Attorney General Eric Holder says the Justice Department will not pursue any more Defense of Marriage Act-related lawsuits. Image from Wikimedia Commons.

The United States Department of Justice has announced that it will no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in court. DOMA, passed during the Clinton administration, established that the federal government didn’t have to recognize a same sex marriage. The Attorney General and the president have both concluded that the law is unconstitutional.

White House and Justice Department declare DOMA unconstitutional

The Attorney General has informed Congress that the Department of Justice will no longer pursue any lawsuits related to the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, according to the ABC. DOMA, passed in 1996, mandates that states and territories of the United States do not have to recognize a same-sex marriage, regardless of whether the same-sex marriage was legally executed. The objection is not to the act itself, but rather Section 3 of DOMA, which legally defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman as far as the government is concerned. Attorney General Holder, consulting with President Obama, concluded that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional.

Question of scrutiny

The government had to decide whether to uphold DOMA because of two pending lawsuits, Pedersen v. OPM and Windsor v. United States. Both challenge Section 3 on constitutional grounds in court districts that lack previous cases regarding homosexual marriage, according to the New York Times. The Justice Department reviewed those cases using the legal tests of “rational basis” and “heightened scrutiny.” A “rational basis” test is to determine whether a constitutionally legal law serves no rational purpose. A “heightened scrutiny” test is to determine whether an unconstitutional law serves a legitimate governmental purpose. The Justice Department and the White House concluded that no legitimate governmental purpose for banning same sex marriage exists and doing so was discriminatory, thus unconstitutional.

DOMA still stands

The Justice Department has declined to pursue any further lawsuits regarding DOMA, though that does not mean that the law has been repealed. The Defense of Marriage Act, including Section 3, remains in effect for the time being. President Obama has gone on record as saying that he believes it is “flawed,” but he is constitutionally mandated to uphold the law, to a certain extent. However, the president can order reviews by the Justice Department to see whether defending laws in court is worth the effort.

Sources

ABC

New York Times

Letter from Attorney General Holder to Speaker John Boehner

The state of Hawaii has granted civil unions for same sex couples. Image: Giovanni Dall'Orto/Wikimedia Commons/CC-BY

The Hawaii state legislature has passed a bill granting same sex couples the right of entering into civil unions. Hawaii governor Neil Abercrombie has already committed to signing the bill into law. Hawaii will join several other states in offering legal partnership rights to same sex couples.

Neil Abercrombie pledges to sign civil unions bill into law

The governor of the state of Hawaii, Neil Abercrombie, has pledged to sign a bill granting same sex couples the right to form civil unions, according to Reuters. The newly elected governor campaigned on a promise to sign any legislation granting civil unions for same sex partners, maintaining that marriage rights, domestic partnerships or civil unions help to “reinforce our values of equality and aloha.” Last year, similar legislation went to the desk of former governor Linda Lingle, who vetoed it. Lingle said the bill was the result of a “flawed” legal process and any issue that large should be dealt with via popular referendum, not the legislature.

States that allow same-sex partnership rights

Currently, five states and Washington D.C., allow marriage for same sex couples. New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa and Washington D.C. currently grant full marriage rights to same sex couples. New Jersey currently allows for civil unions. Hawaii will be followed by Illinois in recognizing civil unions, according to Wikipedia. Same-sex domestic partnerships are recognized in Oregon, Maryland, Washington, Maine and California. However, the battle over California and same sex marriage is ongoing. Proposition 8 was overturned in court, but the issue is on hold until the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals renders a decision in the appeal. The federal government does not recognize same sex marriages because of the Defense of Marriage Act.

Legal difference between marriage and civil union

The differences between a marriage, a civil union and a domestic partnership can be confusing. The federal government recognizes 1,138 statutes that deal with rights and responsibilities of heterosexual marriage, which apply in states recognizing same sex marriage. Civil unions may offer most of these rights to same sex couples, and domestic partnerships can as well. However, the rights afforded to same sex couples depend on which state the couple resides in. Civil unions and domestic partnerships can be marriage in all but name, or they can do little other than legally acknowledging that two people have a relationship.

Sources

Reuters

Wikipedia on same sex marriage status by state

Marriage via proxy on Skype – aka “e-marriage” – has served military and same-sex couples. (Photo Credit: CC BY-SA/Stefano Bolognini/Wikipedia)

The laws pertaining to gay marriage in most states do not currently favor same-sex couples. Yet through technology, some same-sex couples have found a way to navigate around what many consider to be unjust laws, reports Time. For instance, one same-sex couple in Texas recently tied the knot via the online communication service Skype, in what is being called an “e-marriage.”

