Yesterday was a very special day at the Clark County Clerk's Office. For the first time ever, marriage licenses were being issued to all couples requesting licenses. Finally, Las Vegas was truly living up to its reputation as "The Marriage Capital of the World".
The crowd was huge at the Clark County Clerk's Office last night. The crowd wasn't as huge, however, at the Washoe County Clerk's Office. Nonetheless, the fortunate couples in Reno were greeted by flowers, cheers, and the marriage licenses they've been waiting so long for.
Finally, finally, marriage equality is now the law of the land here in Nevada. Kristy Best & Wednesday Smith were the very first same-sex couple to obtain a marriage license in Nevada, as the Carson City Clerk's Office decided not to wait any longer for the formal injunction order that Clark & Washoe were still waiting for. But once that injunction order was issued (preventing any further enforcement of Nevada's marriage ban), Theodore Small & Antioco Carillo became the first Clark County same-sex couple to obtain a marriage license. Shortly after, Karen Vibe & Karen Goody became the first Washoe County same-sex couple to obtain a marriage license.
Shortly after, State Senator Kelvin Atkinson (D-North Las Vegas) tied the knot with Sherwood Howard. Later in the evening, RuPaul's Drag Race Season 5 Quarterfinalist Coco Montrese (aka Martin Cooper) became the first "Diva of Las Vegas" to obtain a marriage license. And the fun didn't even stop there. All through the night, Las Vegas wedding chapels stayed open to help newly licensed couples "put a ring on it".
Yep, this really happened. And why not? This was a night some fourteen years in the making.
In 2000, Question 2 was placed on the ballot by the usual H8 filled suspects with the intent of ensuring these joyous moments would never occur. In 2002, they succeeded when Question 2 passed Round 2 on the ballot. And for the next decade, the usual H8 filled suspects had immense political juice in this state.
But when US Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) made his big announcement in May 2012, something changed. While Senator Reid had already been quietly evolving on this matter, his public proclamation radically changed the political dynamics of the marriage fight in this state. And of course, the Sevcik v. Sandoval law suit forever changed the legal dynamics in this state.
Back in 2010, Rep. Dina Titus (D-Paradise) reminisced on the dark days of 2002. And she summed up quite nicely why the Question 2 marriage ban would be struck down four years later. Why stop love? Why would someone even want to try stopping loving couples from enjoying their lives together? Just take a closer look at the couples featured above. Do you want to stop them?
Love is love is love. And now, love can no longer be stopped here in Nevada. Now, love (along with $60 for the license fee) is all one needs to be married here in Nevada. And yes, this is most definitely something to celebrate.
Showing posts with label the courts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label the courts. Show all posts
Friday, October 10, 2014
Thursday, October 9, 2014
Happy Marriage Equality Day, Nevada!
It's here! It's finally here! It's finally happening.
Washoe and Clark Counties are now good to go. Carson City was actually first to the marriage equality party, as the County Clerk there decided not to wait for Judge Mahan's order. But once that injunction order hit the Twitter wires, everyone else quickly hopped on board the Equality Express.
Here's the official Freedom Nevada statement on today's joyous news.
And here's Lt. Governor candidate Lucy Flores (D) on tonight's most pleasant (not really a) surprise.
Here's what Rep. Dina Titus (D-Paradise) tweeted:
Oh, and according to KSNV/News 3's Reed Cowan, State Senator Kelvin Atkinson (D-North Las Vegas) is now married! Congrats to Kelvin & Woody!
Consider this an open thread. We may update later if more major news breaks. Otherwise, we'll have a clean summary of the big break tomorrow morning.
Happy Marriage Equality Day, Nevada!
Washoe and Clark Counties are now good to go. Carson City was actually first to the marriage equality party, as the County Clerk there decided not to wait for Judge Mahan's order. But once that injunction order hit the Twitter wires, everyone else quickly hopped on board the Equality Express.
Here's the official Freedom Nevada statement on today's joyous news.
“Today is a day for the history books. The freedom to marry has come to Nevada, and soon across our great state, loving same-sex couples will at long last share in the respect and dignity only marriage can provide,” said [State Director Ward] Curtin.
“From this day forward, marriage equality will strengthen our families, strengthen our communities and make Nevada a better place to live and work.”
“We are forever grateful for the incredible legal team at Lambda Legal and the brave plaintiff couples who put their families front and center in this historic fight. Without their heroic efforts, today’s victory would not have been possible.”
And here's Lt. Governor candidate Lucy Flores (D) on tonight's most pleasant (not really a) surprise.
“My sincere congratulations to my good friends Kelvin and Woody,” Assemblywoman Flores said in her official statement. “This is a great day for the LGBTQ community in Nevada. Allowing people to marry who they love is fundamentally the right thing to do. Very soon all Nevadans will be able to experience the legal rights that come with full marriage.”
“It is unfortunate that my opponent does not support equal rights,” she continued – referring to Sen. Mark Hutchison, the Republican nominee for Lieutenant Governor.
Here's what Rep. Dina Titus (D-Paradise) tweeted:
#MarriageEquality finally! Congratulations to the couples getting married! #Nevada is on the right side of history! #NVproud #LGBT
Oh, and according to KSNV/News 3's Reed Cowan, State Senator Kelvin Atkinson (D-North Las Vegas) is now married! Congrats to Kelvin & Woody!
Consider this an open thread. We may update later if more major news breaks. Otherwise, we'll have a clean summary of the big break tomorrow morning.
Happy Marriage Equality Day, Nevada!
On Long Waits & Enduring Hope
(The past 48 hours have been frustrating as hell. We just can't candycoat the sh-tshow that the Sevcik case has become. For the time being, marriage equality remains on hold in Nevada due to yesterday's epic courtroom confusion. Stay tuned here for further marriage updates.
In the mean time, let's take another trip to the Nevada Progressive archives to calm our nerves. Here, this might help us feel better: a classic from August 2010 on dealing with delays and confronting the bigotry that threatens to hold us down.)
This week has been a doozy for me. I was up. I was down. I was right. I was wrong. I was elated with joy. I was horrified and filled with fear.
And in the end, I just have to keep on chugging and do what needs to be done to move forward and achieve the full equality we so badly need and fully deserve.
I still have painful memories from 2008.
I still remember the drive home with my dad on the day after the election. (We were actually here in Nevada to help Obama win.) As soon as I heard on the radio that Prop 8 passed in California, I broke into tears... And cried all the way home. For the next two weeks, I was deeply depressed.
Am I sub-human? Are gay couples just inferior to straight couples? How could this happen here? Is this all my fault? These were the questions swirling around my head.
This week, I finally felt some closure. Prop 8 was overturned in federal court... And while marriage equality is still on hold in California, it was nice to see a glimpse of that "liberty and justice for all" I've heard about in this country.
I know we've all been frustrated by what may seem sometimes like a stunning lack of progress on attaining even the most basic of human rights for LGBTQ Americans. I know I have been. But this week, my hope was renewed. For once, the politics of hate and fear and bigotry was trumped by the possibility of a better America, an America that isn't ashamed to treat all her citizens equally.
Yes, I was feeling so great on Wednesday...
Then reality slapped me in the face yet again.
You see, last year I moved to Nevada. Yes, my dears, Nevada. I live smack dab in the middle of Henderson, which feels like the heart of that mythical "Middle America" I heard about when I was safe in the confines of "Left Coast California".
And believe it or not, this crazy lady is actually running for US Senate here.
And if you think that's all, think again. Sharron Angle is supported by "Christian Reconstructionist" religious right extremists who want to impose THE DEATH PENALTY on "homosexual sodomites".
Frightening enough, right? Wait, it gets worse. Sharron Angle herself openly advocated the complete denial of even the most basic civil rights to LGBTQ Nevadans when she helped found the openly xenophobic Independent American Party of Nevada in the early 1990s. Yep, that's right. She thinks we SHOULD be discriminated against at work, when shopping, when on the bus, when applying for disability benefits, when searching for a place to live, whenever, wherever.
Oh, and Sharron Angle won't even take money from companies that treat their LGBTQ employees fairly and equally. Yep, she's that serious about her homophobia!
So how can someone like this even be taken seriously? How can someone like this earn votes in her run for the United States Senate? What happened here?
It's still saddening to see bigotry used as a "wedge issue" in political campaigns. It broke my heart with Prop 8 in California two years ago, and now it just infuriates me to see Sharron Angle flaunt in my face her hatred of me and my extended queer family.
It just goes to show how much progress we still need to make in this country. It's great to see federal judges like the Honorable Vaughn Walker rule in our favor and rightly decide that we are citizens deserving of equal rights... And then it's terrifying to see Senate candidates like Sharron Angle vow to oppose any and all remedies to wrongful discrimination. Of course, it's safe to say she doesn't agree with Judge Walker's Prop 8 ruling.
