clear and convincing evidence that the parties agreed to conceive a child and to raise the child together, the nonbiological, nonadoptive partner has standing to seek visitation and custody.

But the Gunn and Hamilton case is more complicated. The couple never married, and they did not conceive the child together. By the time they split up, they had only planned to adopt a child, but knew no other details. Gunn decided to seek custody because Hamilton was planning on moving to her home country of Great Britain with Abush.

One of Hamilton’s lawyers raised the issue that New York State’s new, expanded definition of parental rights could also be very scary for parents. It could open up arguments for trusted people close to the family to claim parental rights. But it doesn’t allow someone to gain those parental rights too easily–according to the judge in this case, Frank P. Nervo, Gunn didn’t provide sufficient evidence that she had played the role of a parent, and that was why she lost the case.

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 Woman Seeking Parental Rights to Ex-Partner’s Son Continues Legal Battle 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:

New Immigration Enforcement Rules Could Affect Millions

Yesterday, the government began issuing some new guidelines for the deportation of undocumented immigrants. The new rules, detailed via a pair of memos, are very aggressive and would focus on people who are charged with or suspected of crimes–previous guidelines prioritized those who have been convicted. These crimes can include minor offenses, like abuse of government benefits or engaging in “willful misrepresentation” in any official matter.

In the memos, Department of Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly also said that officials can deport any undocumented immigrants they believe could pose a threat to national security. He also called for the hiring of 15,000 new border patrol agents and for the building of the wall on the Mexican border to begin. It is unclear how this would be funded, but millions of people could potentially face deportation.

TRUMP DECLARES WAR ON THE ‘UNDOCUMENTED’: Trump’s new barbaric order can literally rip a family apart for jaywalking https://t.co/rIYXPjA20k

— Bill Madden (@activist360) February 21, 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 22, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Happy Monday Law Streeters! Last week Taiwan readied to become the first asian nation to legalize gay marriage, post-election donations crashed the ACLU website, and Joe Biden memes made all of us laugh. ICYMI–check out the top stories from Law Street below!

1. Taiwan Set to Become First Asian Nation to Legalize Same-Sex Marriage

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. Read the full article here.

2. ACLU Website Crashes After Tons of Donations

In the wake of Donald Trump’s presidential win on Tuesday night, a lot of people were concerned about what a Trump presidency might mean for Americans’ civil rights. One of the biggest defenders of those rights is the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a legal organization that regularly sues the government when it believes individuals’ rights are being infringed upon. In the wake of Trump’s election, the ACLU has seen record donations, so many, in fact, that the organization’s website crashed on Wednesday morning. Read the full article here.

3. Memes of Biden Trolling Trump Are Helping Us Laugh Away Our Tears

After last week’s poll-defying election results, half of Americans were left stunned and feeling a bit like they’d just been cast in a Doomsday movie. Luckily meme connoisseur Josh Billinson, was there to deliver some much needed comedic relief. Read the full article here.

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 ICYMI: Best of the Week 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.

Couples who sued county clerk Kim Davis last year in order to get their marriage licenses have asked U.S. District Court Judge David Bunning to award them $233,058 in legal fees and costs.

Following the Supreme Court’s ruling to legalize same-sex marriage, Davis made national headlines for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in Rowan County, Kentucky.

Her noncompliance forced several same-sex couples to sue her. The cases went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, and Davis lost every single step along the way. She additionally spent five days in jail on contempt charges. Her only win came from the Kentucky legislature’s decision in April to remove county clerks’ names from marriage licenses, which is what she wanted after citing religious objections to same-sex marriage.

In August, the judge dismissed the couples’ cases against her on grounds that the matter had been resolved by the action in the legislature. However, lawyers for the couples argued that Davis still refused to do her job as county clerk when she went against the Supreme Court’s ruling, forcing them to then sue her in order to obtain those licenses.

Davis’ legal team is requesting that the judge deny the couples’ requests for legal fees. According to the Lexington Herald-Leader, Roger K. Gannam of Liberty Counsel–the religious advocacy group that is representing Davis–filed  a response on behalf of Davis Monday. He wrote that since the couples that filed against Davis did not prevail in their cases, they have no grounds to make someone else pay their legal fees.

