Blog Posts for Federal Discrimination
Just the Facts, Maggie
When the U.S. House Subcommittee on the Constitution held an April 15 hearing called “Defending Marriage,” we knew it would not be a friendly forum. Although the focus of the hearing was on the Justice Department’s decision not to defend DOMA, Chairman Trent Franks called Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage as the principal witness rather than anyone from the Department of Justice. Ms. Gallagher’s written testimony begged for a written response, and GLAD submitted its rebuttal last week, which will now be entered into the Congressional Record.
It’s Tax Time: Good News/Bad News
It’s everyone’s favorite time of year. At least there is some good news for transgender tax payers this year. But still the same bad news for married same sex couples.
GLAD Goes to Washington
Yesterday I had the honor of accompanying Nancy Gill and Marcelle Letourneau, the lead plaintiffs in Gill v. OPM, GLAD’s First Circuit DOMA challenge, along with attorney Mary Bonauto, to Washington, D.C. The three were invited to speak at a press conference hosted by Congressman Jerrold Nadler of New York, who re-introduced the Respect for Marriage Act, his bill to repeal DOMA. Rep. Nadler’s history of active support for advancing LGBT rights on Capitol Hill is as long as his congressional career, which began in the early 1990s.
Know Your Rights: What is ‘heightened scrutiny’ and why is it important?
Courts have found that laws that discriminate against certain groups of people are more likely to reflect prejudice against that group than they are good public policy. Rather than being assumed to be constitutional, such laws need to be justified with exceptionally good reasons. This is called “heightened scrutiny” and has, for example, been used in cases where a racial group is being discriminated against. GLAD has consistently argued in the courts that sexual orientation deserves “heightened scrutiny.” So it was an enormous breakthrough last week when the President and the Department of Justice (DOJ) agreed with GLAD on that point- and because of that also agreed that DOMA is unconstitutional.
Something On Which GLAD & NOM Agree! Courts Have a Role to Play in the Real World
On the heels of the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) announcement last week that it would no longer defend DOMA against legal challenges by GLAD and other organizations, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) issued an action alert urging members to immediately call their congressional reps to demand they defend the odious law.
“It’s a constitutional outrage,” NOM President Brian Brown wrote in the alert. “Why do we even have courts if the President himself gets to decide which laws are constitutional?” (Emphasis added).
Know Your Rights: DOJ Decides DOMA Is Unconsitutional, But DOMA Continues To Be Enforced
Given the breaking news that the Department of Justice (DOJ) will no longer defend Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), I wanted to let you know what that really means to the two lawsuits GLAD currently has in the federal courts trying to overturn DOMA—Gill and Pedersen .
Know Your Rights: An Introduction to GLAD’s Legal InfoLine
Legal InfoLine Manager Bruce Bell begins a regular weekly blog post today.
Debriefing the briefs in Gill: Colorful cast of characters aligns with DOJ in support of DOMA
As in politics, court cases sometimes make strange bedfellows. The pairing of Bush v. Gore rivals Ted Olson and David Boies on the legal challenge to California’s Prop. 8 is an obvious example. Now, there’s Barack Obama and Gary G. Kreep. Who is Gary G. Kreep, you ask? For starters, he’s the amicus counsel for the National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuals, otherwise known as NARTH. The organization is one of 17 entities that filed amicus briefs in support of the Obama Administration’s appeal in Gill v. OPM, one of our two lawsuits challenging Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
An Argument for Equality: Recapping DOMA Hearing Day
It was sunny and warm as we headed to the Joseph Moakley Federal Courthouse on Boston’s waterfront. Eight married couples, three widowers, and as many attorneys marched into the courtroom of Federal District Judge Joseph L. Tauro. The plaintiffs – all harmed by DOMA in various ways – sat in the jury box, and in an overflow courtroom next door, spectators could see them on two large flat-screen TVs.
A Date With Destiny
Nearly three years ago, my wife Melba and I started on a road that would lead us to this day. During this period, we have seen one Administration go, and another come in. We have set our hopes not in these changes but on what it means to be American where fairness and equality are concerned. Understanding, that while the stewardship may change, America’s promise of equal treatment so intrinsic to the life of its citizens must remain a pledge for all. It is in search of this promise that we stand before this court today.
Today, we along with our co-plaintiffs in Gill et al vs. Office of Personnel Management et al will have our claims heard. And we will listen to our Attorney Mary Bonauto present the merits of our case. We will see opposing counsel do their best to present the merits of theirs. And we’ll stand before a U.S. Federal District Court and the presiding Judge Joseph L. Tauro for the first time in our lives; and trust that on this one Massachusetts morning, on this one day in Boston — the principles of justice and equality will prevail.