OK, I guess I should mention theelephant... No, make that donkey in the room.
Yes, Harry Reid is my Senator. And yes, I know he's not perfect. But whenever I feel frustrated about why DOMA is still on the books or why ENDA hasn't been passed yet, I remember what's at stake here. I remember the batshit crazy tea-nut queen running against him, and I remember I have no choice but to make sure the tea-nut queen gets nowhere near the US Senate.
Sometimes, change isn't fast. Most often, change isn't easy. But in the end, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was right. Change happens. "The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice."
That's what gives me hope... Hope that Prop 8 will soon be another sad footnote in our history, one that we will have overcome. It's what gives me hope that one day soon (oh, it should be soon!), Harry Reid and Barack Obama will be able to herd those cats often referred to as "US Senators" and deliver on basic freedom from discrimination in the workplace. It's what gives me hope that homophobic, transphobic extremists like Sharron Angle won't be able to win elections on pure, primal hate.
So I guess the hope is still alive. It's been a long walk to freedom and equality, but I guess we'll soon make it all the way up there.
In the mean time, let's take another trip to the Nevada Progressive archives to calm our nerves. Here, this might help us feel better: a classic from August 2010 on dealing with delays and confronting the bigotry that threatens to hold us down.)
This week has been a doozy for me. I was up. I was down. I was right. I was wrong. I was elated with joy. I was horrified and filled with fear.
And in the end, I just have to keep on chugging and do what needs to be done to move forward and achieve the full equality we so badly need and fully deserve.
I still have painful memories from 2008.
The yard signs that were stolen from my front yard. The homophobic insults coming from my own family. The belligerent Yes on H8 paid canvassers trying to bully my dad into taking away my civil rights. The "urine yellow" Yes on H8 signs being sprinkled all over my neighborhood by the anti-equality churches. These are my memories from the campaign.
The married couples wondering if their marriages were still "legally valid". The couples that waited too long and missed the chance to get a "limited edition marriage". The kids who were bullied in school before and after the election. These are still memories I have from the first days after Prop H8 passed.
Beating myself up constantly about why I didn't do more to stop this oncoming tragedy. This is the guilt I still have over my failure to do enough to stop Prop H8 from passing.
I still remember the drive home with my dad on the day after the election. (We were actually here in Nevada to help Obama win.) As soon as I heard on the radio that Prop 8 passed in California, I broke into tears... And cried all the way home. For the next two weeks, I was deeply depressed.
Am I sub-human? Are gay couples just inferior to straight couples? How could this happen here? Is this all my fault? These were the questions swirling around my head.
This week, I finally felt some closure. Prop 8 was overturned in federal court... And while marriage equality is still on hold in California, it was nice to see a glimpse of that "liberty and justice for all" I've heard about in this country.
I know we've all been frustrated by what may seem sometimes like a stunning lack of progress on attaining even the most basic of human rights for LGBTQ Americans. I know I have been. But this week, my hope was renewed. For once, the politics of hate and fear and bigotry was trumped by the possibility of a better America, an America that isn't ashamed to treat all her citizens equally.
Yes, I was feeling so great on Wednesday...
Then reality slapped me in the face yet again.
You see, last year I moved to Nevada. Yes, my dears, Nevada. I live smack dab in the middle of Henderson, which feels like the heart of that mythical "Middle America" I heard about when I was safe in the confines of "Left Coast California".
And believe it or not, this crazy lady is actually running for US Senate here.
Among her positions, outlined in answers to 36 yes-or-no questions, [Sharron] Angle would oppose making sexual orientation a protected minority in civil rights laws. In a section on school prayer, she affirms that students and teachers should be able to talk openly about religion in schools, including the right to "publicly acknowledge the Creator." [...]
In the questionnaire, submitted to the Washington-based Government is not God political committee, Angle said she would vote in Congress to prohibit abortion "in all cases," and considers a fetus a person under the Constitution.
The Washington-based group's website says it supports candidates who oppose abortion rights and "stand firmly against the unbiblical welfare state that is destroying the spiritual and economic greatness of our nation."
And if you think that's all, think again. Sharron Angle is supported by "Christian Reconstructionist" religious right extremists who want to impose THE DEATH PENALTY on "homosexual sodomites".
An organization calling itself Vision to America sent out a recent fundraising appeal sponsored by U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) on behalf of Nevada Republican senatorial candidate Sharron Angle. "I have put together a plan to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars into the Nevada Senate race — along with several others like it — to achieve conservative victory. This plan includes running statewide television and radio ads, sending direct mail to targeted voters, and operating phone banks — all geared toward defeating Harry Reid in November."
What is American Vision, and why do they love Sharron Angle? American Vision has a goal: "The goal is to return America to its Biblical foundations “from Genesis to Revelation” (a postmillennial reading of Revelation, which holds that the Second Coming will occur after an era of Christian dominance). American Vision is a non-profit, tax exempt, educational organization. Like many of these groups, DeMar also has a companion organization that can raise money and promote candidates for elected office: Vision to America." [link ...]
The Bible is clear on moral issues that are culture-killers: homosexuality, homosexual marriage, and abortion," says DeMar, who is closely allied with D. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Ministries, where he frequently speaks.
While DeMar insists that homosexuals wouldn't be rounded up and systematically executed under a "reconstructed" government, he does believe that the occasional execution of "sodomites" would serve society well, because "the law that requires the death penalty for homosexual acts effectively drives the perversion of homosexuality underground, back into the closet."
Another "long-term goal," he writes elsewhere, should be "the execution of abortionists and parents who hire them." [...]
In 1993, American Vision helped county commissioners in Cobb County, Ga., pass an anti-gay resolution so strongly worded that it sparked a national controversy. Cobb County Commissioner Gordon Wysong spoke at American Vision's annual fundraising banquet the following year, saying of gay people, "We should blame them for every social failure in America." [link]
Frightening enough, right? Wait, it gets worse. Sharron Angle herself openly advocated the complete denial of even the most basic civil rights to LGBTQ Nevadans when she helped found the openly xenophobic Independent American Party of Nevada in the early 1990s. Yep, that's right. She thinks we SHOULD be discriminated against at work, when shopping, when on the bus, when applying for disability benefits, when searching for a place to live, whenever, wherever.
Oh, and Sharron Angle won't even take money from companies that treat their LGBTQ employees fairly and equally. Yep, she's that serious about her homophobia!
So how can someone like this even be taken seriously? How can someone like this earn votes in her run for the United States Senate? What happened here?
It's still saddening to see bigotry used as a "wedge issue" in political campaigns. It broke my heart with Prop 8 in California two years ago, and now it just infuriates me to see Sharron Angle flaunt in my face her hatred of me and my extended queer family.
It just goes to show how much progress we still need to make in this country. It's great to see federal judges like the Honorable Vaughn Walker rule in our favor and rightly decide that we are citizens deserving of equal rights... And then it's terrifying to see Senate candidates like Sharron Angle vow to oppose any and all remedies to wrongful discrimination. Of course, it's safe to say she doesn't agree with Judge Walker's Prop 8 ruling.
OK, I guess I should mention the
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not making excuses. And I'm not saying it's wrong for GetEQUAL or any other LGBTQ advocacy group to demand full equality. As a gay person myself, I'm 110% there with you! I'm just saying that Harry Reid is NOT the enemy, but rather a friend who I know wants to do the right thing. Sometimes we need to give him the extra push and "make him do it", as both he and Nancy Pelosi said on Saturday at Netroots Nation. But in the end, it's important to keep building these relationships, holding leaders like Reid and Pelosi accountable when necessary, but also remembering that these are our friends and we don't have to fight against them.
Yes, Harry Reid is my Senator. And yes, I know he's not perfect. But whenever I feel frustrated about why DOMA is still on the books or why ENDA hasn't been passed yet, I remember what's at stake here. I remember the batshit crazy tea-nut queen running against him, and I remember I have no choice but to make sure the tea-nut queen gets nowhere near the US Senate.
Sometimes, change isn't fast. Most often, change isn't easy. But in the end, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was right. Change happens. "The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice."
That's what gives me hope... Hope that Prop 8 will soon be another sad footnote in our history, one that we will have overcome. It's what gives me hope that one day soon (oh, it should be soon!), Harry Reid and Barack Obama will be able to herd those cats often referred to as "US Senators" and deliver on basic freedom from discrimination in the workplace. It's what gives me hope that homophobic, transphobic extremists like Sharron Angle won't be able to win elections on pure, primal hate.