Similarly, Rowan County filed its own response that stated the county government should not be told to pay any of the fees because Davis was acting individually– in her public official capacity–and not on behalf of the county.

“County clerks are not employees of the county, but instead are the holders of elective office pursuant to the Kentucky Constitution,” wrote  Rowan County attorney Jeffrey C. Mando.

William Sharp, legal director of the Kentucky ACLU and one of the lawyers for the couple, said in a statement:

Courts recognize that when successful civil rights plaintiffs obtain a direct benefit from a court-ordered victory, such as in this case, they can be entitled to their legal expenses to deter future civil rights violations by government officials.

Additionally, if Davis and her legal team are forced to pay the bills, they won’t be able to use popular crowdfunding site GoFundMe, after it changed its policies to prevent fundraising for “campaigns in defense of formal charges or claims of heinous crimes, violent, hateful, sexual or discriminatory acts.”

Whatever Davis decides to do next, it will probably continue to stir up controversy that keeps her in the public’s eye.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Kim Davis Wants to Avoid Paying Same-Sex Couples’ Legal Fees 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.

Lawmakers in many states still seem to be having a hard time coping with the idea of not only same-sex marriage, but that same-sex couples should receive equal rights.

Kentucky, Alabama, and Georgia are not the only states to seemingly reject the principle of the SCOTUS decision last year, effectively legalizing same-sex marriage, but they are the three most recent examples. If we tried to actually discuss all of the different states’ provisions following the Supreme Court ruling, it would take hours to read this. According to the Human Rights Campaign, last year more than 100 anti-LGBT bills were filed in 29 states.

Kentucky and Georgia are two states that have recently passed religious liberty legislation through one or both of their houses. Kentucky’s bill, SB 180, passed through the senate with a 22-16 vote and is now awaiting its fate in the house. Georgia’s HB 757 passed through both the senate and the house and has been sent to the governor’s desk. The governor, Nathan Deal, has expressed that he will not sign the bill into law in its current form. Meanwhile Alabama is changing around marriage laws following the 2015 Obergefell decision.

Religious liberty laws prohibit the local or state government from infringing on businesses’ rights to deny services to people who violate their religious beliefs. Such legislation is usually written in a way that does not explicitly mention the LGBT community, but this aim is implied by the swift wave of new legislation following same-sex marriage’s effective nationwide legalization and recent cases of businesses refusing service to same-sex customers based on their religious beliefs.

Many cases about businesses and state officials refusing services to same-sex couples have been brought to court recently, including: in May 2014, a Colorado bakery that refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage citing religious beliefs, and the infamous Kim Davis of Rowan County, Kentucky, who was jailed for refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses.

Kentucky

Kentucky’s recent legislation was created to enhance the state’s 2013 Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The new legislation clarifies that businesses cannot be punished in certain cases for violating pre-existing local ordinances that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

The bill’s sponsor, Republican Albert Robinson of London, said the legislation is designed to protect everyone’s religious liberties…but critics worry it doesn’t extend to civil liberties.

Robinson spoke on the senate floor and said that businesses should have the freedom to refuse service if they are required to “use their skills to provide a customized service celebrating something that violated one of the tenets of their faith.”

But religious liberty legislation has a history of causing economic problems for the states that enact it. Last year following the passage of Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the state saw a loss of  a dozen conventions resulting in a $60 million loss in revenue, according to a document prepared by Visit Indy obtained by the Associated Press.

Georgia

In Georgia, where a similar bill has passed through both houses in the state legislature, the effects of its possible passage are causing some businesses to plan on relocation.

Telecommunications firm 373K, which was founded by Kelvin Williams and is located in Atlanta, is one of the outspoken businesses against the bill. Williams, who is gay, said he and his employees supported the decision to relocate to possibly Delaware or Nevada if the bill passes.

“For the past year we’ve been building a global carrier network. We have to start hiring more,” Williams said to CBS News. “I can’t always find the perfect person in Georgia. I might have to reach out across the world. Would I want to move to Georgia if someone else offered me a job after this? The answer was no.”

