QUEER QUOTE: Draconian 30-Year Sentence Overturned In HIV Criminalization Case

The case of Michael Johnson has been a cause celebre for years, an emblematic of a toxic stew of race, (homo)sexuality, homophobia, AIDSphobia and criminal justice that produces (and is produced by) HIV criminalization statutes. Johnson is a Black gay man who at age 23 was sentenced to 30 years in a Missouri court in summer 2015 because the former college wrestler did not disclose to his male partners that he  knew he was HIV-positive before they engaged in unprotected sexual activity (some of which was recorded on cellphones). This week comes the news that an appellate court has overturned that draconian sentence (conviction for 2nd degree murder would have received less jail time) and ordered a new trial.

The Washington Post reports:

During the trial, Johnson remained adamant that he informed his partners of the positive HIV test. He pleaded not guilty. The prosecution, however, impeached his testimony using three clips of cellphone conversations, recorded while Johnson was jailed. In one snippet of phone conversation, Johnson admitted he was just “pretty sure” he had informed his partners he was HIV positive. 

After slightly more than two hours of deliberation, a jury declared Johnson guilty of three crimes, all felonies under Missouri law: one count of recklessly infecting a sexual partner with HIV, one count of recklessly exposing a partner to HIV and three counts of attempting to recklessly infect a partner with HIV. In July 2015, Judge Jon A. Cunningham of the Circuit Court for St. Charles County sentenced Johnson to 30 years in prison. 

[...] 

Presiding Missouri Court of Appeals’ Eastern District Judge James M. Dowd wrote Tuesday that Johnson’s trial was rendered “fundamentally unfair” by the prosecutors; they tarried too long handing over the cellphone calls recorded while Johnson was in the county jail. “The State’s blatant discovery violation here is inexcusable,” the judges concluded.

Johnson's lawyer Lawrence Lustberg, the ACLU of Missouri and Lambda Legal celebrated this week's result. Lustberg's comment is today's Queer Quote:

"Statutes like the one used to prosecute Mr. Johnson are inherently problematic, as they promote stigma and animus towards people living with HIV in violation of their legal and constitutional rights."

The ACLU notes that the new trial is being ordered due to prosecutorial misconduct and not the underlying constitutional frailty of the criminal statute Johnson was charged and sentenced under.
MadProfessah will continue to follow this case closely and urge readers to contribute to organizations like Lambda Legal, ACLU and the Center for HIV Law and Policy.

Hat/tip to Washington Blade and Washington Post.

QUEER QUOTE: SCOTUS Agrees To Hear Important Transgender Rights Case From Virginia

The United States Supreme Court agreed to hear the case of Gavin Grimm, a 17-year-old transgender boy who (with the help of the ACLU) is suing the Gloucester County School Board in Virginia for the right to use the bathroom associated with his gender identity.

Today's Queer Quote is from the granting of certioari by SCOTUS in Grimm:

 (1) Whether courts should extend deference to an unpublished agency letter that, among other things, does not carry the force of law and was adopted in the context of the very dispute in which deference is sought; and (2) whether, with or without deference to the agency, the Department of Education's specific interpretation of Title IX and 34 C.F.R. § 106.33, which provides that a funding recipient providing sex-separated facilities must “generally treat transgender students consistent with their gender identity,” should be given effect.

SCOTUSblog describes the Grimm case in this way:

Although the controversy over the school board’s policy requiring students to use the restrooms and locker rooms that match the gender that they were assigned at birth instantly became the highest-profile case of the court’s term so far, the dispute actually centers on more technical (and, some would say, rather dry) legal issues. In this case, the district court ruled against G.G., relying on a 1975 regulation that allows schools to provide “separate toilet, locker room, and shower facilities on the basis of sex,” as long as those facilities are comparable to those provided to the opposite sex. But, in January 2015, the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights issued an opinion letter stating that, if schools separate students in restrooms and locker rooms on the basis of their sex, a “school generally must treat transgender students consistent with their gender identity.” In light of the 2015 letter, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit reversed and ruled for G.G. It relied on the Supreme Court’s 1997 decision in Auer v. Robbins, which held that courts generally should defer to an agency’s interpretation of its own regulation. 

In granting review today, the justices sidestepped the most prominent issue they had been asked to take on: whether they should overrule their decision in Auer, which has been the target of criticism by conservative lawyers and jurists. Instead, they agreed only to weigh in on two other, lower-profile questions presented in the school board’s petition: whether courts should defer to a letter, like the Department of Education opinion letter in this case, that was issued as part of the specific dispute before the court; and whether the Department of Education’s interpretation of the federal civil rights laws and the 1975 regulation as requiring schools to treat transgender students consistent with their gender identity should be given effect. 

The school board’s case, as well as the others in which the justices granted review today, likely will be argued during the court’s February sitting, which begins on February 21.

Here at MadProfessah.com we will be  watching this case closely. The primary takeaway should be that although marriage equality is now the law of the land, the fight for full LGBT equality is clearly not over. And the United States Supreme Court will almost certainly play a role in accomplishing this.