So I guess the hope is still alive. It's been a long walk to freedom and equality, but I guess we'll soon make it all the way up there.
Wednesday, October 8, 2014
Hurry Up... & Wait.
We started the morning thinking it was about to happen. That was after we spent much of yesterday thinking we had to wait a little longer. But then, we were thrown another delay. And suddenly, we had to wait again.
But now, the wait may finally be coming to an end. Just hours after US Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy issued a temporary stay on yesterday's Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals ruling bringing marriage equality to Nevada and Idaho, Justice Kennedy recalled his own stay.
So what now? In Justice Kennedy's revised order, a temporary stay has been issued for Idaho. There, Governor Butch Otter (R) & Attorney General Lawrence Wasden (R) are requesting an en banc (or full court) hearing in the Ninth. The temporary stay will last until Thursday, when both sides have a deadline to respond to Otter's request for an en banc hearing and an extended stay of the Ninth's panel ruling.
The full Ninth Circuit is also asking for responses from both sides in Nevada by 5:00 PM Thursday, as the usual (H8 filled) suspects have requested a stay for Nevada. However, neither Governor Brian Sandoval (R) nor Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto (D) is appealing the case. And considering the precedent the Supreme Court set in Perry v. Brown (the California Prop 8 case), it doesn't seem likely the Court will even grant the usual suspects standing to further appeal Sevcik v. Sandoval.
So what now? Officially, Nevada is about to receive legal marriage equality. But technically, Washoe County, Clark County, and other county clerks are turning away couples seeking licenses until Nevada federal district Judge James Mahan and/or the full Ninth Circuit clarifies next legal steps.
Today has felt like an infuriating game of "hurry up & wait". We can only imagine how the couples seeking marriage licenses must feel right now. Stay tuned here at Nevada Progressive as we continue attempting to wrap our heads around the legal ping-pong game this Sevcik case is rapidly devolving into.
But now, the wait may finally be coming to an end. Just hours after US Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy issued a temporary stay on yesterday's Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals ruling bringing marriage equality to Nevada and Idaho, Justice Kennedy recalled his own stay.
So what now? In Justice Kennedy's revised order, a temporary stay has been issued for Idaho. There, Governor Butch Otter (R) & Attorney General Lawrence Wasden (R) are requesting an en banc (or full court) hearing in the Ninth. The temporary stay will last until Thursday, when both sides have a deadline to respond to Otter's request for an en banc hearing and an extended stay of the Ninth's panel ruling.
The full Ninth Circuit is also asking for responses from both sides in Nevada by 5:00 PM Thursday, as the usual (H8 filled) suspects have requested a stay for Nevada. However, neither Governor Brian Sandoval (R) nor Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto (D) is appealing the case. And considering the precedent the Supreme Court set in Perry v. Brown (the California Prop 8 case), it doesn't seem likely the Court will even grant the usual suspects standing to further appeal Sevcik v. Sandoval.
So what now? Officially, Nevada is about to receive legal marriage equality. But technically, Washoe County, Clark County, and other county clerks are turning away couples seeking licenses until Nevada federal district Judge James Mahan and/or the full Ninth Circuit clarifies next legal steps.
Today has felt like an infuriating game of "hurry up & wait". We can only imagine how the couples seeking marriage licenses must feel right now. Stay tuned here at Nevada Progressive as we continue attempting to wrap our heads around the legal ping-pong game this Sevcik case is rapidly devolving into.
Dammit, Justice (Kennedy) Delayed Again.
Of course, it can't be easy. It can't be simple. It must be confusing.
When we woke up this morning, marriage equality was set to become the law of the land here in Nevada today. Because the State of Nevada already promised not to appeal the case, the legal fight was supposed to end today.
But then, this happened. And mass confusion on Twitter soon followed. Some legal experts seem to think US Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy's temporary stay in Idaho also applies to Nevada because both cases were consolidated by the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals, but SCOTUSBlog's Lyle Denniston is reporting Justice Kennedy's stay only applies to Idaho (as that state is appealing The Ninth's ruling).
For now, it looks like Nevada officials are once again erring on the side of caution. Moments ago, the Clark County Clerk's Office recanted its proclamation from last night and will not issue marriage licenses today. And since the Washoe County Clerk's Office had already stated its plans to wait this out, that doesn't seem to be changing any time soon.
So what happened? Short answer: Idaho. Longer answer: Idaho Governor Butch Otter (R) is appealing the ruling, and the state's lawyers requested a temporary stay from Justice Kennedy. So Kennedy granted the stay.
But because Idaho and Nevada cases are consolidated, we must wait even longer to find out where we actually stand. Will the Supremes "decouple" the cases? Will they decide to take up both cases? Or will both cases be subsequently dismissed (like all the other ones were on Monday)?
Stay tuned. This isn't over yet.
When we woke up this morning, marriage equality was set to become the law of the land here in Nevada today. Because the State of Nevada already promised not to appeal the case, the legal fight was supposed to end today.
But then, this happened. And mass confusion on Twitter soon followed. Some legal experts seem to think US Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy's temporary stay in Idaho also applies to Nevada because both cases were consolidated by the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals, but SCOTUSBlog's Lyle Denniston is reporting Justice Kennedy's stay only applies to Idaho (as that state is appealing The Ninth's ruling).
For now, it looks like Nevada officials are once again erring on the side of caution. Moments ago, the Clark County Clerk's Office recanted its proclamation from last night and will not issue marriage licenses today. And since the Washoe County Clerk's Office had already stated its plans to wait this out, that doesn't seem to be changing any time soon.
So what happened? Short answer: Idaho. Longer answer: Idaho Governor Butch Otter (R) is appealing the ruling, and the state's lawyers requested a temporary stay from Justice Kennedy. So Kennedy granted the stay.
But because Idaho and Nevada cases are consolidated, we must wait even longer to find out where we actually stand. Will the Supremes "decouple" the cases? Will they decide to take up both cases? Or will both cases be subsequently dismissed (like all the other ones were on Monday)?
Stay tuned. This isn't over yet.
What We Have... & What We Will No Longer Be Denied
(So we're still waiting for the federal district court to issue an injunction barring any further enforcement of the Question 2 marriage ban. Once that happens, marriage equality will finally be a reality here in Nevada. However that day may come sooner than originally thought, as Ninth Circuit Judge Steven Reinhardt ordered a prompt issuance demanding the lower court issue that injunction ASAP. And Clark County will begin issuing marriage licenses at 2:00 PM today!
Here at Nevada Progressive, we've been waiting just over 5 years for this joyous occasion. To celebrate, we took to our archives and pulled out this gem from 2009. Oh, yes. That's right. We're going all the way back to the beginning of SB 283, and of this blog.
This not only explains what we've had for the past 5 years, but also why a few brave people decided to sue for full equality. And now, we're here. Hallelujah, the wait is finally over!)
Probably one of the biggest Nevada stories of 2009 was SB 283 becoming law. Sure, it's not marriage... But it's something so new for Nevada. For once, we've become somewhat of a leader on LGBTQ equality. On May 31, 2009, "Luv-Guv" Gibbons' veto was overrode and Nevada became the first Mountain West state to recognize LGBTQ relationships and offer "marriage-like rights".
OK, so those "marriage-like rights" still don't ensure health care benefits for everyone and they still do nothing at the federal level. That's the problem, but hopefully one day this will change and these "marriage-like rights" will actually become full civil marriage equality. But in the mean time, let's reflect on SB 283 with this piece I wrote here back in August.
.... As we've been talking about for some time, SB 283 will officially become law on October 1. This will bring about some major changes in the law, mostly helping us. However, there are some things that we need to remember. Secretary of State Ross Miller hasn't yet updated the Nevada SoS site to include a domestic partnership page (as California's SoS does).
First off, David Parks wasn't joking when he said that this is NOT marriage. While SB 283 provides for domestic partnerships (DPs) that are supposed to treat "domestic partnered" couples just like married spouses, let's remember that this theory doesn't always work out in practice. So while we celebrate the first major advance in civil rights in Nevada in decades, let's keep working toward the final goal of true civil marriage equality. Probably the most significant reminder of the challenges LGBT families face in this state is the section of SB 283 considering workplace health care benefits. Simply put, employers are NOT required under Nevada law to provide health care benefits to domestic partners of employees as they do to other employees' married spouses.
Fortunately it is at least optional, so you'll continue to receive DP benefits at work if your employer already provides them. And if your employer doesn't yet provide DP benefits, you can still try to convince them to do so. Just don't expect the State of Nevada to make them do so... At least until we can improve the DP law.
