Support NeoGAF

[ivysaur12]

GENDERLESS DYSTOPIA COMETH

WHERE THINGS STAND

#TheMap

As of Friday, April 17th, 2015, 35 STATES allow for gay couples to marry. These states, in order of their legalization of marriage equality:

2004

MASSACHUSETTS - SCOMA ruling (4-3) in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health. Effective May 17, 2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

CONNECTICUT - SCOCT ruling (4-3) in Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health. Effective November 12, 2008

2009

IOWA - SCOIA ruling (unan.) in Varnum v. Brien. Effective April 27, 2009

VERMONT - Legislative statue. Passed Vermont General Assembly, 26-4, 94-52. Vetoed by Republican Governor Jim Douglas, overruled by Vermont General Assembly, 23-5, 100-49. Effective September 1, 2009

2010

NEW HAMPSHIRE - Legislative statute. Passed New Hampshire General Court 14-10, 198-176. Signed by Democratic Governor John Lynch. Effective January 1, 2010.
District of Columbia - Legislative statue. Passed Council of the District of Columbia 11-2. Effective March 9, 2010

2011

NEW YORK - Legislative statue. Passed New York State Legislature 80-63, 33-26. Signed by Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo. Effective July 24, 2011

2012

WASHINGTON - Legislative statute/Voter referendum. Passed Washington State Legislature 28-21, 55-43. Signed by Democratic Governor Christine Gregoire. Marriage equality opponents successfully collected signatures for referendum on bill on June 12, 2012. Referendum defeated November 6, 2012, 53.7%-46.3%. Effective December 6, 2012

MAINE - Initiative statue. Marriage equality supporters collected signatures for initiative on February 23, 2012. Initiative passed November 6, 2012, 52.6%-47.4%. Effective December 29, 2012

2013

MARYLAND - Legislative statute/Voter referendum. Passed Maryland General Assembly 72-67, 25-22. Signed by Democratic Governor Martin O'Malley. Marriage equality opponents successfully collected signatures for referendum on bill on June 7, 2012. Referendum defeated November 6, 2012, 52.43%-57.57%. Effective January 1, 2013

CALIFORNIA - Federal court ruling in Hollingsworth v. Perry SCOCA ruling (4-3) legalizes marriage equality, May 15, 2008. Marriage equality opponents successfully collected signatures for constitutional amendment on ballot on June 2, 2012. Constitutional amendment passed 52.24%-47.76%. Federal trial court strikes down marriage equality ban August 4, 2010, stay on appeal. Appealed to 9th Circuit, upheld lower court ruling (2-1) February 7, 2012. Appealed to SCOTUS. SCOTUS rules defendants (ProtectMarriage.com) lack standing (5-4), vacating 9th Circuit ruling, resulting with the original decision in Perry left intact. Effective June 28, 2013

DELAWARE - Legislative statue. Passed Delaware General Assembly 23-18, 12-9. Signed by Democratic Governor Jack Markell. Effective July 1, 2013

MINNESOTA - Legislative statute. Passed Minnesota Legislature 75-59, 37-30. Signed by Democratic Governor Mark Dayton. Effective August 1, 2013 (PLEASE NOTE: The term "Genderless dystopia" that we're so fond of comes from a Minnesota State Republican Congresswoman who said that passing marriage equality would create a genderless society)

RHODE ISLAND - Legislative statute. Passed Rhode Island General Assembly 26-12, 56-15. Signed by Independent Governor Lincoln Chafee. Effective August 1, 2013

NEW JERSEY - State court ruling in Garden State Equality v. Dow. Appealed dropped by Republican Governor Chris Christie after SCONJ unanimously refuses to put lower court decision on hold. Effective October 21, 2013

HAWAII - Legislative statute. Passed Hawaii State Legislature 30-19, 19-4. Signed by Democratic Governor Neil Abercrombie. Effective December 2, 2013

NEW MEXICO - SCONM ruling (unan.) in Griego v.Oliver. Effective December 19, 2013

2014

OREGON - Federal court ruling in Geiger v. Kitzhaber. Effective May 19, 2014

PENNSYLVANIA - Federal court ruling in Whitewood v. Wolf. Effective May 20, 2014

ILLINOIS - Passed Illinois General Assembly 61–54, 32–21. Signed by Democratic Governor Pat Quinn. Effective June 1, 2014

INDIANA - Federal court ruling in Baskin v. Bogan. State appealed to 7th Circuit. 7th Circuit (unan.) upholds lower court ruling. State appealed to SCOTUS. SCOTUS denies cert, letting lower court ruling stand. Effective October 6, 2014