Hat/tip to Kenneth in the 212

QUEER QUOTE: Democrats Praise 4th U.S. Circuit Ruling In Favor Of Transgender Student

The 4th U.S. Circuit has upheld the Obama Administration's Education Department non-discrimination policy in a dispute with a Virginia school district over the rights of a transgender student to access education according to their preferred gender identity. The ruling is in the case of transgender male student Gavin Grimm in his lawsuit against the Gloucester County School Board, who has enacted a policy that said that every student had to access restrooms and changing facilities based on their "biological sex at birth" and not their gender identity.

Chris Geidner of Buzzfeed reports:

The decision is a big victory for the Obama administration, which weighed in at the appeals court to support Grimm’s challenge, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which has been pressing the case for protecting LGBT people under existing civil rights laws since 2012.  

The appeals court had heard the arguments in January, and Tuesday’s ruling is the first such ruling on the Obama administration’s policy — which it also has advanced regarding the sex discrimination ban under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 

Among the states included in the 4th Circuit is North Carolina, which recently passed a law limiting restroom use in government facilities — including schools and universities — to that which corresponds with a person’s “biological sex.” The ACLU, which is backing Grimm’s suit, also has brought suit against the North Carolina law.

The Democratic National Committee sent the following statement praising the ruling:

“This court victory affirms that there is no commonsense reason to bar transgender students from using the restroom that aligns with their gender identity and that doing so is discriminatory and harmful. This ruling sets precedent in five states, including North Carolina, where Republican legislators and the Republican governor have embraced the exact type of discrimination that the court today has overruled. Republican legislators who continue to push anti-LGBT measures and the Republican presidential candidates who fan the flames of discrimination with ignorant rhetoric have been exposed by this ruling for what they’re truly peddling. Just this week, one of the Republican presidential candidates told victims of discrimination to ‘get over it.’ Well, it’s time for the Republican Party to get over their anti-LGBT bias and join the rest of the country in embracing the full equality of every American.”

 Congrats!

GODLESS WEDNESDAY: Oklahoma Has (Finally!) Removed 10 Commandments Monument

Good news! The state of Oklahoma is no longer violating its own constitution by promoting religion (Christianity) on the state Capitol grounds. About two weeks ago, workers quietly removed the large two-ton stone monument to the Ten Commandments which has been in the news several times over the last year (October 2014, July 2015).

Slate reports:

A Ten Commandments monument planted on the grounds of the Oklahoma Capitol was quietly removed on Monday night, after years of quarreling over the 6-foot, 4,800-pound granite slab’s presence at the statehouse. The court-ordered relocation puts to rest the divisive issue, but perhaps only temporarily—conservative lawmakers are considering a (state) Constitutional amendment to bring the monument back. 

“Originally authorized by the Republican-controlled Legislature in 2009, the privately funded monument has been a lightning rod for controversy since it was erected in 2012, prompting a lawsuit from Bruce Prescott, a Baptist minister from Norman who complained it violated the state constitution,” the Associated Press reports. “The [move] comes after the Oklahoma Supreme Court's decision in June that the display violates a state constitutional prohibition on the use of public property to support ‘any sect, church, denomination or system of religion.’" 

“Oklahoma is the latest in a string of states, cities and school districts to grapple with whether government display of the Ten Commandments violates the First Amendment’s prohibition on any ‘law respecting an establishment of religion,' or similar provisions in state constitutions,” according to the New York Times. “Courts have prohibited displays for religious purposes, while allowing those for broader cultural reasons, leading to mixed results in legal challenges.”

Here at MadProfessah.com we will keep you posted on the developments! For all of your godless heathens in Oklahoma, you can breathe easier knowing that your state government is no longer officially declaring the non-religious to be second class citizens by violating the separation of church and state.

GODLESS WEDNESDAY: Oklahoma's Ten Commandments Monument Violates State Constitution

The Oklahoma State Supreme Court has finally ruled that the Ten Commandments Monument at the state capitol that was previously demolished by a crazy person and then rebuilt violates the state's constitutional separation of church and state.

Friendly Atheist analyzed the decision:

The ruling is very clear about what the law says and how obviously this monument violates it:
The text of Article 2, Section 5 [of the State Constitution]…:

“No public money or property shall ever be appropriated, applied, donated, or used, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, or system of religion, or for the use, benefit, or support of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher or dignitary, or sectarian institution as such.”
The plain intent of Article 2, Section 5 is to ban State Government, its officials, and its subdivisions from using public money or property for the benefit of any religious purpose. Use of the words “no,” “ever,” and “any” reflects the broad and expansive reach of the ban.…
As concerns the “historic purpose” justification, the Ten Commandments are obviously religious in nature and are an integral part of the Jewish and Christian faiths.

In other words, what the hell were you all thinking putting this monument up in the first place?! 

The Justices made clear that, unlike a previous Supreme Court case, this wasn’t about whether Oklahoma’s monument violated the First Amendment. It violated the state’s Constitution, and that’s all that matters.

Amusingly, both Satanists and Hindus were petitioning to have monuments also appear at the State Capitol grounds but now the Oklahoma Supreme Court has correctly ruled that religious displays on state property are unconstitutional.

