Civil & Human Rights

Know your anti-choice Democratic candidates in Arizona. Part 1.

by

Jose Leonardo Suarez (LD4-D) is running for Arizona State House this year. When asked how he differed from the Democratic platform at the Clean Election primary debate, he said that he opposes marriage equality and abortion in most cases. Link to video, which can’t be embedded on this site. Suarez believes life starts at conception … Read more

The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s politically motivated decision on voter ID

by

The Wisconsin Supreme Court is composed of seven justices who are elected in state-wide “non-partisan” elections. (Riiight). Each justice is elected for a ten-year term, and only one justice may be elected in any year.

solidarity_wi_fist_shirst-1You will recall that the 2011 Wisconsin Supreme Court election between incumbent David Prosser, Jr. and challenger Assistant Attorney General JoAnne Kloppenburg gained significant nationwide publicity, and was widely seen as a referendum on Governor Scott Walker’s proposed budget reforms in Wisconsin, and a part of the 2011 Wisconsin union protests. Wisconsin Supreme Court election, 2011 – Wikipedia.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court in the NAACP case, and the LWV case, on a 4-3 vote (and 5-2 vote in the second case), rejected two challenges to the state’s voter ID law on Thursday.

Read more

Marriage Equality in the Courts of Appeal

by

EqualCongress may be on recess for the next five weeks, but during this time a number of same-sex marriage cases will be heard by the Courts of Appeal.

On Wednesday, August 6, at 1:00 p.m. the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals will hear six same-sex marriage appeals from four states. Notice to the Media (.pdf):

DeBoer, et al v. Snyder, et al, Case No. 14-1341 (E.D. Michigan)

Obergefell, et al v. Himes, et al., Case No. 14-3057 (S.D. Ohio) consolidated with Henry, et al. v. Himes, Case No. 14-3464 (S.D. Ohio)

Bourke, et al v. Beshear, et al, Case No. 14-5291 (W.D. Kentucky). consolidated with Love, et al. v. Beshear , Case. No. 14-5818 (W.D. Kentucky)

Tanco, et al. v. Haslam, Case No. 14-5297 (M.D. Tennessee)

 The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals is dominated by conservative judges appointed by Republican presidents. So far, every court since the U.S. Supreme Court marriage decision in U.S. v. Windsor in 2013 has struck down state same-sex marriage bans as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. If there is a Court of Appeals panel that could go the other way and create a conflict among the circuits, it is the Sixth Circuit (and the equally conservative Fifth Circuit).

Read more

Court arguments reveal how misogyny is at the heart of opposition to marriage equality

by

equality corgis

Arizona and Texas are the latest states to be defending their same sex marriage bans in federal court. Things haven’t gone well for foes of equality lately, as foes of equality lose in state after state, most recently in Virginia. Attorneys in Arizona and Texas obviously see what’s coming and are resorting to desperately hiding behind children and slut-shaming.

Here are anti-equality attorneys in AZ arguing why same sex partners shouldn’t be allowed to marry:

Papers filed in federal court defending the ban say voters, in approving the constitutional amendment in 2008, are entitled to “define marriage for their community.’’ But the lawyers also are arguing to U.S. District Court Judge John Sedwick there’s a public purpose in the state getting into the business of regulating private relationships: Ensuring that children are, whenever possible, raised by a biological mother and biological father.

Read more

Virginia is for Lovers: 4th Circuit Court of Appeals upholds district court order striking down state’s same-sex marriage ban

by

The dominoes keep falling . . . the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals today upheld the order of the U.S. District Court for Virginia in Bostic v. Schaefer striking down that state’s same sex marriage ban. The Washington Post reports, Court rules Va.’s gay marriage ban unconstitutional:

Pride-Flag-Thumbnail-Friday-3x2-256x171A federal appeals court panel on Monday upheld a decision that said Virginia’s ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.

In a 2 to 1 decision, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond said that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed under the Constitution regardless of sexual orientation.

“We recognize that same-sex marriage makes some people deeply uncomfortable,” said Circuit Judge Henry F. Floyd. “However, inertia and apprehension are not legitimate bases for denying same-sex couples due process and equal protection of the laws. Civil marriage is one of the cornerstones of our way of life.”

Floyd was joined by Circuit Judge Roger L. Gregory.

Their colleague Paul V. Niemeyer dissented and called the ruling “fundamentally flawed.”

Read the opinion in Bostic v. Schaefer Here (.pdf).

Read more