OKLAHOMA - Federal court ruling in Bishop v. United States. State appealed to 10th Circuit. 10th Circuit (2-1) upholds lower court ruling. State appealed to SCOTUS. SCOTUS denies cert, letting lower court ruling stand. Effective October 6, 2014

UTAH - Federal court ruling in Kitchen v. Herbert. State appealed to 10th Circuit. 10th Circuit (2-1) upholds lower court ruling. State appealed to SCOTUS. SCOTUS denies cert, letting lower court ruling stand. Effective October 6, 2014

UTAH - Federal court ruling in Bostic v. Schaefer. State appealed to 4th Circuit. 4th Circuit (2-1) upholds lower court ruling. State appealed to SCOTUS. SCOTUS denies cert, letting lower court ruling stand. Effective October 6, 2014

WISCONSIN - Federal court ruling in Wolf v. Walker. State appealed to 7th Circuit. 7th Circuit (unan.) upholds lower court ruling. State appealed to SCOTUS. SCOTUS denies cert, letting lower court ruling stand. Effective October 6, 2014

COLORADO - Federal court ruling in Burns v. Hickenlooper. Effective October 7, 2014

NEVADA - Federal court ruling in Sevcik v. Sandoval. Trial court judge upholds marriage equality ban. Plaintiffs appeal to 9th Circuit. 9th Circuit strikes down ban (unan.). Effective October 9, 2014

WEST VIRGINIA - State action/Federal court ruling. After denial of cert in 4th Circuit cases by SCOTUS, Democratic Earl Ray Tomblin and Republican Attorney General Patrick Morrisey concluded their marriage equality ban was unconstitutional and ordered state officials to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Affirmed in Federal court ruling McGee v. Cole. Effective October 9, 2014

NORTH CAROLINA - Federal court ruling in General Synod of the United Church of Christ v. Cooper. Effective October 10, 2014

IDAHO - Federal court ruling in Latta v. Otter. State appealed to 9th Circuit. 9th Circuit (unan.) upholds lower court ruling, denies stay. SCOTUS denies emergency stay. Effective October 15, 2014

ALASKA - Federal court ruling in Hamby v. Parnell. Effective October 17, 2014

ARIZONA - Federal court ruling in Connolly v. Jeanes and Majors v. Horne. Effective October 17, 2014

WYOMING - Federal court ruling in Guzzo v. Mead. Effective October 21, 2014

MONTANA - Federal court ruling in Rolando v. Fox. Effective November 19, 2014

SOUTH CAROLINA - Federal court ruling in Condon v. Haley. Effective November 20, 2014

2015

FLORIDA - Federal court ruling in Brenner v. Scott. Effective November 20, 2014

THE CASES

The four cases in front of the SCOTUS (henceforth known as Obergefell v. Hodges) are four cases from the 6th Circuit, where bans on marriage equality were held up on rational basis grounds. The questions in front of the SCOTUS are:

Issue: 1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? 2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

Oral arguments are to be held on April 28, 2015, hence the thread.

The 6th Circuit:

[/IMG]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/federal-appeals-court-upholds-michigan-same-sex-marriage-ban#.pn8WBl77O

Judge Jeffrey Sutton, writing for the 2-1 majority of the court, wrote the opinion upholding the constitutionality of Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee’s bans — reversing trial court decisions striking down each ban, or the ban on recognition of same-sex couples’ marriages granted elsewhere, below.

“When the courts do not let the people resolve new social issues like this one, they perpetuate the idea that the heroes in these change events are judges and lawyers,” he wrote. “Better in this instance, we think, to allow change through the customary political processes, in which the people, gay and straight alike, become the heroes of their own stories by meeting each other not as adversaries in a court system but as fellow citizens seeking to resolve a new social issue in a fair-minded way.”

[...]

Even outside of that, however, of the constitutional claims brought by same-sex couples — including “originalism; rational basis review; animus; fundamental rights; suspect classifications; evolving meaning” — Sutton concluded, “Not one of the plaintiffs’ theories, however, makes the case for constitutionalizing the definition of marriage and for removing the issue from the place it has been since the founding: in the hands of state voters.”

This also gave us one of the most spirited dissents for marriage equality in memory:

In addressing the majority’s opinion, Daughtrey examined the four other appellate opinions — from the 4th, 7th, 9th, and 10th circuits — before concluding, “t would seem unnecessary for this court to do more than cite those cases in affirming the district courts’ decisions in the six cases now before us.”

She then added: “Because the correct result is so obvious, one is tempted to speculate that the majority has purposefully taken the contrary position to create the circuit split regarding the legality of same- sex marriage that could prompt a grant of certiorari by the Supreme Court and an end to the uncertainty of status and the interstate chaos that the current discrepancy in state laws threatens.”