GODLESS WEDNESDAY: Oklahoma's Ten Commandments Monument Destroyed By Vandal

This news story about the destruction of a monument of the Ten Commandments at the Oklahoma State Capitol caught my eye. There are multiple interesting aspects of the story, in my opinion. The very first was: Oklahoma has a monument to the Ten Commandments on state property? How is that legal? The second one was, "Good for you, vandal, for ending this violation of church-state separation, although I do not approve of your methods." Third was, I wonder who did it?"

It turns out the person who did it is not a godless heathen, but a different kind of crazy person. According to KFOR:

OKLAHOMA CITY – A man has been taken in for mental evaluation after allegedly vandalizing the Ten Commandments monument at the Oklahoma State Capitol. 

U.S. Secret Service Agents say it all started after a man walked into the Federal Building in downtown Oklahoma City Friday morning making strange threats against the President and Federal Government.
Agents say he then admitted to them that he crashed his car into the Ten Commandments monument at the Capitol, then left his damaged car and walked to the Federal Building.
The Secret Service says the man told them that Satan made him crash his car into the statue.
He also told agents that Satan told him to urinate on the statue.
According to investigators, the man says he is bipolar and had been off his medication for quite some time.

Interestingly the ACLU and the Satanists both condemned the man's actions, with the ACLU saying it was "outraged at this apparent act of vandalism" while the Satanic Temple says it still wants a monument next to the Ten Commandments one,"we want it to compliment and contrast the Ten Commandments, with both standing unmolested as a testament to American religious freedom and tolerance."

Wouldn't it just be easier if we followed the law and legal principle that the state shall not endorse or promote any religion by refusing to enact monuments with clear religious meanings on state property maintained by taxpayer funds? I'm jus' saying...

GODLESS WEDNESDAY: Trooper Accused Of Proselytizing During Traffic Stop

What kind of hubris does it take for a cop to think that it is acceptable to ask a stopped motorist whether they have a "home church"? Well, Indiana State Police Trooper Brian Hamilton apparently thought so, and now he is getting sued by the ACLU.

The Indianapolis Star reports:

[Ellen] Bogan and the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana have filed a lawsuit in federal court against Hamilton. The lawsuit alleges he violated Bogan's First and Fourth Amendment rights when he probed into her religious background and handed her a church pamphlet that asks the reader "to acknowledge that she is a sinner."
[...]
Bogan, who lives in Huntington, said Hamilton asked her about her faith multiple times during the traffic stop. Because he was a trooper and his police car was still parked behind hers, she said she felt she could not leave or refuse questioning.  

"The whole time, his lights were on," Bogan said. "I had no reason to believe I could just pull away at that point, even though I had my warning." Bogan's complaint also claims that Hamilton asked if he could give her something and that he went to his car to retrieve a pamphlet from First Baptist Church in Cambridge City.

This is such an astonishing (and infuriating) story! It is just amazing to me how many times it is just assumed that everyone believes in God and religion should permeate all aspects of life. Asked about your religion at a traffic stop??!!

QUEER QUOTE: LGBT Groups Issue Statement On Michael Brown Killing

The fatal shooting of an unarmed 18-year-old Black man named Michael Brown by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri (just outside St. Louis) has been roiling the internets since it happened on Saturday August 9.

LGBT groups are often criticized by other progressive groups, especially African American civil rights organizations for a lack of reciprocity when it comes to coalition work but today comes word of a joint statement from numerous LGBT groups about the heinous Michael Brown killing:

When communities experience fear, harassment and brutality simply because of who they are or how they look, we are failing as a nation. In light of the recent events in Missouri, it is clearer than ever that there is something profoundly wrong in our country. The lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community cannot be silent at this moment, because LGBT people come from all races, creeds, faiths and backgrounds, and because all movements of equality are deeply connected. We are all part of the fabric of this nation and the promise of liberty and justice for all is yet to be fulfilled. 

The LGBT community stands with the family of Michael Brown, who was gunned down in Ferguson, Missouri. We stand with the mothers and fathers of young Black men and women who fear for the safety of their children each time they leave their homes. We call on the national and local media to be responsible and steadfast in their coverage of this story and others like it--racialized killings that have marred this nation since the beginning of its history. We call on policy makers on all levels of American government not to shrink from action, and we are deeply grateful to Attorney General Eric Holder and the Department of Justice for their immediate commitment to a thorough investigation. At this moment, we are inspired by the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.: “In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies … but the silence of our friends." 

ACLUCenter for Black Equity, Inc.Equality FederationGay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD)GMHCHuman Rights CampaignNational Black Justice CoalitionNational Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR)National Center for Transgender EqualityNational Gay and Lesbian Task ForceNational Minority AIDS CouncilNational Queer Asian Pacific Islander Alliance (NQAPIA)PFLAG NationalPride at Work, AFL-CIOSoulforceSoutherners on New Ground (SONG)United AIDS

Good work!

Even while on vacation, President Barack Obama has also commented on the shooting, calling it "heartbreaking."

Major LGBT Groups Withdraw Support For ENDA in Wake of Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby Decision

Ruh-Oh! Things have started to come off the rails for the current version of the "federal LGBT rights bill," also known as ENDA or the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. The problems is that the current version of the bill (which passed the United States Senate last year) includes an "overly generous" religious exemption that would allow discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in certain settings where the equivalent discrimination on the basis of race or sex.