Alabama

Alabama is a bit of a different situation, but still relevant for the discussion of anti-LGBT proposals. Recently, the Alabama Senate passed a bill that would do away with marriage licenses and change to contracts that are filed with the state. Alabama (like many other states) was previously having the issue of some county probate judges who had stopped giving marriage licenses altogether in order to avoid giving them to same-sex couples.

Openly gay Representative Patricia Todd, who opposed the bill, deemed it unnecessary and said that the judges should just do their jobs, according to the Associated Press.

There is no way to tell how this will affect other aspects of the law, especially when it comes to divorce. If one aspect of the marriage system is altered in the eyes of the state, other things will likely need to change as well. For example, will divorce procedure need to be changed? How is that going to work? There is really no way to tell how this is going to change the system, all to alleviate the pain and burden on a few officials who refuse to do one of their explicitly stated jobs. If any of these bills are enacted into law, it will be interesting to see the outcome and the potential economic and social consequences that could arise.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post It’s 2016 and Some State Lawmakers are Still Trying to Fight LGBT Equality appeared first on Law Street.

Ever since the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage last summer, contentious debates over how states can protect the religious freedoms of businesses and organizations have been underway. States like Indiana, Missouri, and West Virginia have been proposing religious liberty laws that have led to strong reactions on all sides of the aisle.

On Wednesday morning, after an impressive 39-hour filibuster, Republicans in the Missouri Senate voted to end the discussion on a bill that could allow religiously affiliated organizations to refuse to participate in activities that could be considered condoning or participating in same-sex marriage. The bill, Senate Joint Resolution 39, proposes an amendment to Article I of Missouri’s state constitution that would prohibit penalizing organizations for refusing services if they go against the organization’s religious beliefs.

Democratic Senators in Missouri used their filibuster to stall the bill from going to a vote while harping on topics “including other bills, Donald Trump, slick roads, soft drink ads in foreign countries, and ‘Jesus sightings’ in foreign objects,” an NPR affiliate reported. After Republican senators voted to end the filibuster, they subsequently voted in favor of placing the resolution on the ballot this November in a vote of 23-9. The bill still has to go to the house before the resolution can be placed on the upcoming ballot, at which point Missouri voters would decide on the amendment themselves.

Bills like SJR 39 have been popping up left and right across the country as local governments try to protect  people’s First Amendment right to religious freedom. But these bills have sparked a lot of controversies. Why? Many people claim that they are laws focused on discriminating against gay people, instead of protecting religious liberty as they claim.

Around a year ago, Indiana passed a law similar to the Missouri resolution that allows businesses to cite their adherence to religious beliefs as a defense in civil suits–allowing them to refuse service to particular people or groups if doing so violates their religious beliefs. One of the biggest concerns about Indiana’s law, in particular, is its vague wording and the ambiguous nature of its purpose. While Indiana Governor Mike Pence claimed that the bill was in no way about discrimination, it is really difficult to differentiate between the intention behind the bill and its impact until you can see how it plays out in practice.

Celebrities have been jumping to defend gay marriage in comedic videos poking fun of religious freedom laws and tweets supporting the movement to prevent sexuality-based discrimination.

If you really and truly want pizza for your gay wedding in Indiana… We will make it for you. @donald_faison pic.twitter.com/y91qIkVoyt

— Zach Braff (@zachbraff) April 3, 2015

And, of course, what would a discussion of policy be without acknowledging its impact on the current presidential race. Candidates are using these religious freedom laws as talking points to entice voters, especially those on the right of our political spectrum. After Indiana’s law passed but similar bills were shut down in other states, Ted Cruz said:

On my first day of office, I will instruct the Department of Justice and the IRS and every federal agency that the persecution of religious liberty ends today

Yes, it’s tempting to want to stand up for religious freedom in our country, especially when that freedom is guaranteed by the Constitution, but when the fiercest and most frequent claims of persecution come from middle-aged, white catholic men, it kind of confuses the issue.

