Usuário:Xyzsskdv5
De BISAWiki
(How One Lawyer Turned The Idea Of Marriage Equality Into Rea)
Edição posterior →
Edição de 08h44min de 19 de novembro de 2013
How One Lawyer Turned The Idea Of Marriage Equality Into Rea
<html>THEN came the backlash.
Although and have presented substantial evidence that gay marriage did not cost John Kerry the 2004 election, even Bonauto acknowledges that it is part of the urban legend at this point. More than that, 11 states amended their constitutions to ban same-sex couples from marrying and efforts were under way to try to put an amendment on the ballot in Massachusetts as well.
The effects were felt in Massachusetts. Bonauto remembers attending an event marking the court ruling that ultimately granted same-sex couples the right to marry in the Bay State. Anxiety fell over what was intended to be a celebration. It was a packed room in a hotel, but everybody wanted to know, Is this our fault? Did we do something wrong? she says. It was a very challenging experience for me to talk that night, because I felt so awful.
GLAD kept on pushing forward, though, filing a marriage lawsuit in Connecticut in August 2004. But even that faced detractors Bonauto was urged repeatedly to drop the case as the environment for marriage equality looked grim. Advocates lost marriage lawsuits in New York and Washington state, and in New Jersey, the Supreme Court stopped short of ordering marriage in the state. Replicating the Massachusetts victory elsewhere became imperative.
The period of time between May of 04 and getting to a second state felt like an eternity, and it was, Bonauto says. It made Massachusetts more vulnerable to those amendments because other states were dropping like flies, whether legislatively, constitutional amendments,<a name="http://swissembroideries.com/jerseys.html">football jerseys wholesale</a>, court cases. It was really essential to get to those next states.
Finally, in 2008, California became the second state to issue a ruling requiring the state to allow same-sex couples to marry although their marriages were stopped there months later when voters passed Proposition 8. Before that vote, though, Connecticut s Supreme Court reached the same conclusion as had California s high court in the case brought by Bonauto.
The day after the Connecticut decision,This "Breaking Bad" Alternate
<a name="http://www2.mahoroba.ne.jp/~s-udagun/cgi-bin/mahoboard/keijiita.cgi">This "Breaking Bad" Alternate</a>
[http://www2.mahoroba.ne.jp/~s-udagun/cgi-bin/mahoboard/keijiita.cgi This "Breaking Bad" Alternate</ a>, Bonauto and Wriggins were married in Massachusetts. Although their wedding had been planned before the decision came down, it was made more abrupt by Bonauto s unexpected trip to Connecticut the day before. After more than 20 years together, the couple basically eloped on Oct. 11, 2008.
It was me and Jenny and the kids and the officiant and we went out for ice cream, she says. We had dinner that night, the four of us. There was no way I was going to have a big wedding.
Residing in Maine,<a href="http://karunaanimalwelfare.org/nike-nfl-jerseys-for-sale.html" rel="bookmark">cheap custom nfl jerseys online for sale</ a>, the family has not been immune to the darker moments of the marriage equality struggle. A year after Bonauto and Wriggins wed, Mainers overturned a marriage equality law passed by state legislators in a referendum.
Although Bonauto had worked on the passage of the law and on the campaign to preserve it, she says, You feel it as a parent, because you can t help but experience the rejection at the polls as a repudiation of your family. And the kids experience it that way.
I had to tell my kids the next morning what happened. That s what I was dreading so much. How would I explain this to them, that people were voting against their family? she says. I got out a map of the state, and I said, You see down here, there s a lot more people here, and they know families like ours, so they mostly voted with us. Up there, people didn t vote so much with us because they don t know as many families but they re going to get to know our families. They are. They absolutely are.
Before the 2009 campaign even began in Maine, though, Bonauto already had launched another front in the marriage equality battle a big one. GLAD filed a challenge in March 2009 to Section 3 of DOMA on behalf of Nancy Gill and several others in federal court in Massachusetts; the provision barred the federal government from recognizing any same-sex couples marriages.