Nonetheless, SB 283 will change Nevada law for the better for our families. One major example of this will be in family law. Specifically, child custody laws will be improved to make it easier for gay & lesbian couples looking to have children to do so. And considering the current headaches LGBT families with children have, this is quite a welcome development. And in many other matters, our families will receive more legal protections. Hospital visitation (should the partner become ill) will be easier. Community property laws will apply to domestic partners. State tax benefits currently afforded to married spouses will also be extended to domestic partners.
But again, we must stress that DPs under SB 283 are not marriage and will not be treated by the federal government as such. Even if you and your partner file for a DP this fall, you will still not be able to file a joint federal tax return. You won't be able to receive any spousal benefits from the military or the VA. You won't be able to sponsor your partner for US citizenship or permanent residency if he/she is a foreign national. Unfortunately, DOMA still applies here as it does across the nation. This is why it's crucial that not only Nevada law change to give our families full equality, but that federal law change as well.
I hope this helps answer some of the questions you may have about SB 283 and its imminent implementation. I'll keep the Stonewall site updated with any new information from the Secretary of State, as well as new legal opinions on what will and will not be covered by SB 283.
Here at Nevada Progressive, we've been waiting just over 5 years for this joyous occasion. To celebrate, we took to our archives and pulled out this gem from 2009. Oh, yes. That's right. We're going all the way back to the beginning of SB 283, and of this blog.
This not only explains what we've had for the past 5 years, but also why a few brave people decided to sue for full equality. And now, we're here. Hallelujah, the wait is finally over!)
Probably one of the biggest Nevada stories of 2009 was SB 283 becoming law. Sure, it's not marriage... But it's something so new for Nevada. For once, we've become somewhat of a leader on LGBTQ equality. On May 31, 2009, "Luv-Guv" Gibbons' veto was overrode and Nevada became the first Mountain West state to recognize LGBTQ relationships and offer "marriage-like rights".
OK, so those "marriage-like rights" still don't ensure health care benefits for everyone and they still do nothing at the federal level. That's the problem, but hopefully one day this will change and these "marriage-like rights" will actually become full civil marriage equality. But in the mean time, let's reflect on SB 283 with this piece I wrote here back in August.
.... As we've been talking about for some time, SB 283 will officially become law on October 1. This will bring about some major changes in the law, mostly helping us. However, there are some things that we need to remember. Secretary of State Ross Miller hasn't yet updated the Nevada SoS site to include a domestic partnership page (as California's SoS does).
First off, David Parks wasn't joking when he said that this is NOT marriage. While SB 283 provides for domestic partnerships (DPs) that are supposed to treat "domestic partnered" couples just like married spouses, let's remember that this theory doesn't always work out in practice. So while we celebrate the first major advance in civil rights in Nevada in decades, let's keep working toward the final goal of true civil marriage equality. Probably the most significant reminder of the challenges LGBT families face in this state is the section of SB 283 considering workplace health care benefits. Simply put, employers are NOT required under Nevada law to provide health care benefits to domestic partners of employees as they do to other employees' married spouses.
Fortunately it is at least optional, so you'll continue to receive DP benefits at work if your employer already provides them. And if your employer doesn't yet provide DP benefits, you can still try to convince them to do so. Just don't expect the State of Nevada to make them do so... At least until we can improve the DP law.
Nonetheless, SB 283 will change Nevada law for the better for our families. One major example of this will be in family law. Specifically, child custody laws will be improved to make it easier for gay & lesbian couples looking to have children to do so. And considering the current headaches LGBT families with children have, this is quite a welcome development. And in many other matters, our families will receive more legal protections. Hospital visitation (should the partner become ill) will be easier. Community property laws will apply to domestic partners. State tax benefits currently afforded to married spouses will also be extended to domestic partners.
But again, we must stress that DPs under SB 283 are not marriage and will not be treated by the federal government as such. Even if you and your partner file for a DP this fall, you will still not be able to file a joint federal tax return. You won't be able to receive any spousal benefits from the military or the VA. You won't be able to sponsor your partner for US citizenship or permanent residency if he/she is a foreign national. Unfortunately, DOMA still applies here as it does across the nation. This is why it's crucial that not only Nevada law change to give our families full equality, but that federal law change as well.
I hope this helps answer some of the questions you may have about SB 283 and its imminent implementation. I'll keep the Stonewall site updated with any new information from the Secretary of State, as well as new legal opinions on what will and will not be covered by SB 283.
Tuesday, October 7, 2014
Marriage Equality... Is Finally Coming to Nevada!
Boom goes the dynamite. Just like this, it's over.
Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote the majority opinion. Judges Marsha Berzon and Ronald Gould agreed, so the panel was unanimous in rendering this decision. The full Ninth Circuit opinion is now up. And like that, marriage equality is coming to Nevada! Oh, and it's coming to Idaho, too!
Actually, this is no suprise. Back in September, the Ninth Circuit judges were highly skeptical of the H8ers' whines and screams. H8ers are going to hate... But the Ninth Circuit panel wanted none of it.
Now keep in mind that this decision will not be appealed by the State of Nevada. And since the US Supreme Court just turned down seven cases appealing lower court pro-marriage rulings, it's probably a good idea for our world famous wedding chapels to prepare for the onslaught of wedding requests that's about to begin any day now.
Moments ago, Reps. Dina Titus (D-Paradise) & Steven Horsford (D-North Las Vegas) tweeted their congratulations. We're still awaiting word from Cresent Hardy (R-"Segregation Laws"), Adam Laxalt (R-"Political Issues"), & Barbara Cegavske (R-License to Discriminate). And we have a feeling we'll see far more reactions from elected officials across the state as the news sets in.
We hold that the Idaho and Nevada laws at issue violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because they deny lesbians and gays who wish to marry persons of the same sex a right they afford to individuals who wish to marry persons of the opposite sex, and do not satisfy the heightened scrutiny standard we adopted in SmithKline.
Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote the majority opinion. Judges Marsha Berzon and Ronald Gould agreed, so the panel was unanimous in rendering this decision. The full Ninth Circuit opinion is now up. And like that, marriage equality is coming to Nevada! Oh, and it's coming to Idaho, too!
Actually, this is no suprise. Back in September, the Ninth Circuit judges were highly skeptical of the H8ers' whines and screams. H8ers are going to hate... But the Ninth Circuit panel wanted none of it.
Now keep in mind that this decision will not be appealed by the State of Nevada. And since the US Supreme Court just turned down seven cases appealing lower court pro-marriage rulings, it's probably a good idea for our world famous wedding chapels to prepare for the onslaught of wedding requests that's about to begin any day now.
Moments ago, Reps. Dina Titus (D-Paradise) & Steven Horsford (D-North Las Vegas) tweeted their congratulations. We're still awaiting word from Cresent Hardy (R-"Segregation Laws"), Adam Laxalt (R-"Political Issues"), & Barbara Cegavske (R-License to Discriminate). And we have a feeling we'll see far more reactions from elected officials across the state as the news sets in.
"It's Over."
It always feels so good to be validated. But how are we supposed to feel when Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker (R) validates us? Well, this is why we're feeling quite awkward this morning.
But hey, he said it: "It's over." And he's correct about this.
Yesterday, the US Supreme Court green-lighted marriage equality in Wisconsin, Virginia, Indiana, Oklahoma, and Utah by denying petitions for appeal in their respective marriage cases. And because the Court let these appellate court rulings stand, marriages may soon begin in even more states. Already, Colorado Attorney General John Suther (R) stood down and ordered all 64 Colorado county clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses as soon as possible, so marriages are now even happening there.
Just a year ago, marriage equality in Utah was unimaginable. But now, it's reality.
And eventually, it will be reality here in Nevada. Just don't tell Nevada Republican luminaries Adam Laxalt & Cresent Hardy. For them, "segregation laws" always make great "political issues". And yes, they still have plenty of company in the Nevada Republican Party.
Oh, and don't tell the religious wrong. They're still condemning the US Supreme Court for striking down (back in 2003!) state laws that pushed police officers into people's bedrooms. And of course, they're condemning yesterday's Supreme (in)action as "unconstitutional". Clearly, they're still in need of "basic plumbing lessons" on Constitutional law... Along with a general reality check.
Apparently, they haven't received Scott Walker's memo yet. It's over. Yes, truly, it's over.
Well, OK, it's not completely over yet. It won't be until we have marriage equality nationwide. But in terms of the political "optics" (that certain media pundits love to talk about), it's over. Sorry, H8ers.
But hey, he said it: "It's over." And he's correct about this.
Yesterday, the US Supreme Court green-lighted marriage equality in Wisconsin, Virginia, Indiana, Oklahoma, and Utah by denying petitions for appeal in their respective marriage cases. And because the Court let these appellate court rulings stand, marriages may soon begin in even more states. Already, Colorado Attorney General John Suther (R) stood down and ordered all 64 Colorado county clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses as soon as possible, so marriages are now even happening there.