In responding to the entire premise of Sutton’s ruling in her conclusion, Daughtrey wrote, “If we in the judiciary do not have the authority, and indeed the responsibility, to right fundamental wrongs left excused by a majority of the electorate, our whole intricate, constitutional system of checks and balances, as well as the oaths to which we swore, prove to be nothing but shams.”

There are many, many amicus (friend of the court) briefs that have been filed. Here's a list with a summary of all of them, with some fun ones like:

62. Same-Sex Attracted Men and Their Wives – Amici are 6 “same-sex attracted men” who offer their experiences of being married to women and argue that “same-sex attracted” men are therefore not excluded from marriage.

Links to amici can be found here.

THE COURT

But this is a conservative court! you say. They gave us Bush v. Gore and Citizens United! Why would they rule for marriage equality?! It's very simple: They've been telegraphing this move since last year. This is Anthony Kennedy's legacy.

The Supreme Court Has Been Preparing The Country For Marriage Equality

A majority of the court already has made the outcome of the same-sex marriage showdown — nationwide marriage equality — almost certain.

WASHINGTON — On Friday, the Supreme Court announced that it will be deciding the question of same-sex couples’ marriage rights this year.

Left unsaid, however, was the fact that the outcome is almost certain: nationwide marriage equality by July of this year.

Since the Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act’s ban on federal marriage recognition in 2013, the nation’s lower courts have created significant momentum toward this moment.

But it is the Supreme Court’s actions over the past 15 weeks, and the broad set of cases the court agreed on Friday to hear this spring, that makes the coming ruling practically preordained.

By issuing several orders in recent months allowing for more and more same-sex couples to be marrying in more and more states, the Supreme Court has made nationwide marriage equality a far less radical decision. It also has made it so that a decision upholding state marriage bans as constitutional would cause significant, difficult problems.

The Supreme Court has, in fact, played the key role in creating the national landscape that now exists: Same-sex couples are marrying in, at least parts of, 37 states and Washington, D.C.

On Oct. 5, 2014, that number was 19 states and D.C.

And though there have been no opinions explaining why the Supreme Court has done what it has done since then and though the decisions do not, technically, bind the court, there is at least a majority of the court comfortable creating this landscape, which would be difficult and extraordinarily painful to undo.

In that time, the Supreme Court’s actions have directly or indirectly led to same-sex couples being allowed to marry in 14 of the additional states with same-sex couples marrying now.

The justices, on Oct. 6, 2014, denied five states’ requests for the court to hear their cases and reverse the appeals court decisions that struck down marriage bans. That decision to deny those writs of certiorari meant same-sex couples began marrying in those states, as well as in six other states within those appeals court circuits.

Then, the Supreme Court refused to issue stays (or holds) of lower court rulings in Idaho and later Alaska while the states attempted to appeal the rulings. Those orders, which came with no reasoning, followed the decision of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to strike down Idaho and Nevada’s bans. Because there already was an appeals court ruling in favor of marriage equality that applied to those states, the orders were seen as being similar to the court’s Oct. 6 decision.

But then, on Dec. 19, 2014, the Supreme Court denied a stay during Florida’s appeal of the federal marriage case challenging its ban. In Florida, unlike in any of the other states where the justices allowed same-sex couples to begin marrying, the appeals court for that circuit had not ruled on the issue.

This decision by a majority of the justices to allow same-sex couples to marry while appeals are ongoing — and before the Supreme Court has resolved the issue itself — means that a majority of the court is comfortable with that reality becoming the default.

More than that, the decision to allow same-sex couples to marry before the Supreme Court has decided the issue creates more legitimacy for an eventual decision striking down the bans by increasing the number of states where same-sex couples already can marry. At this point, a decision striking down such bans nationwide only changes the situation in 15 states. Before the justices started down this path on Oct. 6, 2014, it would have meant changing the law of more than 30 states.

Additionally though, and perhaps making the outcome of this spring’s Supreme Court showdown even more certain, the Supreme Court would be opening up an unprecedented mess if it upheld the bans now as being constitutional.

If the justices rule that Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee’s bans are constitutional, that means that questions are going to be raised — and litigation is going to be filed — over the legitimacy of the now-closed cases in which review was denied in October 2014. In fact, the same thing would happen as to any state in which marriage equality was the result of a court decision that the ban was unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution.
More striking, there would be questions raised — as already have been raised in Michigan — about the validity of marriages entered into by same-sex couples during the times when the respective state bans were declared unconstitutional.

It is almost incomprehensible to imagine the majority that created this landscape would turn around and force the rest of the country to take these painful steps to tear it apart.