E-marriage possible in Texas, despite state law

In Texas, gay marriage may not be recognized, but an e-marriage was still possible for Mark Reed and Dante Walkup in their home city of Dallas. Reed, a board member of the LGBT group GetEQUAL, arranged for the e-marriage to be officiated by a party in Washington, D.C., where same-sex marriage is legal. While it was necessary for the couple to go to D.C. before the ceremony to register for a marriage license and receive it in the mail, being able to have a ceremony before family and friends was something neither Reed nor Walkup wanted to pass up.

Marriage equality activist and wedding officiant Sheila Alexander-Reid appeared via Skype teleconference on a 6-by-8-foot screen.

“When we walked down the aisle, as soon as we reached the front, she comes on the screen like The Wizard of Oz,” Reed said. “It was beautiful. It wasn’t make-believe. It was like she was really there.”

Proxy marriage has been done before

Military couples have married via teleconference when one party is overseas, so same-sex e-marriage seemed well within the realm of possibility to Reed. While there are no specific laws governing e-marriages, Reed is currently working with state and national legislators to ensure that other same-sex couples will have the right to marry via Internet proxy should they choose to do so. Taking on Texas’ same-sex marriage ban will come later.

Finding creative ways around inequality

Mark Reed and Dante Walkup are happy that their e-marriage may draw added attention to what many consider to be a human rights violation clothed in laws enforcing inequity. As technology expands horizons, perhaps ignorance will contract. But as Reed puts it, creativity is needed in the campaign to change minds.

“It’s like the more equal we can get through creative ways, we’re going to do it,” Reed said.

Sources

Dallas Voice

Time

Ellen grills John McCain

Image CC by Jonathunder/Flickr.

After Judge Vaughn Walker overturned Proposition 8, the California initiative that banned gay marriage in the state, he issued a temporary hold on any new marriages taking place. Today, he ruled that he will extend the hold on further same sex marriages. It is expected that the defense for Prop 8 will appeal the ruling.

Judge grants Prop 8 a stay of execution

Judge Vaughn Walker anticipated that his overturn of Proposition 8 would be appealed. He decided to enjoin same sex marriages from taking place and give Prop 8 defenders the chance to appeal the case. According to the Los Angeles Times, Judge Walker placed an injunction on any further same sex marriages Aug. 4, to determine how long the injunction should last. Today, he granted a further injunction until Aug. 18. If the defense from Perry v. Schwarzenegger do not appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by Aug. 18, same sex marriages will resume.

Lacking a rational basis

Judge Walker determined that Prop 8 had no rational, that is to say legal, basis for denying same sex couples the right to “marry,” versus having “domestic partnerships” or “civil unions.” He cited Griswold v. Connecticut (giving married couples the right to make decisions about their own marriage) and Loving v. Virginia (the right to choose who to marry) in the decision over whether Prop 8 violated the 14th Amendment, which he held it did. Upon announcing his ruling, he stayed the ruling on Prop 8 to give defenders ample time to appeal.

Wherever the case shall go

Decisions from Federal courts can be appealed to the Court of Appeals, and California is in the Ninth Circuit. (The largest circuit in the U.S.) Once the decision is made in the Court of Appeals, then it can be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. Appellate courts can decide to take or not take a case. Proponents 0f the ban have six days to decide whether to appeal.

Further Reading

Los Angeles Times

PDF of the Judge’s Ruling (Requires Adobe Reader)

Proposition 8 has elicited strong, emotional reactions on both sides. Image: Flickr/ProCommKelly

UPDATE: Proposition 8 has been ruled unconstitutional. Proponents of Prop 8 have asked a judge to immediately stay the 136-page decision, which calls for the immediate voiding of the amendment.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker is slated to release his ruling today on Proposition 8. Prop 8 supporters have already sought a stay on the ruling if it is against them. Prop 8 opponents have vowed to appeal the ruling, should it go the other way. The things the ruling will affect range from civil rights to the California state budget.

The basics of Prop 8

In 2008, the California Marriage Protection Act, otherwise known as Prop 8, was passed by voters. The voter-added ballot proposition added a section to California law that stated that only marriage between a man and a woman is legal and recognized. When Proposition 8 passed, it overturned the California Supreme Court ruling that legalized gay marriage. The campaign for Proposition 8 spent $39.9 million, while the campaign against Prop 8 spent $43.3 million.

