Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Filed under: Windsor

House members propose new anti-gay bill

A bill that purportedly is aimed to protect religious liberty, but targets same-sex couples, has been introduced in Congress.

Continue 4 Comments September 20, 2013

Four states refuse military benefits for married same-sex couples

Four states are now blocking military benefits for same-sex married couples, even after a directive from the federal government to comply with the Supreme Court’s decision striking down Section 3 of DOMA in United States v. Windsor.

Continue 2 Comments September 18, 2013

Department of Defense implements changes to comply with Supreme Court’s decision striking down Section 3 of DOMA

The Department of Defense has announced its plans to grant military spousal benefits to same-sex couples.

Continue August 15, 2013

Equality news round-up: Post-DOMA LGBT progress, and more

By Scottie Thomaston New York state seal

– The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has dismissed the appeal in Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management, challenging Section 3 of DOMA. Since the Supreme Court struck down the statute in United States v. Windsor, the case is now over.

– In the federal challenge to Michigan’s ban on marriage equality, state officials and a county clerk have filed answers to the complaint, asserting that the ban doesn’t restrict the rights of gays and lesbians. Think Progress has more.

– Missouri’s state supreme court is hearing a challenge to a law denying survivor benefits to same-sex partners, and after the Supreme Court decided Windsor, striking down Section 3 of DOMA, the state court is asking for more briefing on that decision’s impact on the case.

– A newly-formed coalition is pushing for marriage equality in New Jersey.

– After Windsor, New York’s Governor Cuomo is ordering the state to refund estate taxes for surviving spouses in legal same-sex marriages going back to 2008.

– Chris Johnson at the Washington Blade reports on LGBT progress post-Windsor.

Thanks to Kathleen Perrin for the filings in this post.

July 25, 2013

DOMA cases continue to wind their way through the courts

By Scottie Thomaston

Edith Windsor. Attribution: Talking Points Memo
Edith Windsor
Attribution: Talking Points Memo

Nearly a month after the Supreme Court issued its decision in United States v. Windsor striking down Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, some of the remaining challenges to the law are still working their way through the lower courts. Here is a short round up of some of the most recent updates:

Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management: this was the first case in which the district court had applied a heightened level of judicial scrutiny to laws that classify on the basis of sexual orientation to strike down Section 3 of DOMA. It was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and then stayed pending the outcome of Windsor. Last Thursday, the court asked the parties to write a letter addressing Windsor:

The parties are requested to file letter briefs of no more than 5 pages each addressing the appropriate disposition of this case in light of United States v. Windsor, No. 12-307, 2013 WL 3196928 (U.S. June 26, 2013). The letters should be filed no later than 14 days after this order.

Bishop v. United States: This case used to be known as Bishop v. Oklahoma; it is a challenge to the entire Defense of Marriage Act as well as Oklahoma’s ban on marriage equality. It’s also the longest ongoing DOMA challenge. The plaintiffs filed a supplemental brief arguing that Windsor impacts not only their decision on the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA, but should also mean that Section 2 and the state’s marriage ban is unconstitutional under the majority opinion’s reasoning. they also write that the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) only joined the case to defend Section 3 of DOMA, so Windsor‘s outcome means they likely have no standing.

Aranas v. Napolitano: This case is a challenge to Section 3 of DOMA as it relates to immigration. On July 12, the district court held a status conference via telephone to discuss how to proceed after Windsor. At the conference, a briefing schedule on the pending motions in the case was ordered:

[O]pposition is due no later than July 29, 2013, reply, if any, is due no later than August 5, 2013 with a tentative hearing date of August 19, 2013 at 10:00 a.m.

The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) had also requested to withdraw from the case and their request was granted.

McLaughlin v. Panetta: This is a challenge to Section 3 of DOMA as well as other statutes defining marriage for purposes of military benefits. The parties were asked to brief Windsor‘s impact on their case and the plaintiffs have written that Windsor ends their Section 3 case, and that the language of the majority opinion also applies to the other military-related statutes which are nearly identical to Section 3 of DOMA.

There are many more cases with pending decisions, so stay tuned.

Thanks to Kathleen Perrin as always for this information and these filings

July 18, 2013

Equality news round-up: Justice Kagan talks marriage equality, and more

By Scottie Thomaston

Justice Kagan, with President Obama and Chief Justice Roberts. Attribution:
Justice Kagan, with President Obama and Chief Justice Roberts. Attribution:

– Maggie Gallagher, formerly of the National Organization for Marriage, suggested recently that Justice Kennedy issued a “fatwa” against people who oppose marriage equality.

– Former President George W. Bush made some vague comments recently about marriage equality, but refused to address the issue directly, saying he is out of politics.

– What’s next after DOMA’s downfall?

– A Colorado couple gets their green card post-DOMA.

– The LA Times looks at the anti-Prop 8 side’s strategy they had in place for a Supreme Court decision based on standing.

– In an interview with Jeffrey Rosen, Justice Elena Kagan briefly discussed the marriage equality cases the Court decided in June. She did decline to discuss the issue of state marriage bans, pointing out that the Prop 8 case was only decided on standing, so the Court has not yet spoken on the merits issue.

4 Comments July 8, 2013

Previous page