But all actions suggest there is a majority of the court that does not wish to see that and plans, after April’s arguments, to craft a ruling striking down those remaining bans and bringing nationwide uniformity to the issue.

The clearest indication that the court seeks uniformity: They took cases involving both marriage itself and recognition of same-sex couples’ marriages entered into out-of-state.
Although some have suggested that this means the court could consider ruling in favor of same-sex couples on the recognition issue while deciding against them on the marriage issue, such a decision would still create complex problems in states where same-sex couples have legally married. Taking both issues is an “all in” approach that will require an “all in” decision.

The past 15 weeks have shown, time and time again, that a majority of the Supreme Court is not only ready for, but has been preparing the country for, a decision enforcing nationwide protection of same-sex couples’ right to marry.

 

[ivysaur12]

THE COUPLES

But, maybe past the legal issues, we should look at who these couples are. The AP has done a piece on each couple. Plus, Buzzfeed did a pretty fantastic piece on Obergefell, the named plaintiff in these cases.

MICHIGAN

April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse

DETROIT (AP) -- April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse initially went to court to win the right to jointly adopt each other's children, not to confront Michigan's ban on gay marriage.

Three years later, the Detroit-area nurses sometimes can't buy groceries without supporters recognizing them and giving a hug.

"We're kind of in shock and awe of where we've gotten to," DeBoer said. "There are days we question: How did we get here? We've been stopped multiple times at our local shopping center with people just telling their story. These are people's lives that we've changed."

TENNESSE

Johno Espejo and Matthew Mansell

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) -- Johno Espejo and Matthew Mansell moved from the San Francisco Bay area to Franklin, Tennessee, in 2012 for Mansell's job as a conflicts analyst for an international law firm. Their neighbors were friendly, Mansell says, but the family couldn't go out in public without being stared at.

Mansell is white. Espejo (es-PEH'-ho) is Filipino. Their two adopted children are Thai and African-American. Mansell's mother also lived with them.

He recalls taking the family out to eat at a Nashville restaurant and seeing a little boy walk by their table, twice, "with his mouth hanging open."

They've since moved back to California and are living in Orange County. But they remain part of a group of Supreme Court cases seeking recognition of same-sex marriage in Tennessee and three other states.

Ijpe deKoe and Thom Kostura

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) -- Thom Kostura and his husband take lots of road trips, and each time they cross a state line they make a game of declaring "We're married!" or "We're not married!" - depending on whether the state recognizes same-sex marriage.

"I wish we could register for gifts every time we cross a state line," Kostura cracks.

A similar situation occurs every time Sgt. 1st Class Ijpe deKoe (EE'-pah de-KOO') leaves the Millington, Tennessee, base where he serves in the Army Reserve. On base, his marriage to Kostura is recognized. At home in Memphis, it isn't.

DeKoe and Kostura met as teenagers working as Boy Scout camp counselors. They dated briefly after camp and remained friends, seeing each other whenever Kostura was in Providence, Rhode Island, or deKoe was in New York. They started dating again in 2011. Then "things got rushed very quickly," Kostura said.

Valeria Tanco and Sophy Jesty

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) -- When Valeria Tanco and Sophy Jesty began dating during post-graduate veterinary training at Cornell University, their relationship faced more than the usual run of hurdles.

Tanco is Argentinian, and once her residency ended, she wound up on the west coast of Canada, while Jesty remained on the east coast of the U.S.

Tanco proposed marriage when they met up in the mountains of Banff, Canada, during that separation. She'd arranged for a waiter to bring a ring on a dessert plate, but there was a long delay before he came to the table.

"I was so nervous she thought I was breaking up with her!" Tanco said.

The two wed legally in a courthouse ceremony in New York a year later. In the meantime, both had been offered jobs at the University of Tennessee College of Veterinary Medicine in Knoxville. Only after they got to Tennessee did the ramifications of living in a state that didn't recognize their marriage become apparent.

KENTUCKY

Kelly Noe and Kelly McCracken

CINCINNATI (AP) -- Kelly Noe and Kelly McCracken say they give their baby daughter a lot of love. They want the nation's highest court to give them more legal status.

The 32-year-olds have been a couple since 2009 and were married in 2011 in Massachusetts. Noe gave birth to Ruby 10 months ago.

"All we do is love Ruby to pieces, and as far as I'm concerned, that's all a child needs, is to be brought up with love," said McCracken. "So I think we're doing a pretty good job."

But they don't want Ruby as she grows up to face issues stemming from the lack of legal recognition of her parents' marriage.