Is baking a pizza for a gay wedding really the crux of an American war on religion? Probably not. Should we be watching out for religious minorities to protect their ability to coexist in our complex religious landscape? Definitely. Is enacting bills to protect a cake baker from cake baking for gay couples really the hard hitting way to protect the minority religions that are actually being persecuted? Almost definitively not.

Let’s follow in the footsteps of West Virginia, who voted down a religious liberties bill after backlash claiming that it was discriminatory. And Georgia, who dismissed a bill when their Republican governor acknowledged it to be unnecessary for protecting religious freedom. It’s time to to support government action that–while standing up for freedom of religion and beliefs–ultimately upholds protection from discrimination for all of our citizens.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post It’s Time to Talk About Religious Liberty Laws appeared first on Law Street.

Feminism fights for political, social and economic equality for every gender, and this year we saw several amazing examples of that fight. It was a year of struggle, but if feminists in 2015 have proven anything, it’s that we will always push back against anything–or anyone–who tries to bar any group of people from their basic human rights. Here are just a few of my favorite feminist moments from 2015.

1. Celebrities stand up for equal pay.

Image courtesy of [Disney/ABC Television Group/Craig Sjodin via Flickr]

Back in February, the Oscar winner for Best Supporting Actress, Patricia Arquette, took her opportunity on stage to deliver a powerful message about the wage gap:

To every woman who gave birth to every taxpayer and citizen of this nation we have fought for everybody’s equal rights. It is our time to have wage equality once and for all and equal rights for women in the United States of America.

While her comments after she left the stage have been called into question, her main point is clear: the wage gap exists and it’s time we acknowledge and fix it.

Then, in October, Jennifer Lawrence called Hollywood out on the fact that she earned less than her male co-stars, and realized her own insecurity with asking for what she deserved:

I didn’t want to seem ‘difficult’ or ‘spoiled.’ At the time, that seemed like a fine idea, until I saw the payroll on the Internet and realized every man I was working with definitely didn’t worry about being ‘difficult’ or ‘spoiled.’

Her fear of being judged for her confidence is something many women struggle with. It is high time we stop apologizing for demanding equality.

2. Feminist Democrats announce their candidacies for President.

It came as no surprise when Hillary Clinton submitted her name for the presidential ballot. Needless to say, America’s first female president would have the potential to move the country rapidly towards true gender equality. If fellow female candidate, Republican Carly Fiorina, had proven herself to be a champion for equal rights, I’d be cheering her on, too. Unfortunately, she has demonstrated that not every woman believes in feminist ideals.

And let’s not forget that men can be feminists as well. Martin O’Malley, the Democratic Governor of Maryland, has fought for not only women’s rights, but equal rights for people of all genders and sexual orientation.

Welcome to MD @MittRomney. FYI, in our State we don’t try to take away women’s health services. We work to expand them.

— Martin O’Malley (@MartinOMalley) March 21, 2012

Hillary’s main competition for the Democratic bid, Senator Bernie Sanders, was asked by the Washington Post if he is a feminist, to which he replied, “Yes.” His long political career certainly shows that:

In terms of women’s rights, you’re looking at somebody who, to the best of my knowledge, has a 100 percent pro-choice voting record. You’re looking at somebody who’s made a cornerstone, a key part of my campaign, the need for at least three months of family and medical leave; somebody who is fighting to raise the minimum wage over a two year period to $15 an hour, which will benefit everybody, but women actually more than men; somebody who regards it as enormously important that we fight for pay equity for women…So I think if people look at my record, I think they will see somebody who has had a lifelong record of support for the women’s movement and women’s rights.

So whoever becomes the Democratic candidate for POTUS, equal rights will certainly be at the forefront of their platform, and that is truly exciting.

3. “‘Playing like a girl’ means you’re a badass.”

The women of the United States national soccer team took on the Japanese in July for the final game of the FIFA World Cup–and they won. It was the most-watched, televised soccer game ever, male or female, in the history of the U.S.

While honoring the team a few months later, President Obama sang their praises, saying, “This team taught all of America’s children that ‘playing like a girl’ means you’re a badass.”

And of course, he’s right. Now, if only those female athletes would get the same pay as their male counterparts.