We obviously turned our attention to DOMA, Bonauto says, because now we had people who were married and discriminated against. Once same-sex couples began marrying in Massachusetts, GLAD started readying to go up against DOMA. The group had begun representing former Rep. Gerry Studds widow, Dean Hara; helping married same-sex couples file claims with Social Security; and interviewing people statewide, focusing on a range of impacts of DOMA on the couples in the state, in preparation for the eventual lawsuit.
[Mary] came up with the DOMA strategy, says Kaplan, the lawyer who argued against DOMA before the U.S. Supreme Court. Obviously, when Edie Windsor came to me, I was going to bring the case, but who would have known had they not filed [the DOMA challenge in Massachusetts] whether anyone thought that was viable?
The case, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, was considered alongside a second case brought by Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley and heard in 2010. Judge Joseph Tauro ruled on July 8, 2010, that Section 3 of DOMA was unconstitutional on several grounds. The ruling was the first of its kind, and it set the stage for several decisions from courts up to and including the U.S. Supreme Court in the three years that followed.
Much like the Hawaii ruling years before, the DOMA ruling served as catalyst to additional lawsuits being filed by other organizations and in other places. It s really clear that winning changes everything, Bonauto says. We had nailed it.
Then, with several DOMA lawsuits pending around the country, a significant change happened on Feb. 23, 2011: The Justice Department announced that the government, including President Obama, had concluded that DOMA is unconstitutional and would no longer be defending the law in court challenges. In July 2011, it began arguing that courts should strike down Section 3 of the law as unconstitutional.
This is the United States saying, No, we can no longer as a nation presume this discrimination is acceptable. And we can t because,<a href="http://wiki.maestia.ru/index.php?title=%D0%A3%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA:Zlfdfzjr3#Redskins_vs._Eagles_0" title="Redskins vs. Eagles 0">Redskins vs. Eagles 0]
<a name="http://wiki.maestia.ru/index.php?title=%D0%A3%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA:Zlfdfzjr3#Redskins_vs._Eagles_0">Redskins vs. Eagles 0</a>
[http://wiki.maestia.ru/index.php?title=%D0%A3%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA:Zlfdfzjr3#Redskins_vs._Eagles_0 Redskins vs. Eagles 0</ a>, look at who these people are and look at what we have done to these people, Bonauto says. Very strong stuff.
Cases proceeded against DOMA, and in 2012, Bonauto made the case against DOMA s constitutionality to three judges of the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. By the end of May,<a name="http://swissembroideries.com/jerseys.html">football jerseys cheap], the judges ruled unanimously that Bonauto who was now supported by the federal and Massachusetts governments in her arguments was right, making it the first appellate court to strike down DOMA.
Meanwhile, legislative victories were mounting, including for the first time at the polls. Maryland and Washington rejected attempts to repeal marriage equality laws. Minnesota rejected a proposed constitutional amendment to ban marriage equality. And Bonauto s home state of Maine became the first state to reverse course in a popular vote on marriage equality.
In late 2012, U.S. Supreme Court decided to take up the question of DOMA s constitutionality but, in a twist likely due to one justice s recusal, not Bonauto s case.
Instead, the court would hear the case brought by Windsor and argued by Kaplan. Was it disappointing? Yeah, definitely, Bonauto says. But she and GLAD quickly became part of the team, running the effort to coordinate the filing of amicus curiae, or friend-of-the-court, briefs to support Windsor s case. That s what you do.
Kaplan moved to enlist Bonauto in the effort immediately. Look, one of the first calls I made well, the first call was to my wife, but probably the second call I made after the Supreme Court took cert was to call Mary and ask her to run the amicus effort, Kaplan says. There s a reason for that.
On June 26 of this year, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his opinion for the court that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional because no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the state, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity.
He wrote, in part, that the law is unconstitutional because its principal purpose is to impose inequality the simple and direct argument that Bonauto, Kaplan, and many others had been making for the entire 17 years of the law s existence.</html>