Neither Kentucky, the state where they live, nor neighboring Ohio, where both work, recognizes same-sex marriage, listing only one parent on birth certificates. The family is among those from four states suing for marriage rights.

Kim Franklin and Tammy Boyd

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) -- Every time Kim Franklin saw Tammy Boyd in their small town of Simpsonville, Kentucky, a Rod Stewart ballad streamed through her head: "Some guys have all the luck."

That crush on her high school classmate lasted two decades, as Franklin came out as gay in the 1990s while Boyd married and had three children.

When Boyd's marriage ended years later, the two ran into each other. There was flirting. In 2010 they finally married, at sunset on a Connecticut beach.

Two dozen strangers happened by and stopped to watch, then clapped and cheered as they kissed. But the couple missed their family and friends, who hadn't been able to make the 800-mile trip.

"That's why we want it here so bad, so we can celebrate with our family," Boyd said.

Greg Bourke and Michael DeLeon

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) -- Like many dads, when his spouse is traveling out of town, Greg Bourke takes on the role of single parent, shuttling their two teenagers to basketball practice and other activities while working a full-time job. But Bourke has an extra worry when his husband, Michael DeLeon, is away.

Kentucky only considers DeLeon the children's parent, since the state doesn't recognize their 2004 Canadian marriage.

"I always have this fear of what happens if there's a medical emergency," said Bourke, who is legally a guardian of the two adopted children he's raised with DeLeon for the last 15 years. He's anxious over what might happen if he has to make medical decisions while DeLeon is away.

"This is one of those things if we were legally married in the state, there would be no question about any of this," Bourke said.

Paul Campion and Randy Johnson

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) -- On paper, Paul Campion's home seemed perfect for a foster child - and one of the students he worked with as a school counselor was begging to be taken in.

Campion's partner, a nurse, was the PTA president, and they had three adopted children already. But they were a gay couple in Kentucky. Years before, when they were starting their family, the state had declined to place a child in their home.

While a teacher in New York, Campion met his partner, Randy Johnson, in a Louisville nightclub in 1991. They now call it "divine intervention." Campion moved to Louisville and they exchanged rings in California in 2008.

After the state turned them down for adoption, they worked with a private agency and wound up with twin boys. A few years later, they adopted a girl.

When Campion's student asked them to take him in, the couple worked with the state, first as foster parents before being allowed to give him a permanent home. Along the way, they battled the legal barrier of Kentucky not recognizing their marriage.

"We've been blessed," said Johnson, "and we've been cautious."

Maurice Blanchard and Dominique James

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) -- Maurice Blanchard says anti-gay sentiment was rampant where he grew up in South Carolina.

Now he's one of a group of plaintiffs in cases seeking to legalize same-sex marriage throughout the country.

"I would have never imagined that little me and this case would go all the way to the Supreme Court and have an opportunity to ultimately bring same-sex marriage equality throughout all the Deep South and the rest of the states," Blanchard said.

He and his partner, Dominique James, have been outspoken activists for same-sex marriage in Kentucky for several years.

Blanchard, a minister who graduates from the Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary next month, says his Christian faith has guided his activism. He also is a volunteer leader of an outreach ministry for gay, lesbian and transgender people at Louisville's Highland Baptist Church.

Pam & Nicole Yorksmith

CINCINNATI (AP) -- Raising two young children in states that don't recognize that their parents are married has confronted Nicole and Pam Yorksmith with a range of problems.

They live in Kentucky and work in neighboring Ohio, both states that ban same-sex marriage, and that complicates school enrollment, benefits, travel and tax matters and, most worrisome, medical emergencies.

"You run the gamut," said Pam, a consultant in health care information technology.

While they consider themselves co-parents of the children that Nicole, 35, delivered after artificial insemination, a lot of other institutions don't see them that way.

That was a problem when 9-month-old Orion came down with croup in the middle of the night.

"He had really labored breathing," Pam recalled. Their pediatrician recommended taking him to the emergency room, and since 4-year-old Grayden was asleep, Nicole stayed home with him.

But Pam wasn't listed on Orion's birth certificate or records.

"An hour later, they had to call Nicole," Pam said. "They have to call my wife to get permission to treat my child."

Luke Barlowe and Jimmy Meade

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) -- Luke Barlowe and Jimmy Meade never held hands in public. For more than 40 years, they lived together quietly, afraid to out themselves as a couple.

"We grew up in an era where you didn't show your affection for a same-sex person," Burke said. "We've never gotten over that."

They met in 1968 at the Gilded Cage gay bar in Lexington, Kentucky.