4. Same-sex marriage is legalized in all 50 states.

June was a historic month for marriage equality, when the Supreme Court declared same-sex marriage legal in all 50 states. Despite push back from people like the county clerk who refused to issue same-sex marriage licenses, justice prevailed and now people of any gender can marry whoever they want to.

5. “I stand with Planned Parenthood.”

Image courtesy of Charlotte Cooper via Flickr

The battle to keep federal funding for Planned Parenthood has been raging for months, with men and women alike fighting tooth and nail to prove that the medical institution is more than just abortions. Thanks to a slanderous smear campaign of doctored videos earlier in the year, Planned Parenthood’s use of funding and ethical practices were called into question. That campaign was later proved to be based on false claims, and Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards valiantly took on the opposition in a brilliant testimony, but the damage had already been done. House Republicans have attempted numerous times to strip Planned Parenthood of its federal support, which would surely cripple the organization that has helped millions of men and women with reproductive and basic health services. Planned Parenthood supporters took to the streets and to social media to show their support, with rallies, parades and campaigns like #ShoutYourAbortion. The outpouring of people standing behind Planned Parenthood proves that the Republican-controlled Congress does not have the interests of most Americans at heart, and brings the issue of reproductive rights to the forefront.

6. Study proves men and women are wired the same. 

In a study published in November in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), researchers have proven that there is no difference between the brains of men and women:

Our study demonstrates that, although there are sex/gender differences in the brain, human brains do not belong to one of two distinct categories: male brain/female brain.

They found that, while some characteristics are more common in one gender over the other, those characteristics are not exclusive to one gender, and the brain is made up of complex “mosaics.” Despite an age-old belief, the human brain cannot be classified based on gender. Men and women have the same brains.

7. The U.S. Military opens all combat roles to women.

In August, women everywhere cheered on the success of the first two female soldiers to complete the Army’s elite ranger school. They proved that, at least some women, can handle the same physical and mental challenges that men have been dealing with as rangers for decades. However, unlike the male graduates, the female soldiers could not apply for combat roles in the 75th Ranger Regiment.

That changed in early December, when Defense Secretary Carter made the historic announcement that all roles in all military branches will now be open to women.

The announcement was not met with support across the board, by some in both the civilian population and by some already in the armed forces. Many called into question the physical abilities of females, pointing out that women are held to a lower physical fitness standard, and even going so far as to allege that females in certain combat positions would serve as distractions to their male colleagues.

These arguments are absolutely reflective of the inherent misogyny in American society and the gender stereotypes to which many still cling to. Of course, standards should not be lowered to let women into special forces. Let all the men and women going for those roles succeed or fail based on skill. If men cannot control themselves around female counterparts, that is their fault, not the fault of women.

The pushback is unfortunate, but the opposition will not change the course of the announcement. Despite requests for some positions in the Navy and Marines to still remain closed to females, if women meet the standards set to obtain those roles, they will be able to serve in them. It will not be easy, but women have proven time and again that we can overcome adversity and oppression.

Whether it’s fighting for your country, serving as a politician, acting in Hollywood, playing on professional sports teams, or even raising a family, 2015 has proven that anyone of any gender can do anything.

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 2015’s Best Feminist Moments 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.

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 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.

Same sex marriage legalization is rampant across the country. LGBT rights have flittered in and out of the media spotlight–most recently flaring up with discussions over Caitlyn Jenner. But America’s changing attitudes regarding polygamy have been almost as dramatic. Gallup just released a survey showing that America’s moral approval of polygamy dramatically increased nine percentage points from 2001 to 2015. Despite this rise in moral acceptability, many are still confused by the term polygamy, while numerous Americans are paralyzed by the fear of legalizing it.

Polygamy is “marriage in which a spouse of either sex may have more than one mate at the same time.” Often, polygamy is confused with polygyny, which means having one or more female wives or mates at a time. But the Gallup poll used the term polygamy, referring to any marriage in which there are more than two partners. In the poll, polygamy was the issue that saw the largest percent change–going from seven percent acceptance to 16 percent in just 14 years.