In light of the recent 50th anniversary of the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision focusing more attention on religious exemptions and how they apply to federal statutes, a number of mainstream LGBT organizations have taken the unusual step of coming out to oppose legislation that they have previously supported, legislation which would expand prohibitions on discrimination for millions of workers in the United States, but would also codify a religious exemption to discriminate against LGBT people.

Joint Statement on Withdrawal of Support for ENDA and Call for Equal Workplace Protections for LGBT People

The following national LGBT legal organizations have signed onto the below statement: American Civil Liberties Union; Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders; Lambda Legal; National Center for Lesbian Rights; and Transgender Law Center. 

The provision in the current version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) that allows religious organizations to discriminate based on sexual orientation and gender identity has long been a source of significant concern to us. Given the types of workplace discrimination we see increasingly against LGBT people, together with the calls for greater permission to discriminate on religious grounds that followed immediately upon the Supreme Court's decision last week in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, it has become clear that the inclusion of this provision is no longer tenable. It would prevent ENDA from providing protections that LGBT people desperately need and would make very bad law with potential further negative effects. Therefore, we are announcing our withdrawal of support for the current version of ENDA. 

For decades, our organizations have challenged anti-LGBT workplace discrimination in the courts and worked for the passage of inclusive non-discrimination laws at the local, state, and federal level. We do this work because of the devastating toll workplace discrimination has had, and continues to have, on the lives of LGBT people. It is unacceptable that in the year 2014, men and women are forced to hide who they are or whom they love when they go to work. 

The current patchwork of legal protections at the state and local level has left LGBT people vulnerable to discrimination. For this reason, we have supported federal legislation to explicitly protect LGBT people from discrimination in the workplace, and have urged President Obama to sign an executive order banning federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity or expression. 

ENDA's discriminatory provision, unprecedented in federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, could provide religiously affiliated organizations - including hospitals, nursing homes and universities - a blank check to engage in workplace discrimination against LGBT people. The provision essentially says that anti-LGBT discrimination is different - more acceptable and legitimate - than discrimination against individuals based on their race or sex. If ENDA were to pass and be signed into law with this provision, the most important federal law for the LGBT community in American history would leave too many jobs, and too many LGBT workers, without protection. Moreover, it actually might lessen non-discrimination protections now provided for LGBT people by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and very likely would generate confusion rather than clarity in federal law. Finally, such a discrimination provision in federal law likely would invite states and municipalities to follow the unequal federal lead. All of this is unacceptable. 

The Supreme Court's decision in Hobby Lobby has made it all the more important that we not accept this inappropriate provision. Because opponents of LGBT equality are already misreading that decision as having broadly endorsed rights to discriminate against others, we cannot accept a bill that sanctions discrimination and declares that discrimination against LGBT people is more acceptable than other kinds of discrimination. 

Our ask is a simple one: Do not give religiously affiliated employers a license to discriminate against LGBT people when they have no such right to discriminate based on race, sex, national origin, age, disability, or genetic information. Religiously affiliated organizations are allowed to make hiring decisions based on their religion, but nothing in federal law authorizes discrimination by those organizations based on any other protected characteristic, and the rule should be the same for sexual orientation and gender identity or expression. Religious organizations are free to choose their ministers or faith leaders, and adding protections for sexual orientation and gender identity or expression will not change that. 

These concerns are not hypothetical. Increasingly, this is what employment discrimination against LGBT people looks like. Take the example of Matthew Barrett. In July 2013, Matthew was offered a job as food services director at Fontbonne Academy, a college prep high school in Milton, Massachusetts that is affiliated with the Roman Catholic Sisters of St. Joseph of Boston. Fontbonne Academy has employees and admits students of various faiths. Yet, two days after Matthew listed his husband as his emergency contact on the standard employment paperwork, and despite twenty years of work in the food services industry, his job offer was rescinded. Although nothing about the food services job involved religious rituals or teaching, Matthew was told by an administrator that the school was unable to hire him because "the Catholic religion doesn't recognize same-sex marriage." The current version of ENDA would authorize this sexual orientation discrimination. 

As the national outcry against SB 1062 in Arizona (and similar proposals in numerous other states) demonstrates, the American people oppose efforts to misuse religious liberty as an excuse to discriminate against LGBT people. It is time for ENDA (and the LGBT non-discrimination executive order for federal contractors) to reflect this reality. Until the discriminatory exemption is removed so that anti-LGBT discrimination is treated the same as race, sex, national origin, age, disability, or genetic information under federal workplace laws, we think ENDA should not move forward in Congress. In addition, we will oppose any similar provisions at the state and local level. We are hopeful that the many members of Congress who support this historic, critically important legislation will agree that singling out LGBT people for an unequal and unfair exemption from basic workplace protection falls unacceptably short of the civil rights standards that have served our nation well against other types of discrimination for fifty years. We stand ready and eager to work with them to achieve the long-sought goal of explicit, effective federal non-discrimination protections for LGBT people.

That's pretty deep!