Meade, the son of a coal miner from Deane, Kentucky, first fell in love with Barlowe's car, a white Plymouth Fury. He had grown up the youngest of 14 children, with no television and no vehicle. "It didn't take much to impress him," Barlowe said.

They moved in together in 1971 and kept their relationship a secret, telling people they were roommates or business partners.

But when Meade was diagnosed with Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and preparing for chemotherapy, they went together to the barber and got their heads shaved.

They invited no one when they got married in Iowa in 2009.

OHIO

Brittani Henry and Brittni Rogers

CINCINNATI (AP) -- An impending birth prompted Brittani Henry and Brittni Rogers to get married. Worries about what the future holds pushed them to join legal cases now before the U.S. Supreme Court.

They've been together since 2008, and Henry was pregnant when they traveled to New York to be wed Jan. 17, 2014. Jayseon was born in Cincinnati that June.

The couple says the joys of marriage and their son's birth are clouded by anxiety about not having Rogers recognized as his parent, too. Ohio doesn't accept their marriage and allows only one of them on Jayseon's birth certificate.

"If something should happen to my wife such that she could no longer take care of our children, there is no guarantee that I will be granted custody," Rogers said in a statement for the lawsuit.

And if something happened to her, Rogers said, her own parents might not be given legal rights as grandparents.

David Michener

CINCINNATI (AP) -- David Michener had planned on raising a family with two dads.

He and William Ives, a couple for 18 years, had adopted three children and were bringing them up in Cincinnati when they got married in Delaware in 2013.

Barely a month later, Michener was widowed. Ives died unexpectedly of a heart infection at age 54.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie..._TALMAS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULTJoseph Vitale and Robert Talmas

CINCINNATI (AP) -- Married and living in New York City, Joseph Vitale and Robert Talmas joined the legal battle over Ohio's same-sex marriage law because that's where their adopted son was born. Both fathers want to be listed on Cooper's birth certificate.

A couple since 1997, Vitale and Talmas married in New York in 2011. Both are from large families, and they wanted to have their own. In 2013 they adopted a newborn, known in court documents as "Adopted Child Doe." They slept in his hospital room in the Cincinnati suburb of Fairfield until he was discharged, took him home to New York, and received a final adoption decree from a New York court on Jan. 17, 2014.

That order lists them both as parents. But Ohio wanted only one of their names on an amended birth certificate.

And, the named plaintiff himself...

Jim Obergefell

CINCINNATI (AP) -- Jim Obergefell hadn't thought about becoming one of the most visible figures in the marriage-equality movement. He just wanted to marry the love of his life for 21 years.

Obergefell (OH'-bir-guh-fell) remembers watching the news on TV with John Arthur after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down part of the Defense of Marriage Act in 2013. "I just leaned over, hugged and kissed John, and said, `Let's get married,'" he recalls.

It was complicated, both because he and John lived in Ohio, where voters banned same-sex marriage in 2004, and because Arthur was dying of Lou Gehrig's disease.

But within weeks, they were on a medically equipped plane to Maryland, where Arthur's aunt officiated at a ceremony carried out as he lay on a gurney inside the plane on the tarmac.

"That was our plan, just to get married," Obergefell said.

On their return home, friends told their story to veteran Cincinnati civil rights attorney Al Gerhardstein, and helped connect them. He explained that the death certificate in Ohio wouldn't list Obergefell as Arthur's surviving spouse.

"Hearing that was heartbreaking news," Obergefell said. "Purely the meanness of it. ... The state where you lived and built a life together would completely disregard our legal marriage. How on earth does that harm the state of Ohio or the people of Ohio?"

The couple went to court and won a temporary injunction against enforcement of the state's ban a few days later.

Arthur died a little over three months after they were married. Obergefell was listed as spouse on his death certificate.

And the fantastic Buzzfeed expose: Buzzfeed: Two Years After His Husband’s Death, Jim Obergefell Is Still Fighting For The Right To Be Married

THE LAST STATE!

"But what will be the last state?!" you ask. There will be no last state. If, as expected, the SCOTUS rules for a fundamental right for marriage equality, then all bans would hypothetically fall simultaneously.

 

[ZeroFate]

penny.gif

Really exciting times. Thanks for putting all this together!

 

[Mobius 1]

Good, time to move this fucking country into the 21st century and be done with this discriminatory nonsense.

 

[Regulus Tera]

Godspeed, SCOTUS.

 

[jiggle]

For shame 2005-2008




What split r ppl expecting?
5-4?
Or 6-3?

 

[ivysaur12]

Good, time to move this fucking country into the 21st century and be done with this discriminatory nonsense.