According to this Gallup poll, this increase in the acceptance of polygamy is accompanied with a record high moral acceptability of same sex marriage at 63 percent. There was also a 16 percentage point increase in the acceptability of having a baby outside of marriage and a 15 point increase in the acceptability of sex between an unmarried man and woman.

All of these percentages show a dramatic change in America’s attitudes towards sex, marriage, and relationships. These are huge shifts in American values, but conservatives have been shouting from the beginning that legalizing same sex marriage will lead to legalizing polygamy–including Rick Santorum and Rand Paul–and it looks like they could be right. The acceptance of same sex marriage coincides with the larger trend of more liberal attitudes toward marriage and sex. This general trend has caused many conservatives to shout louder, warning America of the ramifications of legalizing same sex marriage. One of the larger ramifications they promote is the possibility of legalizing polygamy. 

Although polygamy is not legal under federal law, and some states like Utah have decriminalized it, there are a handful of people who practice polygamy quietly by skirting the law. Often, this translates to taking one wife or husband in the eyes of the law and marrying another solely through a religious institution.

In the United States, polygamy is often associated with Mormonism and it is starting to become associated with Islam as well. But another population within the United States has recently taken up this issue as well—feminists. One of the primary arguments revolves around the notion that polygamy is a woman’s choice. It is therefore sexist if criminalizing polygamy takes away a woman’s choice to practice polygamy. As Jillian Keenan makes her feminist argument, she argues against pushing women into a victimized role, stating:

We have a tendency to dismiss or marginalize people we don’t understand. We see women in polygamous marriages and assume they’re victims.

While this argument resonates with the themes of personal freedom and choice, there doesn’t seem to have been any data collected to support this claim. If anything, there seems to be more data mounted against it. For example, many women who have immigrated to this country have arrived to find their spouse married to somebody else. Or sometimes a woman is told that she has no choice but to enter into a polygamous marriage. There are some cases of happy polygamous marriages but there is not enough information in order to legalize polygamy—feminist talking point or not.

While America is experiencing a smaller sexual revolution and refining its attitudes towards relationships, sex, and marriage, there are more perspectives to these issues than just legalization or decriminalization. The opinions are changing, but deciding on how that translates to policy is an entirely differently matter. So while polygamy might be seen as more acceptable, according to 15 percent of Americans, that doesn’t necessarily mean there will be any changes in the law anytime soon.

Sarina Neote

Sarina Neote is a member of the American University Class of 2017. Contact Sarina at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Polygamy and Public Opinion: Is America’s Morality Shifting? 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.

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.

Gather ‘round, Constant Reader (if I may be so presumptuous with my very first blog post). Let’s wax nostalgic for a tick.

There we go. That should set the mood.

It’s 1987. Hollywood’s been treating the world to some gems: Adventures in Babysitting; The Lost Boys; Nightmare on Elm Street III. On the politics front, the sun is setting on Reagan’s presidency and the Cold War. Most importantly, though, the Washington football team (which shall remain nameless) has made it to Super Bowl XXII. It’s halftime and they’ve just hung 35 second-quarter points on the Broncos — a Super Bowl record. By game’s end, the Washington football team’s quarterback, Doug Williams, would be become the first black quarterback to win the Super Bowl.

Despite Williams’ achievement, the idea persisted that black quarterbacks aren’t as smart as their white counterparts. Years later, this refrain played out to major controversy when Rush Limbaugh called Donovan McNabb, quarterback of the Philadelphia Eagles, overrated, explaining that the liberal, mainstream media with its PC bromides just wanted to see a black quarterback succeed.

Fast forward to this year. And thank you, by the way, for allowing me a momentary walk down memory lane. It does indeed warm my very gay heart cockles to talk football (usually 49ers). But, with that jaunt I have a point: the NFL appeared to have progressed by leaps and bounds when the St. Louis Rams drafted Michael Sam earlier this year, the first openly gay football player in the NFL.

Courtesy of PopWrapped

To boot, the cameras then panned to him planting an Al-and-Tipper-level kiss on his boyfriend.