The federal challenge to Proposition 8

The federal court challenge to Prop 8 has been argued in San Francisco. Perry v. Schwarzenegger was filed in federal court after the State Supreme Court upheld the voter initiative in Strauss v. Horton. Proponents of Proposition 8 argue that the amendment to the California constitution does not violate equal protection. Opponents to Proposition 8 are arguing that constitutional guarantee to equal protection is being violated.

The planned appeals to the Prop 8 decision

The reactions to the expected decision on Proposition 8 are already bubbling up. Supporters of Proposition 8 have filed an injunction, asking for a stay on marriage should the ruling be found against them. This would prevent further legal same-sex marriages from taking place while the case is under further legal review. Opponents to Proposition 8 have also said that if the ruling is against them, they intend to file further appeals. The millions of dollars spent on fighting Prop 8 in court are just the beginning, nationally. With a patchwork of same-sex marriage laws around the country, gay marriage is proving to be an economic boon for states that allow these legal unions.

Same-sex couples can legally marry in Washington D.C., as of today. Image from Flickr.

Washington D.C. passed a measure to legalize same-sex marriages in the district, and today that measure took effect. About 150 same-sex couples applied for marriage licenses in Washington D.C. today, according to The Associated Press. Here are a few stories from day one of legalized same-sex marriage in Washington, D.C. No amount of quick cash for a picket campaign can keep them from doing so.

Washington D.C.’s first same-sex marriage

Angelisa Young and Sinjoyla Townsend were the first same-sex couple to apply for a marriage license in Washington, D.C., according to the Washington Post. Now they will be able to share everything– the title of “wife,” health insurance and guaranteed payday loans. Of course, payday lenders have never taken marital status into account, but perhaps finances overall will be less complicated for Young and Townsend now

Washington D.C.’s first married same-sex couple met 13 years ago at the University of the District of Columbia. The Washington Post reports:

The couples won’t be able to marry until Tuesday at the earliest since it takes three business days for the applications to be processed. Young and Townsend plan to marry that day in a ceremony at the Human Rights Campaign headquarters with friends and family in attendance.

The numbers

The Associated Press reports that about 150 same-sex couples applied for marriage licenses at the court house in Washington D.C. today, where usually about a dozen apply. Couples from surrounding states such as Maryland (which aid last week it will recognize same-sex unions performed elsewhere), Virginia and West Virginia were present.  There were also a few protesters from Kansas and some extra security guards at the court house.

Deborah Weiner and Janne Harrelson, who have a 15-year-old daughter have been together 24 years. Weiner said she believed their marriage would provide a more solid sense stability for their daughter. The Post reported that the crowd applying for marriage licenses appeared to be made up more women than men. It costs $45 to get a marriage license in Washington D.C.

In good company

Washington D.C. joins Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont in legalizing same-sex marriage. According to all reports, day one of legalized same-sex marriage in Washington D.C. was a busy day for the court house, but it remained peaceful and filled with happy tears.

Image from Flickr.

The lawsuit against Proposition 8 — legislation in California that changed the state Constitution to make same-sex marriage illegal — has started. It’s not just the controversial subject matter that is getting people riled up, either. The case was set to be streamed on YouTube, but the defender for Prop 8 blocked the motion to allow the public to watch at the last minute.

Prop 8 campaign attorneys said that their clients would face harassment if people knew they were opposed to same-sex marriage. Everyone involved in this trial should probably get comfortable, and lawyers on both sides will be seeing a big pay day, as this trial will likely last a very long time.

The prosecution

On one side of the Prop 8 trial, the lawsuit states that California’s ban on same-sex marriage violates U.S. constitutional rights of equal protection and due process. Two couples — Kris Perry and Sandy Stier, and Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo — are suing because, they say “We and our relationships should be treated equally under the law. Our goal is to advance the cause of equality for all Americans, which is the promise that makes this nation so great.”

“Prop 8 used children in their campaign; Protect the Children. … It’s so insulting … to say that my marriage to [Jeff] means a child would be harmed. You put my nieces and nephews– [chokes up] they will tell you they don’t need protection from me or Jeff,” said Paul Katami, who has been in a relationship with Jeff Zarrillofor nine years.

The defense

On the other side, Charles Cooper, the lead attorney for the Prop 8 trial defense, says 14 million voters in California support “traditional” marriage. Cooper’s says the “basis of marriage is procreation,” and that same-sex marriage constitutes a “de-institutionalization” of marriage. He also argues that same-sex marriage is threatening to children.

“The de-institutionalization of marriage has caused a decline of marriage. … Marriage as a pro-child social institution is weakened. We believe, evidence will show, and testimony will show that that finding of fact will follow,” said Cooper.