Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

Virginia marriage equality case to be heard February 4

LGBT Legal Cases Marriage equality Marriage Equality Trials

The hearing in Bostic v. Rainey, one of the challenges to Virginia’s same-sex marriage in federal court, has been rescheduled and will now take place on Tuesday, February 4. The hearing was initially scheduled for January 30 but had to be postponed due to bad weather.

The American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER) joined the plaintiffs in the challenge, and the plaintiffs’ case will be argued by Ted Olson and David Boies.

The case is Bostic v. Rainey.

For more information on Bostic v. Rainey (formerly Bostic v. McDonnell)from The Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse, click here.

This is the last week of EqualityOnTrial’s fundraiser to keep the site going this year. We’re just a little over $150 away from our goal! Your donation will help us travel to Denver, cover the appeals of the Utah and Oklahoma cases, and continue our in-depth, easy-to-understand coverage throughout 2014. Any amount helps!

28 Comments

  • 1. Richard Lulenski  |  January 31, 2014 at 3:21 pm

    I gave, this is a great resource for LGBT. My family doesn't fight for me, but you do. Thank you.

  • 2. davep  |  January 31, 2014 at 3:56 pm

    Sorry to hear about your family, but just so you know, my 84 year old mom has been fighting for marriage equality hard enough for both of us : ) My three straight sisters, too.

  • 3. Scottie Thomaston  |  January 31, 2014 at 4:01 pm

    Thank you! I'm sorry to hear about your family, I can relate to that.

  • 4. Maggie4NoH8  |  January 31, 2014 at 4:01 pm

    Is this the same case as this:
    http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/virginia-jud

  • 5. Scottie Thomaston  |  January 31, 2014 at 4:02 pm

    No, that's Lambda Legal and the ACLU's class-action challenge in Virginia.

  • 6. Richard Lulenski  |  January 31, 2014 at 4:47 pm

    All of my family is not totally clueless. My name is in the credits of the NAMES project Academy Award winning film for best documentary of 1989. I worked with Cleve Jones, Mike Smith, David Sublett, Cindy Ruskin and the guys at Telling Pictures. My wonderful aunt Evelyn Jancin welcomed me into her home in Bethesda, MD when I went to DC for the first display of the NAMES Project Quilt on the National Mall in 1987. I designed all the quilt layouts, except LA, for the first national tour. These days I still struggle with the endless repub flogging of the gay community. I'll send out an appeal to my network for additional contributions but it may not fit your time frame unless it is extended, bet you can do that.

    Thanks Scottie!

  • 7. Zack12  |  January 31, 2014 at 6:22 pm

    11 AG's including Utah's have filed a brief in the Nevada case. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57477714-78/mar
    Basically the same garbage we've heard again and again.

  • 8. USA, Virginia: Marriage E&hellip  |  January 31, 2014 at 6:59 pm

    […] Equality on Trial reports: […]

  • 9. grod  |  January 31, 2014 at 9:14 pm

    Zack at some point we knew there was going to be a water sports with 11 AGs who are anti-equality including UH and Ok , against the 15 AG who are pro. Half of the eleven have cases pending in their courts. Four could be directly effected by the outcome. Hopefully, on the next team effort to submit a brief, the eleven while be seven or less. Its difficult to evaluate the synopsis that Adam Brooks did in SLT. I'm looking for reading the text itself.

  • 10. Kyle C.  |  February 1, 2014 at 1:17 am

    You have so much to be proud of. Your commitment and dedication to our community has helped save the life of many gay youth, whether you realize it or not (and that goes for the site administrators here as well!)

  • 11. Rick O.  |  February 1, 2014 at 6:03 am

    Damn, I talked with Colorado AG John Suther's office 10 days ago and got a guarded statement which led me to believe CO would stay out of it. Guess the R's never change. Suthers is R – and retiring – but is not generally seen as a troglodyte.
    Civil Unions continue in CO without incident or remark (duh!), though you can't count the numbers because after Windsor most everyone goes out of state for a real marriage, which counts as a CU here without having to register. Nevertheless a current bill to allow joint filing on state income tax – which I don't think will cause the state to lose any money – was opposed by ALL R state senators, no matter that it was sure to pass and not being covered in the press. Guess the R's have decided to stick with the sinking ship no matter what. Pretty sure the new AG will be D as a result of this kind of thinking – the R's can't seem to win any state-wide offices anymore.

  • 12. Zack12  |  February 1, 2014 at 8:55 am

    Same deal with the civil unions in Colorado,they fought tooth and nail to stop those,in going as far as to table it when they were in control.
    Sad to say but in many places,the far right Republicans are the only ones left,all the moderates either quit or were forced out.

  • 13. Tim  |  February 1, 2014 at 11:05 am

    I am stupider for having read that article. It's a very bad creative writing paper.

  • 14. Sagesse  |  February 1, 2014 at 2:42 pm

    DOMA lawyer seeks to join Utah marriage lawsuit [Washington Blade]

    "The lawyer who successfully argued against the Defense of Marriage Act before the U.S. Supreme Court filed paperwork on Friday to take part in the federal litigation seeking marriage equality in Utah.

    "Roberta Kaplan, a private attorney at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, asked the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, where the litigation is pending, to allow her to join the case as a representative of three same-sex couples either seeking recognition of their marriages or the ability to marry in Utah."
    http://www.washingtonblade.com/2014/02/01/doma-la

  • 15. davep  |  February 1, 2014 at 3:22 pm

    Roberta Kaplan will kick their asses.