QUEER QUOTE: ACLU Urges Wisconsin To Decide Marriage Equality Appeal Soon

The ACLU of Wisconsin is managing the lawsuit Wolf v. Walker for marriage equality which led to a federal judge striking down the ban on same-sex marriage (and then issued a stay on her order enjoining the state from enforcing her ruling). The state of Wisconsin has 30 days from the date of the judge's ruling (issued 11 days ago) to file its appeal to the 7th U.S. Appellate Circuit, which by my count would be Sunday July 6.

The ACLU has issued a public letter to Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen asking him to make  a decision earlier so that the marriage equality question can be resolved sooner than later and same-sex couples will know whether their marriages will stand or not.

Our clients and other same-sex couples in Wisconsin are faced with the continuing indignity of seeing their families denigrated by the state’s refusal to allow them to marry or to recognize their marriages entered elsewhere... Even if you [Van Hollen] believe you will win, please file your appeal promptly to resolve the uncertainty that same-sex couples, their children, as well as employers and other businesses and government offices who interact with same-sex couples are facing until the constitutionality of Wisconsin’s ban on marriage is resolved.

 Van Hollen is not running for re-election this year, but Republican Governor Scott Walker is. Fellow Republican Governor Tom Corbett (who is also running for re-election but is unlikely to win) earlier this year made his state the 19th state to have permanent marriage equality when he didn't appeal a marriage equality ruling.

Now There Are 20! Wisconsin's Ban on Marriage Equality Struck Down!

Of course, just hours after I wrote a post with a map depicting the 19 states that have marriage equality, a 20th was added when a federal judge ruled in Wolf v. Walker that Wisconsin's state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.

The lawsuit was filed by the ACLU, which celebrated thusly:

"We are tremendously happy that these loving and committed couples will now be able to access the security and recognition that only marriage provides,” said Larry Dupuis, legal director of the ACLU of Wisconsin. “These discriminatory laws are falling around the country and it is only right that Wisconsin move forward as well.” 

"Wisconsin’s constitutional ban on marriage for same-sex couples is a striking example of intentional discrimination towards lesbians and gay men in Wisconsin,” said John Knight, staff attorney with the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Project. “The marriage ban has sent a powerful message  that same-sex couples are undeserving of the dignity and important legal protections associated with marriage. Judge Crabb’s decision that same-sex couples are equal under the law sends an entirely different message -- one inviting and encouraging fair treatment and respect for these couples."

Couples are getting married in Madison and Milwaukee:

There are now 20 states in which same-sex couples can get legally married and twenty consecutive federal court ruling since last year's Supreme Court ruling in U.. v. Windsor. Apparently Justice Antonin Scalia's dissent in that case was cited no less than a dozen times in Judge Crabb's decision striking down Wisconsin's marriage law!

Hat/tip to Joe Jervis

GODLESS WEDNESDAY: Mississippi Adds "In God We Trust" To State Seal

The Mississippi state legislature passed a measure late Tuesday that proponents refer to as a "religious freedom restoration act" but that among other things, would add the words "In God We Trust" to the State Seal and clarify that "sincerely held religious belief " can trump non-discrimination laws, the same kind of law that Governor Jan Brewer vetoed earlier this year.

The ACLU still opposes the legislation:

“Even though the Mississippi legislature removed some of the egregious language from Arizona’s infamous SB 1062, we are disappointed that it passed this unnecessary law and ignored the national, public outcry against laws of this nature,” said Eunice Rho, advocacy and policy counsel with the ACLU.

Why is it that people who are religious believe they need to have "special rights" that people who do not believe in God do not have?

Lawsuit Filed Against Wisconsin Bizarre Marriage Evasion Law

A lawsuit has been filed in Wisconsin by same-sex couples who want to get married. Wisconsin has a 2006 constitutional amendment that declares same-sex marriage is not valid or recognized in the state as well as any "legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals." The situation for same-sex couples is even more dire because the Badger state also has a "marriage evasion law" which criminalizes any attempt to evade the duly enacted marriage laws of the state. So, if a same-sex couple goes to a neighboring state like Minnesota to get married, not only is there new marriage not recognized by their home state (although it would be recognized by the federal government) and it is possible they could be prosecuted by state officials and face a $10,000 fine and up to 9 months in prison!

The Washington Blade reports:

Like other lawsuits filed throughout the country, the 29-page complaint filed by the groups in Wisconsin alleges the state’s ban on same-sex marriage violates equal protection and due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

“Although Wisconsin and this country have taken some steps to reduce discrimination against lesbians and gays, Wisconsin’s ban on marriage for same-sex couples is a striking and continuing vestige of the long history of discrimination toward lesbians and gay men,” the complaint says.

[...]

Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen, however, pledged in a statement to the Blade that he would the defend the marriage amendment.

“This constitutional amendment was approved by a large majority of Wisconsin residents,” Van Hollen said. “I believe the amendment is constitutional, and I will vigorously defend it.”

The Wisconsin litigation is among 40 pending lawsuits in 22 states throughout the country seeking marriage rights for gay couples.

Wow. There's as many as 40 lawsuits in 22 states seeking full marriage rights for same-sex couples now. These lawsuits will continue until the law treats same-sex couples equally to opposite-sex couples.

