Postedon Jul 13, 2010 at 08:48 am
As both sides await news of a likely appeal in the Massachusetts marriage ruling from last week that could eventually lead to the Supreme Court, they are keeping an eye on California. A federal judge in San Francisco is expected to rule any day on whether voters in that state were within their rights when they supported a 2008 ballot initiative that banned marriage equality.
That decision could have major reverberations around the country and also end up before the nation's highest court.
Postedon Jul 11, 2010 at 11:00 am
In a comprehensive legal analysis published in the military's JAG journal, the author argues for the repeal of DADT.
The article highlights research demonstrating that, despite fears and arguments to the contrary, America's military is well-suited to handle the integration of openly gay, lesbian and bisexual servicemembers and will successfully adapt to their inclusion. The author discusses the intersection of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act and "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and argues that DOMA does not preclude the repeal of DADT. The article also provides other counterarguments (including one made by Voice for Equality, Mildred Loving) and information pertinent to the most common assertions made by "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" proponents.
Postedon Jul 10, 2010 at 05:23 pm
On Thursday, in a sweeping opinion in the deliberately narrow Gill v. Office of Personnel Management case, Judge Joseph Tauro of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts struck down a key part of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
Postedon Jul 08, 2010 at 08:30 am
Over the holiday weekend, two op-eds appeared in the New York Times and the Washington Post criticizing the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case.
But are the arguments in these op-eds valid? As I’ll explain, they’re far from it. Both present a deeply flawed assessment of the case itself, the politics of the case, and the purpose of the judiciary itself.
Postedon Jun 24, 2010 at 04:00 pm
The concept of family can mean one thing to you and another to someone else.
Soledad O'Brien follows a same sex couple in their struggle against the legal and personal obstacles to become parents.
Postedon Jun 16, 2010 at 07:42 pm
A lawyer representing two same-sex couples who seek recognition of a constitutional right to marry compared the fight to the great civil rights struggles of the 20th century, as a federal judge Wednesday heard closing arguments in the trial over California's Proposition 8.
Postedon Jun 14, 2010 at 05:00 pm
Ted Olson recently told the law students gathered on a spring evening in the luxe D.C. offices of his firm, Gibson, Dunn and Cruthcher, that the California Prop 8 case "is the most compelling, emotionally moving, important case that I have been involved in in my entire life." Result: Standing O. Another jury persuaded.
Olson will try to repeat the performance Wednesday in a federal courthouse in San Francisco when he presents closing arguments in a potentially groundbreaking trial in which he and his political odd-couple partner David Boies are asking a federal judge to overturn Prop 8, which their suit says violates the U.S. Constitution's due process and equal protection clauses.
Postedon Jun 08, 2010 at 11:08 am
Center for American Progress' John Podesta and Cato Institute's Robert Levy, who will co-chair the advisory board of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, write about the importance of marriage equality.
"We have come together in a nonpartisan fashion because the principle of equality before the law transcends the left-right divide and cuts to the core of our nation's character. This is not about politics; it's about an indispensable right vested in all Americans."