  • 16. RAJ  |  February 1, 2014 at 4:17 pm

    And I hear she's representing the couples pro bono.

  • 17. grod  |  February 1, 2014 at 4:25 pm

    Here the link to the 27 p request to intervene and participate in oral argument http://www.washingtonblade.com/content/files/2014

  • 18. RAJ  |  February 1, 2014 at 5:02 pm

    I want to link to this article purely for the comments thread, which is still manageable at this point. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865595387/3-ga

    Also, Chris Geidner's Buzzfeed article mentions the pro bono aspect: http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/edith-windso

    ____

    a comment sample:

    " . . . these 3 couples won't 'testify' as that occurs at the trial level. So no speeches and they won't be witnesses. Instead, their attorney asks to present two more legal reasons why Utah's Amend 3 is unconstitutional, based on SCOTUS holdings in Windsor and Romer.

    If granted, it opens up a second front in Utah's legal battle to deny SSM.

    The Windsor attorney, fresh from defeating DOMA at SCOTUS, has reasons why Amend 3 is unconstitutional which were not argued in the Kitchen's motion for summary judgment. If simply included in a friend-of-the-court brief, the 10th Cir. would not need to consider these reasons, and no opportunity to advocate during oral argument. Kitchen's attorneys did not consent to this request (not unusual, given lawyer egos and implication that they missed some points) but SSM proponents should cheer if granted, as this attorney is versed like no other in the arguments that just won at SCOTUS, as 10th Cir. will be well aware.

    This dramatic maneuver suggests that the Windsor lawyer may see this as the final stand for SSM-bans nationwide and wants a spot in history books too."

  • 19. grod  |  February 1, 2014 at 5:08 pm

    Sagesse For clarity two of the couples were married in the Utah window, and the third have been a committed relationship for 30 years. If permitted to intervene, the right to remain married and have a valid marriage recognized is enjoined not only for out of state marriages as was in contention in the Kitchen et al case, but in-state valid marriages. While asked, I gather p 6 the State has not agreed to the request to intervene.

  • 20. Rick O.  |  February 2, 2014 at 5:39 am

    Note on who's left in R party. I went to very small D get together here in Douglas County (suburban/exurban between Denver & CO Springs); only 8 people. I asked how many had been R's at some point in the past: 7.

  • 21. Sagesse  |  February 2, 2014 at 6:52 am

    Class-Action OK'd for Va. Gay Marriage Challenge (NBC)

    "A federal judge on Friday certified a lawsuit challenging Virginia's ban on same-sex marriages as a class action.

    "U.S. District Judge Michael F. Urbanski ruled in a lawsuit brought last summer by two couples against the state's 2006 constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

    "By granting class action, the plaintiffs in the Harrisonburg case will be representing all same-sex couples who want to get married and those who have already been married in other jurisdictions.

    "Attorneys for the plaintiffs estimate there are more than 15,000 same-sex households in Virginia."
    http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Class-Act

    This is the 'other' Virginia lawsuit, not the AFER-Olson/Boies case where oral arguments will be heard next Tuesday.

  • 22. grod  |  February 2, 2014 at 8:45 am

    Sagesse: Here is the decision – which excludes the Bostic couple [in-state] and possibly Schall couple [out-of-state married] http://howappealing.law.com/HarrisVsRainey-WDVa-0

  • 23. Bill  |  February 2, 2014 at 10:16 am

    I'm hearing very little about this Texas Federal case- the first of two- which is to get a hearing in San Antonio this month. Does anyone have a context into which to place this case? I can't even find a date set- just 'February'. What are the chances this leads to an early victory in the Fifth District?

  • 24. SPQRobin  |  February 2, 2014 at 12:00 pm

    It's set for February 12, and the case is DeLeon v. Perry: http://www.lonestarq.com/breaking-judge-rejects-a

    The judge is Orlando L. Garcia, a Democrat.

  • 25. Zack12  |  February 2, 2014 at 1:33 pm

    http://cjonline.com/news/2014-02-02/analysis-marr
    This article lays it all out about what the purposes of the gay marriage bans were,to make sure we stayed second class citizens even if public option changed.
    Because in states like Kansas and others,they knew the legislatures would never allow a repeal to get through.
    As for the law, how much more blatant could they get? They are basically stating they want a green light to discriminate against us with exceptions that no other groups would get with the "promise" that it wouldn't extend to vital government services.
    There would be a lawsuit filed against this before the ink even dried on Brownback's pen.

  • 26. Bill  |  February 2, 2014 at 3:55 pm

    Thanks! That does frame it nicely. So we'll get a hearing on motions Feb 12th. Hope we get a trial date soon.

  • 27. Lymis  |  February 3, 2014 at 9:54 am

    Is that accurate? My understanding is that one of the couples entered the case with an existing out-of-state marriage, one married during the widow, and one remained unmarried, in part to make sure that there wasn't some legal "You're all married so this question is moot" trickery.

    So yes, two of the couples "were" married during the window, but only one couple "got" married during it.

  • 28. Colleen  |  February 3, 2014 at 10:15 am

    I think you are thinking of the three original couples from "Kitchen". Ms. Kaplan is representing three additional couples, one unmarried pair of men, a pair of women married on Dec. 23, and a pair of men married on Dec. 31. I was confused too!

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!