QUEER QUOTE: Albuquerque Journal Says Leave Marriage Equality Alone

As you may recall, the New Mexico Supreme Court clarified on December 19th that under New Mexico's constitution same-sex couples must be allowed to marry like their opposite-sex counterparts. The court's ruling in Griego v. Oliver claimed that not doing so was not sex discrimination, but it was a violation of the fundamental right to marry and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

The news was somewhat overshadowed by a federal judge striking down Utah's ban on same-sex couples being allowed to marry the very next day but New Mexico becoming the 17th state to have marriage equality is significant.

Soon after the decision went into effect there came rumblings that Republican legislators wanted to overturn the decision by amending the state constitution to ban gay marriage.

Today's Queer Quote is Albuquerque's largest newspaper telling the state's politicians to leave marriage equality alone since the issue has been resolved by the courts:

If legalizing same-sex marriage had been put to New Mexico voters as a constitutional amendment – a route favored by Gov. Susana Martinez, who opposes such unions – it most likely would have passed. And that would have been the best route. A vote of the people circumvents the argument about the role of “activist judges.”

But courts decide controversies that come before them and that’s what they did in this case. The state high court’s ruling, affirming rulings by trial judges in Santa Fe and Albuquerque, balances the interests of gay people who want to marry and the religious interests of those who oppose it. That makes sense in predominantly Catholic New Mexico. Meanwhile, voters who think district judges and Supreme Court justices overstepped the role the courts should play can register their displeasure in the next judicial retention elections. That also is their right.

But when it comes to the Legislature, opponents who have vowed to continue the fight by seeking an amendment to the state constitution to define marriage as being between one man and one woman should start the new year by letting it go.

Their only chance of success is the unlikely scenario of a constitutional amendment clearing the Legislature, winning voter approval and surviving a legal challenge. Gay marriage opponents who continue this fight will succeed only in fanning the flames of hostility and resentment. And then what happens with all the same-sex marriages on the books?

The state Supreme Court has concluded that all people, no matter their sexual orientation, should be treated equally under the law when it comes to the right to marry. It’s time to recognize that and move on.

Nice!

Queer Quote: Santa Fe County Clerk Requests Ruling From NM Sup Ct

Although she has been ordered to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples by a state judge, Santa Fe County Clerk Geraldine Salazar today filed a motion, joined by all 33 county clerks in the state of New Mexico, to intervene in a lawsuit filed by the ACLU seeking to win the freedom ti marry for same-sex couples in the Land of Enchantment.

Salazar's explanation for why she took this action to make herself a defendant in a lawsuit is today's Queer Quote:

“We want direction from the New Mexico Supreme Court. I have been ordered by two district courts to issue same-gender marriage licenses and not ordered to change the statutory marriage application to gender neutrality. I want clear judicial authority to do so.”

The ACLU of New Mexico is happy that all 33 County Clerks are a party to their lawsuit, so if they win it will expedite the uniform access to marriage equality statewide. They released a statement saying:

"We believe that the county clerks intervening in our lawsuit puts New Mexico on an expedited path towards a statewide marriage solution which would provide more certainty for the same-sex couples who married in our state. We are hopeful that the Supreme Court will agree with the lower court decision which held that denying marriage to committed, loving same-sex couples is unconstitutional.”

I suspect we'll know sooner rather than later whether this was a good thing or not, but it sure look like it from here.

Hat/tip to Joe.My.God

Coalition Launched To Fight Indiana Marriage Equality Ban

A bipartisan coalition of individuals and organizations called Freedom Indiana was launched this week to defeat a proposed state constitutional amendment (or min-DOMA) to prohibit marriage equality in the Hoosier state. The Republican-controlled legislature has passed the measure once and needs to do so again in order to get the discriminatory amendment on the November 2014 statewide ballot.

From the press release:

Freedom Indiana campaign to oppose marriage amendment

Bipartisan statewide organization to support the integrity of the Indiana Constitution, promote liberty and fairness for all Hoosiers 

INDIANAPOLIS -- A coalition of Indiana businesses and groups today announced the formation of Freedom Indiana, a bipartisan statewide organization that opposes the amendment that would permanently alter the Indiana Constitution to define marriage and could potentially affect hundreds of rights under current Indiana law. 

Marriage already is strictly defined as between a man and woman under Indiana law.

Freedom Indiana will immediately undertake a grassroots campaign focused on the 2014 legislative session, where Indiana lawmakers can choose either to table or vote down the amendment or send it to voters for a statewide referendum next November. Freedom Indiana is committed to protecting the Indiana Constitution by defeating the amendment should it appear on the ballot.

Coalition partners include Eli Lilly and Company, Cummins, Indiana Equality Action, Freedom to Marry, Gill Action, American Unity Fund, American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana and Human Rights Campaign.

“The goals of Freedom Indiana are aligned with Lilly’s long-held position that HJR6 is bad for business and bad for our state,” said Robert Smith, director of corporate responsibility for Eli Lilly and Company. “As a global biopharmaceutical company that must retain and attract the very best talent in the world, embedding this proposed amendment into Indiana’s constitution will produce difficult and unnecessary challenges. We’re happy to partner with Cummins and several other important organizations to address our common goal of keeping Indiana a welcoming state for everyone.”