Just a year ago, marriage equality in Utah was unimaginable. But now, it's reality.
And eventually, it will be reality here in Nevada. Just don't tell Nevada Republican luminaries Adam Laxalt & Cresent Hardy. For them, "segregation laws" always make great "political issues". And yes, they still have plenty of company in the Nevada Republican Party.
Oh, and don't tell the religious wrong. They're still condemning the US Supreme Court for striking down (back in 2003!) state laws that pushed police officers into people's bedrooms. And of course, they're condemning yesterday's Supreme (in)action as "unconstitutional". Clearly, they're still in need of "basic plumbing lessons" on Constitutional law... Along with a general reality check.
Apparently, they haven't received Scott Walker's memo yet. It's over. Yes, truly, it's over.
Well, OK, it's not completely over yet. It won't be until we have marriage equality nationwide. But in terms of the political "optics" (that certain media pundits love to talk about), it's over. Sorry, H8ers.
Monday, October 6, 2014
Justice... Just Fashionally Late
Finally, we must wait no more... At least when it comes to the US Supreme Court. The nation's highest court had several marriage equality cases awaiting action. And now, we know the Supreme Court has denied petitions (for appeal) in all those cases.
So what does this mean? In short, marriage equality is now the law of the land in at least 5 more states: Virginia, Indiana, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, and Utah. By denying petitions of appeal, lower court rulings in favor of marriage will stand. This also means SCOTUS stays on those rulings expire today, and this is why marriages will likely begin today in Virginia and Wisconsin.
But wait, there's more. The Supreme Court essentially upheld these federal appellate court rulings de facto by dismissing the appeals. This will require lower federal courts within these appellate court circuits (4th, 7th, & 10th) to abide by these appellate court rulings. And this most likely opens the door to marriage bans being struck down quite soon in North Carolina, West Virginia, South Carolina (all 4th Circuit), Kansas, Wyoming, and Colorado (all 10th Circuit). (Maryland, Illinois, and New Mexico already have marriage equality.)
But wait, what about us? Well, that's the downside of today's ruling. Because the 9th Circuit hasn't yet issued a ruling on Sevcik v. Sandoval, we'll have to wait a little longer here in Nevada.
But then again, we may not have to wait that much longer. If the 9th overturns Nevada's marriage ban (as most legal observers expect), the Supreme Court may not decide to place a stay on that ruling should opponents appeal. After all, the Court just dismissed all these cases.
Nevada's LGBTQ families have been waiting 12 years for this. And sadly, they will have to wait just a little longer for justice to finally arrive. But now, we can feel more confident about justice arriving to The Silver State. Just pardon her for arriving fashionably late.
So what does this mean? In short, marriage equality is now the law of the land in at least 5 more states: Virginia, Indiana, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, and Utah. By denying petitions of appeal, lower court rulings in favor of marriage will stand. This also means SCOTUS stays on those rulings expire today, and this is why marriages will likely begin today in Virginia and Wisconsin.
But wait, there's more. The Supreme Court essentially upheld these federal appellate court rulings de facto by dismissing the appeals. This will require lower federal courts within these appellate court circuits (4th, 7th, & 10th) to abide by these appellate court rulings. And this most likely opens the door to marriage bans being struck down quite soon in North Carolina, West Virginia, South Carolina (all 4th Circuit), Kansas, Wyoming, and Colorado (all 10th Circuit). (Maryland, Illinois, and New Mexico already have marriage equality.)
But wait, what about us? Well, that's the downside of today's ruling. Because the 9th Circuit hasn't yet issued a ruling on Sevcik v. Sandoval, we'll have to wait a little longer here in Nevada.
But then again, we may not have to wait that much longer. If the 9th overturns Nevada's marriage ban (as most legal observers expect), the Supreme Court may not decide to place a stay on that ruling should opponents appeal. After all, the Court just dismissed all these cases.
Nevada's LGBTQ families have been waiting 12 years for this. And sadly, they will have to wait just a little longer for justice to finally arrive. But now, we can feel more confident about justice arriving to The Silver State. Just pardon her for arriving fashionably late.
Thursday, October 2, 2014
Still Waiting
We've been waiting all week for this. And now, we have our answer. And yes, it involves another week of waiting.
Earlier today, the US Supreme Court announced a slew of cases it will be taking up next session. None of those cases are marriage equality cases.
However, the nation's highest court may announce next week more cases it will be taking up in the next session. Might Justices be waiting for decisions from the Ninth Circuit? (Probably, along with decisions from the Sixth Circuit on Tennessee's, Kentucky's, Ohio's, and Michigan's respective marriage bans.)
One of the cases now at the Supreme Court is Kitchen v. Herbert. This is the suit challenging Utah's marriage ban. If the Court decides to reject this appeal, lower court rulings in favor of marriage equality will stand... And marriages will resume in Utah.
Marriage equality will also come to Virginia, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Oklahoma by the end of the year if the Supreme Court rejects appeals in all those cases. But wait, aren't we missing a state?
Hold on. We haven't been forgotten. Actually, Sevcik v. Sandoval is still in San Francisco at the moment. Even though most legal observers have a good idea as to how the Ninth Circuit will rule on Nevada's marriage ban, we still don't have an actual ruling yet. And since the usual suspects will likely appeal if the judges rule against upholding the 2000/2002 marriage ban, Nevada may be included on the Supreme Court's 2015 docket should the Justices decide to take up some or all of the marriage cases.
But for now, we're still waiting.
Earlier today, the US Supreme Court announced a slew of cases it will be taking up next session. None of those cases are marriage equality cases.
However, the nation's highest court may announce next week more cases it will be taking up in the next session. Might Justices be waiting for decisions from the Ninth Circuit? (Probably, along with decisions from the Sixth Circuit on Tennessee's, Kentucky's, Ohio's, and Michigan's respective marriage bans.)
One of the cases now at the Supreme Court is Kitchen v. Herbert. This is the suit challenging Utah's marriage ban. If the Court decides to reject this appeal, lower court rulings in favor of marriage equality will stand... And marriages will resume in Utah.
Marriage equality will also come to Virginia, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Oklahoma by the end of the year if the Supreme Court rejects appeals in all those cases. But wait, aren't we missing a state?
Hold on. We haven't been forgotten. Actually, Sevcik v. Sandoval is still in San Francisco at the moment. Even though most legal observers have a good idea as to how the Ninth Circuit will rule on Nevada's marriage ban, we still don't have an actual ruling yet. And since the usual suspects will likely appeal if the judges rule against upholding the 2000/2002 marriage ban, Nevada may be included on the Supreme Court's 2015 docket should the Justices decide to take up some or all of the marriage cases.
But for now, we're still waiting.
Wednesday, October 1, 2014
Still Standing on Troubled Ground
(This series has pretty much become our default 5 year anniversary commemoration. And in light of the latest Zimmerman family news gracing all the nation's finest tabloid outlets [along with more reputable outlets], we want to remind everyone of why we must endure this nonsense. So let's step back to July 2013 and remember why George Zimmerman is allowed to embarrass himself in front of the media cameras while the Martin family still mourn over justice denied.)
On Saturday, a Florida jury acquitted George Zimmerman for the killing of Trayvon Martin. Since the verdict was announced, protests have broken out nationwide.
A young man was gunned down for walking outside while black. He was carrying Arizona iced tea and Skittles. And he was wearing a hoodie. This is what George Zimmerman found "threatening".
Somehow, a jury of six in Sanford, Florida, found Zimmerman's story possible. So they acquitted him. And protests have since spontaneously emerged nationwide. When is the slaughter of an innocent teenager justified?
That's what continues to be asked in Florida and nationwide. When did the victim become the suspect? When did racial profiling become "public safety"? Why is this happening?
Not only have the NRA, ALEC, and the rest of "Tea Party, Inc." succeeded in recent years in making so many dangerous weapons readily accessible (even to criminals), but they have also passed "Stand Your Ground" laws across the country (including a limited version here in Nevada) that encourage the very vigilantism that George Zimmerman engaged in. And on top of that, these "Stand Your Ground" laws allow vigilantes like Zimmerman to walk away free after shooting innocent people.
So where do we go from here? What happened over the weekend served as a stark reminder of the many loopholes in our gun laws... And of the long road ahead to remedy continuing racial discrimination across this country.
On Saturday, a Florida jury acquitted George Zimmerman for the killing of Trayvon Martin. Since the verdict was announced, protests have broken out nationwide.