Yeah, that disaster

Even more, Michael Sam is black and in an interracial relationship. Boom! Check, check, and check. Who’da thunk the NFL could be so forward? So au currant?

I tried to place the Michael Sam moment into the larger context of recent progress generally. In President Obama’s purportedly transcendent America, same-sex marriage has rapidly swept across the country. Just earlier this year, for instance, Judge John E. Jones III of Pennsylvania’s Middle District struck down Pennsylvania’s same-sex marriage ban, finding it in violation of the Constitution’s due process and equal protection clauses. Pennsylvania thus became the nineteenth state to effectively legalize same-sex marriage. Last year, the Supreme Court issued favorable rulings in the California Proposition 8 and DOMA cases.

Then I remembered that I’ve only ever lived really in the most liberal of hotbeds, Los Angeles and New York City, and I slowed my roll. In fact, I think we all ought to slow our rolls. While the LGBTQ community continues to march toward full equality, other minority communities are seeing their gains erode. Just look at the Supreme Court’s recent ruling upholding Michigan’s constitutional amendment banning affirmative action in admissions to the state’s public universities. (As an aside though, yay for Justice Sotomayor’s blistering, two-snaps-and-an-around-the-world smack down dissent!)

The LGBTQ community is rightfully and deservedly celebrating its recent electoral and legal victories. As a member of the community I have tempered my elation, though, because I feel deeply that the fortunes of “discrete and insular minorities” are intertwined. No doubt, the Michael Sam moment was indeed big; a watershed moment totally deserving of celebration. But let’s not get too ahead of ourselves. The NFL still makes its bones playing to the hyper-heteronormative crowd. Just sit through those Go-Daddy commercials during the Super Bowl. We aren’t yet living in the post-racial, post-gender, post-et-cetera world promised with the election of Barack Obama. Bigotry accumulated over time tends to pervade everything from society’s institutions to even its more subtle, discursive acts of culture. I’ll more fully celebrate the Michael-Sam-type moments when progress begins to happen on all fronts, not just one.

—

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 [VJnet 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 LGBT Community Makes Great Strides, Other Minority Groups’ Rights Eroding 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.

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.

This year promises to be an interesting one in law. Here are some of the most interesting cases, trials, and legal topics y’all might want to keep your eyes on in 2014.

(Note: I have tried not to include Supreme Court cases that were heard in 2013 but will be ruled upon in 2014, as most of those have already been heavily covered by the media during oral arguments.)

8. Lavabit and Ladar Levison 

The case: After Edward Snowden’s revelations about NSA spying, it was discovered that he was using an encrypted email service called Lavabit. The owner, Ladar Levison, was court-ordered to hand over access to the entire site to the government, because Lavabit’s programming made it impossible to hand over access to just Snowden’s account. In protest, Levison shut down the site, defied a gag order, and has now filed an appeal.

Why it matters: This year, mainly from the NSA spying scandal, we learned about the technological abilities our government uses to monitor US citizens. This court ruling will either stifle or extend those abilities. For those who oppose the government having access to personal information, this Lavabit case may set important precedent — and it really will be a case to watch.

7. Jodi Arias Sentencing

The case: In 2013, we saw the extremely weird case involving Jodi Arias in Arizona. She was eventually convicted of murdering her boyfriend, Travis Alexander. It was a gruesome and disturbing case in which the jury found her guilty; however, they could not agree on whether to sentence her to life in prison, or death. A mistrial was declared on the sentencing portion of her trial and the new sentencing trial will also have new jurors.

Why it matters: The Defense has gone so far as to request a change of venue for the resentencing portion. They have argued that the huge media attention directed at the case has the potential for bias. That may be true, and it certainly wasn’t the first case with a big media blitz –Casey Anthony ring a bell? But if that’s actually the case, a change in venue won’t help — this case was huge all over the country. I’m reminded of an SNL skit from a few years ago about choosing jurors for OJ Simpson’s 2007 robbery and assault case. Watch it here, it’s really funny. But all joking aside, it’s the truth. It will be incredibly hard to find jurors who haven’t heard of Jodi Arias. Is it possible that our obsession with watching justice unfold is getting in the way of justice itself? Maybe we’ll get some answers with this retrial. 