"Cummins has a long history of commitment to diversity and treating all people with dignity and respect," stated Marya Rose, Chief Administrative Officer for Cummins.  "We feel strongly that this amendment, which is unnecessary given Indiana law today, will enshrine inequality into the Indiana Constitution and negatively impact the thousands of Cummins employees who live and work in Indiana as well as harm our efforts to retain and attract the best talent here. Diversity is a core company value at Cummins and we are pleased to join the other partners of Freedom Indiana to ensure that we treat all people in Indiana with dignity and respect."

A study earlier this year by students at the IU Maurer School of Law found a significant number of rights and obligations related to marriage that could be permanently denied under the proposed amendment.

"We will make sure lawmakers and voters know that we shouldn't be tinkering with the Indiana Constitution to deny freedoms to certain individuals," said Indiana Equality Action president Chris Paulsen. "We're Hoosiers, and our core values include liberty and fairness. This amendment runs counter to both and may also create a litany of unintended legal consequences."

Freedom Indiana is run by an independent board of directors headed by Indiana Equality Action executive director Rick Sutton. The coalition includes Indiana businesses, community, civil rights and faith leaders, advocates for fairness, former and current lawmakers and Hoosiers who believe we must take a strong stand for freedom if we want our state and its residents to prosper.

The Indiana Freedom campaign is managed by veteran political operative Megan Robertson, who has worked for the Indiana Republican Party, Marion County Republican Party and on two GOP presidential campaigns. She managed Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard's successful 2011 campaign.

“Indiana has always been a welcoming community known for our ‘Hoosier Hospitality’,” Robertson said.  “This amendment directly contradicts the reputation that has helped us recruit jobs and economic investment for our state.  The Freedom Indiana campaign brings together those who have an interest in preserving our freedoms and moving our state forward regardless of political affiliation.”

The campaign currently is headquartered in Indianapolis with plans to establish regional headquarters in the coming months. 

Freedom Indiana is a bipartisan statewide organization that champions liberty for all Hoosiers. The organization is opposed to an amendment that would permanently alter the Indiana Constitution to define marriage and could potentially affect hundreds of rights related to marriage under current Indiana law. Freedom Indiana launched in August 2013.

If the good guys can stop an anti-gay marriage amendment in Indiana that would probably mean the demise of the anti-gay marriage movement and would signal that all future action in this area would most likely be positive, which would be somewhat of a surprise and perhaps increase momentum towards the day when marriage equality is a nationwide reality.

Americans for Workplace Opportunity Launches To Pass ENDA

Good news today on the campaign to end employment discrimination against LGBT people in the United States! A huge coalition of groups has launched a group called Americans for Workplace Opportunity as part of a $2 million campaign to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act through Congress.

The Washington Post reports:

Twenty-one states and the District of Columbia ban employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and 17 of those states and the District extend that protection to gender identity. Such policies have also become common in major companies: 88 percent of Fortune 500 include protections for gay, lesbian and bisexual employees, and more than half have safeguards for transgender employees. 

Until recently the push for workplace protections has been overshadowed by the battle over gay marriage. But on July 10 the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee approved anti-discrimination bill by a bipartisan vote of 15 to 7, providing fresh momentum to the initiative.

The coalition, which also includes the American Civil Liberties Union, American Federation of Teachers, National Center for Transgender Equality and National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, will focus on senators in Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. With the exception of Democrats Mark Pryor (Ark.), Bill Nelson (Fla.) and Joe Manchin III (W.Va.), all the targeted senators are Republican.

The campaign will be managed by Matt McTighe, who managed the successful campaign to win marriage equality in Maine last November. The Steering Committee of Americans for Workplace Opportunity includes familiar organizational names like American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), American Federation of Teachers, American Unity Fund, Human Rights Campaign (HRC), Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, National Center for Transgender Equality (NCTE), National Gay & Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF), and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

Amazingly, there are still three Democratic U.S. Senators who refuse to say whether they support prohibiting workplace discrimination against LGBT people: Joe Manchin (D-WV), Bill Nelson (D-FL) and Mark Pryor (D-AR).

What's bizarre about this trio of Democratic Senator holdouts on ENDA is that one of them, Sen. Nelson, supports marriage equality and is representing a blue state (albeit one that has a very red legislature which has not passed a state LGBT rights bill).

Of course, even if ENDA gets 60 votes and passes the Senate, it is not very clear at all that it has the ghost of a chance of passing the U.S. House. The legislative body led by House Speaker John Boehner has passed just 15 bills which have become law so far in the 113th Congress. That is on pace to be the least productive session of Congress ever. Some form of a federal gay rights bill has been languishing in Congress since 1973, so history is not on our side, but the future is!

Hat/tip to Joe.My.God

Battle Over Marriage Equality in Pennsylvania Heats Up

One of the latest fronts in the nationwide battle for marriage equality is the 6th largest state in the country, Pennsylvania. Openly gay legislator Brian Sims has introduced a bill to legalize marriage equality in the state. And the state is being sued by a number of same-sex couples who wish to marry but can not do so because of a homophobic marriage statute. The Attorney General has refused to defend the statute, and one particular county, Montgomery County, started issuing marriage licenses about a week ago.

Today comes word that the state Department of Public Health is suing Montgomery County to prevent it from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Apparently, marriage licenses have been issued to 31 same-sex couples so far.