Thousands of demonstrators from across the country — chanting, praying and even fighting tears — protested a jury’s decision to clear neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman in the shooting death of an unarmed black teenager while the Justice Department considered whether to file criminal civil rights charges. [...]
The NAACP and protesters called for federal civil rights charges against Zimmerman, who was acquitted Saturday in Martin’s February 2012 shooting death. The Justice Department said it is looking into the case to determine whether federal prosecutors should file criminal civil rights charges now that Zimmerman has been acquitted in the state case. The department opened an investigation into Martin’s death last year but stepped aside to allow the state prosecution to proceed. [...]
In Miami, more than 200 people gathered for a vigil. “You can’t justify murder,” read one poster. Another read “Don’t worry about more riots. Worry about more Zimmermans.” Carol Reitner, 76, of Miami, said she heard about the vigil through an announcement at her church Sunday morning. “I was really devastated. It’s really hard to believe that someone can take the life of someone else and walk out of court free,” she said. [...]
In Philadelphia, about 700 protesters marched from LOVE Park to the Liberty Bell, alternating between chanting Trayvon Martin’s name and “No justice, no peace!”
“We hope this will begin a movement to end discrimination against young black men,” said Johnathan Cooper, one of the protest’s organizers. “And also to empower black people and get them involved in the system.”
A young man was gunned down for walking outside while black. He was carrying Arizona iced tea and Skittles. And he was wearing a hoodie. This is what George Zimmerman found "threatening".
Somehow, a jury of six in Sanford, Florida, found Zimmerman's story possible. So they acquitted him. And protests have since spontaneously emerged nationwide. When is the slaughter of an innocent teenager justified?
That's what continues to be asked in Florida and nationwide. When did the victim become the suspect? When did racial profiling become "public safety"? Why is this happening?
Not only have the NRA, ALEC, and the rest of "Tea Party, Inc." succeeded in recent years in making so many dangerous weapons readily accessible (even to criminals), but they have also passed "Stand Your Ground" laws across the country (including a limited version here in Nevada) that encourage the very vigilantism that George Zimmerman engaged in. And on top of that, these "Stand Your Ground" laws allow vigilantes like Zimmerman to walk away free after shooting innocent people.
So where do we go from here? What happened over the weekend served as a stark reminder of the many loopholes in our gun laws... And of the long road ahead to remedy continuing racial discrimination across this country.
Tuesday, September 30, 2014
How It All Started
(Today, we're sifting through the Nevada Progressive archives, all the way back to April 2012. Yes, we've been monitoring the Sevcik v. Sandoval law suit since its infancy. And now, we await both a decision from the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals and a possible intervention from the US Supreme Court. So today, let's go all the way back to the beginning of this groundbreaking civil rights law suit.)
Last night, the lead plaintiffs in the case that's destined to shake up Nevada's marriage law went to Ralston to make their case.
(Start at 9:00.)
Yet while we see a new round of media buzz on this issue, let's not forget that there's an actual case to be tried in court. As we touched on yesterday, how the federal courts taking up this case interpret the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment will be key. And while there are similarities to the Prop 8 case in California, there's one key difference that Prop 8 Trial Tracker noted yesterday.
So the Sevcik case here in Nevada will come down to whether domestic partnership actually provides "equal protection under the law", and if we can ever have true equal protection as long as the Question 2 marriage ban remains on the books. Unlike AFER's argument for a broad, nationwide fundamental right to marry that's being made in the Perry case in California, Lambda Legal is making a narrower argument based on the inequality present in Nevada family law and how that can not make federal Constitutional muster. It looks like Lambda Legal is confident that even if some federal judges are hesitant to use one stroke to knock down all the state marriage bans at once, they have to closely examine situations like ours and realize that we're experiencing clear and illegal discrimination.
So where will we go from here? For now, this will be in courtroom of Senior Judge Roger Hunt. And regardless of how Hunt decides, this will likely head next to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Interestingly enough, The Ninth is the same court that issued a narrow ruling in the Perry case back in February, a narrow ruling centered on the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. And funny enough, the Sevcik case will be argued on the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Coincidence?
And like the California case, don't expect any immediate resolution. This may very well end up on the Supreme Court docket, but perhaps not for another 3-5 years. So buckle up and get ready for a long and bumpy and fascinating and trailblazing ride.
Last night, the lead plaintiffs in the case that's destined to shake up Nevada's marriage law went to Ralston to make their case.
(Start at 9:00.)
Yet while we see a new round of media buzz on this issue, let's not forget that there's an actual case to be tried in court. As we touched on yesterday, how the federal courts taking up this case interpret the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment will be key. And while there are similarities to the Prop 8 case in California, there's one key difference that Prop 8 Trial Tracker noted yesterday.
Lamdba Legal’s suit is no doubt in part inspired by the success of the American Foundation for Equal Rights in the Prop 8 case, Perry v. Brown, which led to historic rulings in favor of marriage equality in California both at the district and appellate court levels. Nevada, like California, falls under the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, so lawyers in the Sevcik case could cite the Prop 8 ruling in the Ninth Circuit as precedent. Additionally, any appeal of the eventual Sevcik ruling would end up at the Ninth Circuit just like Perry did.
Despite these similarities, the legal arguments that Lamdba Legal are pursuing in Sevcik are not quite the same as AFER’s arguments in Perry. The central complaint in the new Nevada case is an equal protection claim that domestic parternships violate the civil rights of gay and lesbian couples. In the Prop 8 case, AFER made the same equal protection claim but also argued for a fundamental right to marriage under the U.S. Constitution. Tara Borelli, a staff attorney with Lamdba, explained to MetroWeekly that the group “certainly believe[s] that the fundamental right to marry includes same-sex couples, but this court doesn’t need to answer that question to rule for the plaintiffs here. We’re convinced that our equal protection claim is so clearly correct that we want to keep the focus on that claim.”
Lambda Legal’s strategy makes the Sevcik case a more conservative one than the Prop 8 case in Perry, and would appear to be a response at least in part to the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in the Prop 8 case, which declined to address the fundamental right question and instead focused more specifically on the circumstances unique to California’s situation.
In explaining Lambda’s complaint, Borelli said, “One of the reasons that we’re suing in the state of Nevada is that this is a particular equal protection problem that this case examines. It’s the kind of problem created where a state excludes same-sex couples from marriage deems them fit for all of the rights and responsibilities of marriage through a lesser, second-class status — in this case, domestic partnership. That shows just how irrational that state’s decision is to shut same-sex couples out of marriage.”
So the Sevcik case here in Nevada will come down to whether domestic partnership actually provides "equal protection under the law", and if we can ever have true equal protection as long as the Question 2 marriage ban remains on the books. Unlike AFER's argument for a broad, nationwide fundamental right to marry that's being made in the Perry case in California, Lambda Legal is making a narrower argument based on the inequality present in Nevada family law and how that can not make federal Constitutional muster. It looks like Lambda Legal is confident that even if some federal judges are hesitant to use one stroke to knock down all the state marriage bans at once, they have to closely examine situations like ours and realize that we're experiencing clear and illegal discrimination.
So where will we go from here? For now, this will be in courtroom of Senior Judge Roger Hunt. And regardless of how Hunt decides, this will likely head next to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Interestingly enough, The Ninth is the same court that issued a narrow ruling in the Perry case back in February, a narrow ruling centered on the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. And funny enough, the Sevcik case will be argued on the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Coincidence?
And like the California case, don't expect any immediate resolution. This may very well end up on the Supreme Court docket, but perhaps not for another 3-5 years. So buckle up and get ready for a long and bumpy and fascinating and trailblazing ride.
Thursday, September 25, 2014
Constructive Criticism
Today, we're trying to be nicer. A little earlier, we gave some helpful advice to NV-04 candidate Cresent Hardy (R) on "segregation laws". And now, we'd like to help another prominent Nevada Republican.
So now, we're turning our attention to Attorney General candidate Adam Laxalt (R)... And his many "political issues".
Last weekend, Adam Laxalt finally did a debate with his general election opponent, Ross Miller (D). OK, so at least he listened to us on that. But then, all of this happened.
No wonder why Laxalt has been so reluctant to agree to further debates. Ever since his "legal issues" have been unearthed, Laxalt has faced questions of his fitness to serve as Attorney General.
Laxalt has since tried to bury the story of the brutal evaluations from his own law firm by leaking "rave reviews" from the military and his law firm. He's even claiming now that he's "closing the gap" with Miller in his internal polling... Even though he refused to provide any actual numbers to anyone.
Adam Laxalt always likes to claim others have "no respect for the rule of law". So where's his? (Start around 3:00.)