To be fair, Massachusetts was the 6th jurisdiction in the world to allow marriage equality. Only 19 countries have full marriage equality (and 2 of those have not been enacted yet), while Mexico has a US-like situation.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I'm really hoping these families get the recognition they deserve

 

[Night Hunter]

So gay marriage might be legal in Louisiana, Kentucky and Mississippi before it is legal in my country ... FFS!

 

[Mr.Mike]

People seem to be taking it for granted that the SCOTUS will make the right choice. How's the court currently balanced?

 

[ivysaur12]

People seem to be taking it for granted that the Supreme Court will make the right choice. How's the court currently balanced?

I address this in the OP.

 

[mclem]

Some of your paragraphs and pictures for the couples are under the wrong heading.

 

[DOWN]

The end of the traditional family is nigh

 

[Prompto]

How soon will the ruling realistically happen?

 

[ivysaur12]

nm

 

[Sai-kun]

i cant wait until this country sinks down into a hellish nightmare world for allowing this sort of debauchery to continue!

 

[Pimplitosaurio]

To be fair, Massachusetts was the 6th jurisdiction in the world to allow marriage equality. Only 19 countries have full marriage equality (and 2 of those have not been enacted yet), while Mexico has a US-like situation.

In the case of Mexico, is legal to marry in only two states(of 32) but if you marry in those states then is legal in every state

Legal yes, but that doesn't stop homophobes from denying services and other things, sadly


*fake edit: you are right ivy, I checked wikipedia. I could swear that wasn't the case a few years ago, I hope that when the dominoes fall in the US they reach your backyard too

real edit this time: If you check the bottom of this page there is a table, "Reconoce matrimonios en otros jurisdicciones" is translated somewhat to "Recognices marriages in other jurisdictions" meaning that they supposedly recognize a gay marriage from one state to another:
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrimonio_entre_personas_del_mismo_sexo_en_México

 

[Escape Goat]

For shame 2005-2008




What split r ppl expecting?
5-4?
Or 6-3?

I think it will be 6-3. Scalia and Thomas are dead set against this happening which is ironic in that its Scalia's dissent that allowed for all these court cases to succeed in the various states. I think Alito will join them again.

 

[kingkitty]

the slopes are getting greasier by the minute.

god help us.

 

[ivysaur12]

For shame 2005-2008




What split r ppl expecting?
5-4?
Or 6-3?

6-3, with Roberts justifying this change from Windsor because sexual orientation will be covered under heightened scrutiny.

In the case of Mexico, is legal to marry in only two states(of 32) but if you marry in those states then is legal in every state

Legal yes, but that doesn't stop homophobes from denying services and other things, sadly


*fake edit: you are right ivy, I checked wikipedia. I could swear that wasn't the case a few years ago, I hope that when the dominoes fall in the US they reach your backyard too

real edit this time: If you check the bottom of this page there is a table, "Reconoce matrimonios en otros jurisdicciones" is translated somewhat to "Recognices marriages in other jurisdictions" meaning that they supposedly recognize a gay marriage from one state to another:
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrimonio_entre_personas_del_mismo_sexo_en_México

Mexico sort of has a wonky legal system. It's something like, their Supreme Court can't actually set a binding precedent for every state, so you have sue 3 times and win in every state to set a precedent (this may be incorrect, someone tell me). But unlike America, if you are married in Mexico, they have to respect it in EVERY state.

 

[Primus]

What split r ppl expecting?
5-4?
Or 6-3?

5-4. Roberts will join with Alito/Scalia/Thomas on this one as it's easy cover.

 

[NobleXenon]

Image is already outdated.

Gaum is issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Making it the first US territory.

 

[Pimplitosaurio]

6-3, with Roberts justifying this change from Windsor because sexual orientation will be covered under heightened scrutiny.



Mexico sort of has a wonky legal system. It's something like, their Supreme Court can't actually set a binding precedent for every state, so you have sue 3 times and win in every state to set a precedent (this may be incorrect, someone tell me). But unlike America, if you are married in Mexico, they have to respect it in EVERY state.

Yeah, wonky is a good term, you are right the supreme court says something but the states can just plug their ears and say lalallalalalala can't hear you(that is the only logical explanation to some backwards law in here I swear)

But yeah, I hope this reaches far and wide, let the gaypocalypse begin

 

[HylianTom]

Thanks for the amazing OP - thorough as hell! And the amazing threads through the past few years. This has been remarkable to witness.

I've taken the 27th through the 29th off. I'm going to be way too distracted to be able to pay attention at work. And thank goodness for same-day audio from the court - nice move on their part!