However, Montgomery County says that it is not going to stop issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, according to Philly.com:

"While it comes as no surprise that the Corbett Administration has filed an action seeking to enjoin marriage equality in Montgomery County, the petition filed today in Commonwealth Court by the state Department of Health has serious flaws," county Solicitor Ray McGarry said. "Montgomery County will be filing a response shortly. In the meantime, the Register of Wills office will continue to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples."

[...]

The lawsuit against [Mongtomery County Registrar] Hanes and the letter to Kane's office signal the first blows by the Corbett administration to subdue what could become growing challenges to Pennsylvania's version of the federal DOMA law. The Health Department lawsuit could become an important precedent to determine whether public officials have the right to interpret the legality of the state's Marriage Law on their own.

[...]

The Health Department lawsuit claims he is not only derelict in his duty to uphold state and local laws, but also is misleading those couples he issued licenses to. "It appears that same-sex couples are proceeding with the marriage ceremonies that are not permitted by Pennsylvania law, marriage certificates are being illegally filed, and the same-sex couples are left to believe erroneously that they have entered into a valid marriage," the suit said.

Unfortunately, I think that the Pennsylvania Department of Public Health is probably going to win this battle (but lose the war). A very similar thing happened in California nearly a decade ago, and the 4,000 marriages that occurred when San Francisco County started issuing marriage licenses were eventually invalidated and nullified. However, Pennsylvania's statute does violate the federal constitution guarantees of equal protection and substantive due process and sooner rather than later the Pennsylvania Department of Health will be registering marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples.

Until that day, though, it is useful to raise awareness about the issue and I agree that local officials who believe that their state's marriage law is unconstitutional should speak out about it, but the correct legal action is to join the lawsuit striking it down, not ignoring the law on the books, regardless of how odious it is.

New Jersey United For Marriage Launches

A group of organizations in New Jersey have joined together to form a coalition called New Jersey United for Marriage which is dedicated to winning the freedom to marry in New Jersey by January 2014. They are reading from a playbook that has been run in many states, like Hawaii, New York, Washington, Maine, Rhode Island and Minnesota.

“Today’s announcement is a game-changer.  Over the past decade, Garden State Equality has moved public opinion from minority to majority support for marriage,” said Troy Stevenson, Executive Director of Garden State Equality.  “With over 60 percent of New Jerseyans supporting marriage equality, we are in the last leg of a marathon race and are inviting everyone to run the last mile with us.” 

[...] 

Speaking at the rally will be leaders of New Jersey United, several families who are directly impacted by the state’s  civil union law, clergy members and local small business owners.  Modeled after successful efforts in New York, Rhode Island, Maryland, and Maine, the campaign will broaden the existing coalition of supporters to engage new groups, including Main Street businesses, large corporate employers, industry organizations and Republicans. 

[...] 

The Marriage Equality and Religious Exemptions Act passed in the State Senate and Assembly in February 2012, but was vetoed shortly thereafter. NJ United for Marriage seeks an override of the veto by early January 2014.

The coalition launched on July 24 with partners Garden State Equality, American Civil Liberties Union of NJ, American Unity Fund, Freedom to Marry, Gill Action Fund, Human Rights Campaign, and Lambda Legal.

New Jersey goes to the polls in November 2013 to decide the fate of Governor Chris Christie and elect state legislators. Following that election

New Mexico AG Announces He Won't Defend State's Marriage law

Interesting news out of New Mexico today. Democratic Attorney General Gary King has announced that he is not going to defend the state against a lawsuit that seeks to declare that same-sex couples have a right to marry in New Mexico (because he believes that the state's equal protection guarantees demand marriage equality), but he is also arguing that the particular lawsuit be thrown out on procedural grounds.

The Santa Fe New Mexican reports:

In written arguments filed with the court, King said the justices should invalidate the state’s ban on gay marriage if they agree to resolve the issue in a lawsuit filed by two Santa Fe men who were denied a marriage license. 

King, a Democrat who plans to run for governor next year against Republican Gov. Susana Martinez, said New Mexico law effectively doesn’t allow gay marriages although there’s no statutory provision that specifically prohibits, or authorizes, gay couples to be married. 

“New Mexico’s guarantee of equal protection to its citizens demands that same-sex couples be permitted to enjoy the benefits of marriage in the same way and to the same extent as other New Mexico citizens,” King said in the filing. 

The five-member court had asked King’s office to respond to the lawsuit. No hearing has been scheduled in the case so far, and it’s uncertain whether the Supreme Court will issue a decision resolving the same-sex marriage dispute. 

The lawsuit was filed directly with the justices to try to get a speedy decision. However, the court could decide that the case should be handled differently and has to work its way through the legal system as an appeal from a lower court ruling.

New Mexico is an interesting locus for battles around marriage equality because it is one of the very few states in the Union which does not have explicit statutory or constitutional language barring same-sex marriage.

It will be interesting to see what steps the New Mexico Supreme Court takes to resolve this issue. The last state Supreme Court to enact marriage equality was Iowa, which did it by a unanimous vote in 2009 in Varnus v Brien. Other state courts which have ruled in favor of marriage equality are California, Massachusetts, and Connecticut