No matter what Laxalt likes to claim about the state constitution and his opinions on various state & federal statutes, he needs to remember the ultimate supremacy of the US Constitution. Obamacare is the law of the land because the US Supreme Court declared it passed Constitutional muster. And federal courts continue to strike down bans on marriage equality because they're finding these marriage bans don't pass Constitutional muster.
Because we're feeling nice today, we'll give Adam Laxalt some constructive criticism. Perhaps before he opens his mouth and further embarrasses himself, he should first do his homework and get his facts straight.
So now, we're turning our attention to Attorney General candidate Adam Laxalt (R)... And his many "political issues".
Last weekend, Adam Laxalt finally did a debate with his general election opponent, Ross Miller (D). OK, so at least he listened to us on that. But then, all of this happened.
No wonder why Laxalt has been so reluctant to agree to further debates. Ever since his "legal issues" have been unearthed, Laxalt has faced questions of his fitness to serve as Attorney General.
Laxalt has since tried to bury the story of the brutal evaluations from his own law firm by leaking "rave reviews" from the military and his law firm. He's even claiming now that he's "closing the gap" with Miller in his internal polling... Even though he refused to provide any actual numbers to anyone.
Adam Laxalt always likes to claim others have "no respect for the rule of law". So where's his? (Start around 3:00.)
No matter what Laxalt likes to claim about the state constitution and his opinions on various state & federal statutes, he needs to remember the ultimate supremacy of the US Constitution. Obamacare is the law of the land because the US Supreme Court declared it passed Constitutional muster. And federal courts continue to strike down bans on marriage equality because they're finding these marriage bans don't pass Constitutional muster.
Because we're feeling nice today, we'll give Adam Laxalt some constructive criticism. Perhaps before he opens his mouth and further embarrasses himself, he should first do his homework and get his facts straight.
Monday, September 15, 2014
The Waiting Game
Last week, the State of Nevada had no one present. No one even bothered to show up for court in San Francisco. Instead, the judges of the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals instead had to endure this bucket full of crazy last week.
We will likely receive a ruling from the Ninth on Sevcik v. Sandoval fairly soon. And so far, marriage equality seem to be liking their odds.
Yet now, other states may have leapfrogged ahead of Nevada on the way to the US Supreme Court. However, Nevada may yet slip onto The Supremes' docket if the Ninth issues a ruling on Sevcik this week.
As we've discussed before, the US Supreme Court set this chain of lower court marriage rulings with its US v. Windsor. Will the SCOTUS Justices who ruled so passionately in favor of LGBTQ civil rights reverse course so suddenly? We seriously doubt it, but we can't take anything for granted there.
Now here's where it becomes even more interesting. The State of Nevada dropped its legal defense of marriage discrimination in February. That's why no one from the State of Nevada even bothered to show up in San Francisco last Monday to argue for the Question 2 marriage ban. And that's why US Supreme Court Justices will have to determine standing (a la Prop 8 California) should the usual suspects decide to appeal the Ninth's ruling.
This is why we're now playing the waiting game. If the Ninth Circuit rules in favor of equality, Nevada may become State #18 for marriage equality by next month. Or we may not, should SCOTUS decide to place that ruling on hold. Perhaps our case may be one of the marriage cases that will set a national precedent next year. Or perhaps not, should SCOTUS decide not to take up Sevcik at all.
Whatever happens, this month promises to be an exciting one for civil rigts activists here in The Silver State. We're just waiting to see what comes next.
We will likely receive a ruling from the Ninth on Sevcik v. Sandoval fairly soon. And so far, marriage equality seem to be liking their odds.
Yet now, other states may have leapfrogged ahead of Nevada on the way to the US Supreme Court. However, Nevada may yet slip onto The Supremes' docket if the Ninth issues a ruling on Sevcik this week.
As we've discussed before, the US Supreme Court set this chain of lower court marriage rulings with its US v. Windsor. Will the SCOTUS Justices who ruled so passionately in favor of LGBTQ civil rights reverse course so suddenly? We seriously doubt it, but we can't take anything for granted there.
Now here's where it becomes even more interesting. The State of Nevada dropped its legal defense of marriage discrimination in February. That's why no one from the State of Nevada even bothered to show up in San Francisco last Monday to argue for the Question 2 marriage ban. And that's why US Supreme Court Justices will have to determine standing (a la Prop 8 California) should the usual suspects decide to appeal the Ninth's ruling.
This is why we're now playing the waiting game. If the Ninth Circuit rules in favor of equality, Nevada may become State #18 for marriage equality by next month. Or we may not, should SCOTUS decide to place that ruling on hold. Perhaps our case may be one of the marriage cases that will set a national precedent next year. Or perhaps not, should SCOTUS decide not to take up Sevcik at all.
Whatever happens, this month promises to be an exciting one for civil rigts activists here in The Silver State. We're just waiting to see what comes next.
Tuesday, September 9, 2014
Matter of Time
What happens when one walks into a law suit and can't find the defendant? In San Francisco yesterday, no one appeared at the dais where an attorney for Governor Brian Sandoval (R) was expected. But then again, many of us already expected this to happen.
Yet how many court watchers were expecting this? Perhaps they needed to pay closer attention to what Monte Stewart had to say about Brown v. Board of Education.
Yesterday, Sevcik v. Sandoval received its day in court at the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals. But since the State of Nevada decided to drop its legal defense of the Question 2 marriage ban. That's why Monte Stewart and these crispy critters were left to defend their sacred cow of discrimination.
Judging from the three judges on yesterday's panel and their reactions to oral arguments, supporters of equality have plenty of reasons to feel optimistic. And perhaps this is why opponents have turned up the bombast as they continue their last ditch attempt at saving their prized "political issue" of "segregation laws".
Over the past five years, we've witnessed remarkable progress on LGBTQ civil rights. And deep down, we always knew this was coming. It was just a matter of time.
And now, the time finally seems to be coming. Think about that. And keep in mind the empty spot in that San Francisco federal courthouse where Governor Sandoval's lawyer was supposed to defend the Question 2 marriage ban. This is simply a matter of time.
Yet how many court watchers were expecting this? Perhaps they needed to pay closer attention to what Monte Stewart had to say about Brown v. Board of Education.
Yesterday, Sevcik v. Sandoval received its day in court at the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals. But since the State of Nevada decided to drop its legal defense of the Question 2 marriage ban. That's why Monte Stewart and these crispy critters were left to defend their sacred cow of discrimination.
Judging from the three judges on yesterday's panel and their reactions to oral arguments, supporters of equality have plenty of reasons to feel optimistic. And perhaps this is why opponents have turned up the bombast as they continue their last ditch attempt at saving their prized "political issue" of "segregation laws".
Over the past five years, we've witnessed remarkable progress on LGBTQ civil rights. And deep down, we always knew this was coming. It was just a matter of time.
And now, the time finally seems to be coming. Think about that. And keep in mind the empty spot in that San Francisco federal courthouse where Governor Sandoval's lawyer was supposed to defend the Question 2 marriage ban. This is simply a matter of time.
Thursday, September 4, 2014
Last Hurrah of Hate
Yep, it finally happened. It was bound to happen. Perhaps there was no way of stopping this from happening.
For the first time since the US Supreme Court's landmark US v. Windsor decision, a federal judge ruled against marriage equality. Yesterday, US District Court Judge Martin Feldman upheld Louisiana's marriage ban. Oh, and he didn't stop there.
Judge Feldman also denigrated LGBTQ families. He pulled the "incest card". And to top it all off, he essentially declared that Louisiana LGBTQ families don't deserve equal treatment under the law because they made the wrong "lifestyle choice".
Hmmm... Where have we heard this before? Oh wait, might it be the case that's about to be heard by the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals next week?
Oh, yes. That's right. Sevcik v. Sandoval will be among the three marriage cases heard by the San Francisco federal appellate court next week. (The other two are Idaho and Hawaii.)
All too often, we've heard the "family values" argument against LGBTQ civil rights. And there's a reason why so few federal courts have given this argument any merit in recent years: It's crap. There's no real Constitutional case behind it, and there's no "moral case" there either.
So what do opponents of equality have? That's a good question. We know they have "political issues". We know they have "variations". We've constantly heard their nonsensical garblety-goop. And of course, we've seen their "segregation laws".
Unfortunately for opponents of equality, that's all they seem to have (along with their increasingly sparse courtroom victories). Yet while they keep trying to "rebrand" their opposition to civil rights, they can't "rebrand" the basic dollars & sense. There's a reason why so many business leaders want marriage equality. Not only is it simply the right thing to do, but it also opens the door to $52 million worth of more business for Nevada.
So what do they have left? Fear. No really, all they have left is xenophobia. And yesterday's ruling from Louisiana (along with the 2012 Nevada federal court ruling) is their last hurrah of hate.