The last two possible ruling dates for this term are Thursday, June 25th and Monday, June 29th. My money is on us getting the King ruling (Obamacare) on the first date, and the Obergefell ruling on the Monday.. but my fiancé and I are still taking the whole block of time off. It's not very often that we get to witness a decision of this historical magnitude. *dance*

 

[Dreams-Visions]

I wish them the best of luck.

Ohio....you disappointed me.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

Florida pisses all over the holdouts!

 

[ivysaur12]

Once of the cases was called Love v. Beshear. But... Obergefell.

And to be fair to Scalia, he's been saying this since Lawrence.

 

[PInk Tape]

It's about time!

I, for one, welcome our new gay overlords. 🙌

 

[border]

Can we get a bio on the plaintiff in the Florida ruling?

 

[HylianTom]

Florida pisses all over the holdouts!

We'd probably have a positive ruling in Texas/Louisiana/Mississippi if the 5th Circuit's judges weren't dragging their feet. We're well-past the waiting time between oral arguments and ruling dates..

-->

NeoGAF reaction threads for past appeals-level decisions - lots and lots of Pennydancing and chainsawing!
4th Circuit: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=863467
6th Circuit: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=927880
7th Circuit: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=888899
9th Circuit: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=908312
10th Circuit: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=857623 ... http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=844211

 

[8 X 11 Printer Paper]

It's about time!

I, for one, welcome our new gay overlords. 🙌

I still haven't received my forced gay partner, it's been 4 years NY either send him or tell me I've been rejected!

 

[Trouble]

Great OP, Ivy.

Penny, she shall dance forever soon.

 

[Jintor]

Eyes on

 

[EMT0]

It was truly both hilarious and heartwarming to watch as Scalia's dissent in US v. Windsor was cited over and over and over again in district and circuit court cases striking down state-level bans. The man was an unwitting prophet:



Once the outcome of this case is decided, I think Hollingsworth v. Perry will be remembered as more of a weird procedural footnote, since US v. Windsor has been the more influential and decisive case thus far. It's just too bad "Obergefell v. Hodges" is such a clunky name versus, say, the symbolic concision of Loving v. Virginia.

But they told me Virginia is for lovers

 

[ElectricKaibutsu]

Excellent OP. I'm looking forward to a totally blue US.

 

[PInk Tape]

I still haven't received my forced gay partner, it's been 4 years NY either send him or tell me I've been rejected!

Me neither.

I guess we aren't worthy 😖

 

[Makai]

What happens if they go against the lower courts?

 

[Mimosa97]

Man how can anyone be against same sex marriage after reading that second post of yours OP. Look at all those happy faces ...

I can't believe my country allowed same sex marriage only 2 years ago.

 

[InsaneZero]

What happens if they go against the lower courts?

Litigation hell. There's no way that handling invalidated marriages in over half the country is going to go remotely well.

 

[ivysaur12]

What happens if they go against the lower courts?

That's highly unlikely. But if they did:

The 11th Circuit would likely rule for the state, upholding their marriage bans in Florida

Same with then 8th and 5th.

Utah, Oklahoma, Indiana, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Virginia, West Virginia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Idaho, Alaska, Montana, Wyoming, and Arizona would need to actually pass a statue or constitutional amendment again since those are technically enjoined by previous order and are out of the appeals system.

I also believe the Idaho, Alaska(?), and South Carolina cases are technically on going, so that could complicate things.

But it would also be insanely hellish and complicated.

 

[Gr8one]

It's about damn time for the rest of those backwards ass states to get their penny dance on. Everyone deserves the right to love who they want and be afforded the same legal and financial benefits. Make it so, SCOTUS.

 

[cajunator]

If Lafayette had more say in Louisiana politics we would be on the list by now. Stupid New Orleans.

 

[8 X 11 Printer Paper]

 

[Strike]

Good. Let's keep this train rolling. Eagerly anticipating the conservative tears from this.

 

[Hours Left]

Great job ivy.

 

[Kurdel]

What happens if they go against the lower courts?

 

[Man God]

There will still be a last state because various state legislatures will be butthurt and not take the laws off of the books, see, well, every other discriminatory law in the history of this country.

 

[Vylash]

you can't fight forever, texas

 

[Nothing1016]

Finally. I don't understand how people can be so ignorant to an entire community of people. Can't wait till that map is blue.

A little OT, but is John Roberts a good Chief Justice?

 

[Escape Goat]

Good. Let's keep this train rolling. Eagerly anticipating the conservative tears from this.

I bet a lot of conservatives wish this issue would just go away already. Im sure a lot of them really don't give a crap about gay marriage but they'll use it as a wedge issue when they can. The less they have to talk about this topic, especially when its become clear the country has gone in the opposite direction from the GOP stance, the better off they'll be come election time.