6. McCullen v. Coakley 

The case: Oral arguments for McCullen v. Coakley are scheduled before the Supreme Court later this month. This case has been waiting for its day in court since 2001; there was appeal after appeal before the Justices agreed to hear it. It involves a law that Massachusetts instituted to create a 35-foot buffer zone around reproductive health facilities.

Why it matters: First of all, as I mentioned, this case has been going on for a very long time. The Supreme Court’s decision will add some sort of finality to it, no matter what the decision may end up being. Second, it could reverse a much-relied upon precedent, Hill v. Colorado, which allowed an eight-foot buffer zone. Finally, it raises an important constitutional issue about which right is more important: the right to free speech, assembly, and protest, or the right to seek an abortion without harassment?

Hopeful finality for this case.

5. Silkroad Case

The case: The infamous illegal-good site Silk Road was removed from the web this Fall, and its alleged creator, Ross Ulbricht, was arrested. The site sold drugs and fraudulent IDs, among other things. In addition to being indicted for his work on the site, he has now been accused of hiring assassins. The $80 million he allegedly made through the site is now in government custody. In 2014, he’ll either work out some sort of deal with the government, or face trial.

Why it matters: Silkroad had a huge market. It was relied upon by many people to get illegal goods relatively safely. Most of the Bitcoins (an electronic currency) in existence went through this site. And it was really only a matter of time until it shut down.

But, and this point is becoming a common trend on my list, it’s also another mark of how the government’s ability to use technology for prosecutorial purposes is evolving. I can assure you that this will have ramifications in the future, because people aren’t going to stop buying illegal stuff over the Internet. They’ll just get better at it.

4. Marriage Rights

The case(s): The Supreme Court already put a stop to Utah’s same-sex marriage licenses in 2014. The case will now go to the nearest appeals court. This is just one example; there are other cases regarding the rights of homosexuals to marry all over the United States.

A spontaneous reaction after the DOMA ruling last year.

Why it matters: 2013 was a banner year for gay rights in a lot of ways, but it’s important to note that the court cases will probably continue for years to come. There’s a lot of work to be done, and it doesn’t seem like the Supreme Court would unilaterally rule to legalize gay marriage. In 2014 we will continue to see more cases, trials, and hopefully, victories.

3. Voting Rights Cases

The case(s): There have been a lot of efforts at the state level to change voting rights laws, and the DOJ and various special interest groups have stood up to these changes when needed. But in 2013, part of the Voting Rights Act was struck down by the Supreme Court. So, each challenge to voting rights has to be filed against separately. As a result, many suits will be heard in 2014 to states’ attempted voting rights changes.

Why it matters: The change to the Voting Rights Act makes it more difficult for suits to be filed against voting rules, but special interest groups will also be under pressure to make changes before the 2014 midterms and 2016 national elections.

2. Contraception

The case(s): There were contraception cases regarding coverage through the Affordable Care Act that made it to the court in 2013, but many more will be on deck in 2014. One involves a nonprofit called Little Sisters of the Poor, and others involve for-profit companies like Hobby Lobby.

Why it matters: Not only is contraception a hot political issue, these cases involve parts of the Affordable Care Act. Parts of the ACA have already made it to the Supreme Court, but this will be a new decision will have ramifications as to whether or not companies are required to cover contraception for their employees, regardless of religious beliefs.

1. NSA Cases

The case(s): A lot of cases have been filed regarding the NSA’s monitoring of US citizens. A few may make it to the high court. US District Court Judge Richard Leon in Washington recently ruled that the NSA monitoring was unconstitutional. Meanwhile, District Court Judge William Pauley in New York dismissed a similar case. That kind of contradiction could lead to a big legal showdown in 2014.

Why it matters: The NSA surveillance debate was one of the biggest controversies of the year, and raised many legal questions about the ability of the government to monitor its people. What happens in these cases could set a serious precedent.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead 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.

Featured image courtesy of [Dan Moyle via Flickr]

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 Cases to Watch in 2014 appeared first on Law Street.