For the first time since the US Supreme Court's landmark US v. Windsor decision, a federal judge ruled against marriage equality. Yesterday, US District Court Judge Martin Feldman upheld Louisiana's marriage ban. Oh, and he didn't stop there.
Judge Feldman also denigrated LGBTQ families. He pulled the "incest card". And to top it all off, he essentially declared that Louisiana LGBTQ families don't deserve equal treatment under the law because they made the wrong "lifestyle choice".
Hmmm... Where have we heard this before? Oh wait, might it be the case that's about to be heard by the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals next week?
Oh, yes. That's right. Sevcik v. Sandoval will be among the three marriage cases heard by the San Francisco federal appellate court next week. (The other two are Idaho and Hawaii.)
All too often, we've heard the "family values" argument against LGBTQ civil rights. And there's a reason why so few federal courts have given this argument any merit in recent years: It's crap. There's no real Constitutional case behind it, and there's no "moral case" there either.
So what do opponents of equality have? That's a good question. We know they have "political issues". We know they have "variations". We've constantly heard their nonsensical garblety-goop. And of course, we've seen their "segregation laws".
Unfortunately for opponents of equality, that's all they seem to have (along with their increasingly sparse courtroom victories). Yet while they keep trying to "rebrand" their opposition to civil rights, they can't "rebrand" the basic dollars & sense. There's a reason why so many business leaders want marriage equality. Not only is it simply the right thing to do, but it also opens the door to $52 million worth of more business for Nevada.
So what do they have left? Fear. No really, all they have left is xenophobia. And yesterday's ruling from Louisiana (along with the 2012 Nevada federal court ruling) is their last hurrah of hate.
Thursday, August 21, 2014
The Machine Behind the War
Justice may finally be near in this case. After an escape from police and out of state, War Machine (aka Jonathan Koppenhaver) will soon be on trial here in Clark County. On Tuesday, he appeared at court in Ventura, California, and agreed to extradition to Nevada.
Koppenhaver faces seven criminal charges related to the attack on Christy Mack (aka Christine Mackinday) and Corey Thomas.
As we've noted before, this isn't War Machine's first violent outbreak. Retired porn star Brooke Haven has recently come forward to describe War Machine's belligerent behavior at her birthday party. He was actually convicted of two misdemeanor assault charges in 2007 and 2008 here in Nevada. And he was convicted of two felony assault charges related to a 2010 San Diego (California) bar fight.
While he was incarcerated in San Diego County Jail, War Machine kept an online diary blog. He shared his experiences in jail... And he shared his "philosophy on the American male".
Sounds crazy, right? Who else could say something like this? Believe it or not, he's not alone.
The Men's Rights Movement has been pushing this philosophy for some time. The Men's Rights Movement (MRM) was once relegated to "fringe of the fringe" status due to its harboring of individuals espousing shocking views on physical and sexual violence (see War Machine's comments above). But now, men's rights activists (MRAs) are increasingly pushing into what's supposed to be "mainstream".
Last year, Heritage Action actually used MRM language to make its case against renewing the Violence Against Women Act. And Heritage came shockingly close to killing the bipartisan and formerly uncontroversial bill in (the lower House of) Congress. All of a sudden, a critical mass of ("TEA" flavored) Members of Congress were repeating outrageous statements that had previously been confined to the deepest and darkest corners of the manosphere.
It's easy to look at War Machine and conclude he's some troubled individual with serious anger issues. And this may actually be close to the truth. However, this didn't occur in a vacuum. This isn't just one individual. It's time for us to take a closer look at the machine behind the war.
Koppenhaver faces seven criminal charges related to the attack on Christy Mack (aka Christine Mackinday) and Corey Thomas.
As we've noted before, this isn't War Machine's first violent outbreak. Retired porn star Brooke Haven has recently come forward to describe War Machine's belligerent behavior at her birthday party. He was actually convicted of two misdemeanor assault charges in 2007 and 2008 here in Nevada. And he was convicted of two felony assault charges related to a 2010 San Diego (California) bar fight.
While he was incarcerated in San Diego County Jail, War Machine kept an online diary blog. He shared his experiences in jail... And he shared his "philosophy on the American male".
“There is one guy in here for slapping his wife, one here for yelling at his wife, and one here for beating some guy’s *ss that disrespected his wife. WTF!? If your wife is being a b*tch you can’t slap her, if your wife is yelling at you, God forbid you yell back, and if some *sshole hurts your wife, you cannot protect her!” [...]
“The oppression of MEN is worse than oppression of Jews in Nazi Germany, worse than the slavery of blacks in early America … I’m not exaggerating either.”
Sounds crazy, right? Who else could say something like this? Believe it or not, he's not alone.
The Men's Rights Movement has been pushing this philosophy for some time. The Men's Rights Movement (MRM) was once relegated to "fringe of the fringe" status due to its harboring of individuals espousing shocking views on physical and sexual violence (see War Machine's comments above). But now, men's rights activists (MRAs) are increasingly pushing into what's supposed to be "mainstream".
Last year, Heritage Action actually used MRM language to make its case against renewing the Violence Against Women Act. And Heritage came shockingly close to killing the bipartisan and formerly uncontroversial bill in (the lower House of) Congress. All of a sudden, a critical mass of ("TEA" flavored) Members of Congress were repeating outrageous statements that had previously been confined to the deepest and darkest corners of the manosphere.
It's easy to look at War Machine and conclude he's some troubled individual with serious anger issues. And this may actually be close to the truth. However, this didn't occur in a vacuum. This isn't just one individual. It's time for us to take a closer look at the machine behind the war.
Tuesday, July 29, 2014
General Issue
It happened again. Another court weighed down on the side of equality. However, this time was special.
This time, an appellate court ruled unequivocally in favor of marriage equality. And unlike the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals' rather restrained ruling that overturned (just) California's marriage ban in 2012, the Fourth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals did not hold back when striking down Virginia's marriage ban. In fact, this ruling doesn't stop at the Virginia state line.
While the 3 judge panel at the Fourth Circuit specifically took on Virginia marriage law in this case, they ruled 2-1 in favor of a strong rebuke of marriage discrimination on 5th and 14th Amendment grounds that applies to the entire region covered by the Fourth Circuit. The majority opinion was strong enough for North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper (D) to declare he will no longer defend his state's marriage ban in court. And for the record, North Carolina also falls under the jurisdiction of the Fourth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals (along with Maryland, South Carolina, and West Virginia).
This Fourth Circuit ruling comes just month after the Tenth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals struck down Utah's and Oklahoma's respective marriage bans. And it comes about 4 months before the Ninth Circuit takes on marriage equality again as Nevada's own Sevcik v. Sandoval law suit arrives in San Francisco. And with Governor Brian Sandoval (R) and outgoing Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto (D) both declining to defend Nevada's marriage ban any longer, Nevada may soon go the way of California and Virginia.
Outgoing Secretary of State and current Attorney General candidate Ross Miller (D) refused to mince words when he delivered a passionate legal and personal endorsement of marriage equality in Reno last month. His general election opponent, Adam Laxalt (R), has dismissed this and other LGBTQ civil rights matters as mere "political issues" that he prefers to mock and demean.
Funny enough, Virginia Republicans have been screaming at Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring (D) ever since he decided to drop the state's defense of its marriage ban. Perhaps they even sensed this was coming, as Virginia Republicans spent millions trying to defeat Mark Herring in the very hotly contested Attorney General race last year.
A State Attorney General's job is to defend both the state constitution and the federal constitution. But when the 2 are in conflict, the US Constitution trumps all. Ross Miller seems to understand this, yet Adam Laxalt does not. Keep an eye on this, as it may become a "political issue" this fall that Mr. Laxalt may later come to regret mocking.
This time, an appellate court ruled unequivocally in favor of marriage equality. And unlike the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals' rather restrained ruling that overturned (just) California's marriage ban in 2012, the Fourth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals did not hold back when striking down Virginia's marriage ban. In fact, this ruling doesn't stop at the Virginia state line.
While the 3 judge panel at the Fourth Circuit specifically took on Virginia marriage law in this case, they ruled 2-1 in favor of a strong rebuke of marriage discrimination on 5th and 14th Amendment grounds that applies to the entire region covered by the Fourth Circuit. The majority opinion was strong enough for North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper (D) to declare he will no longer defend his state's marriage ban in court. And for the record, North Carolina also falls under the jurisdiction of the Fourth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals (along with Maryland, South Carolina, and West Virginia).
This Fourth Circuit ruling comes just month after the Tenth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals struck down Utah's and Oklahoma's respective marriage bans. And it comes about 4 months before the Ninth Circuit takes on marriage equality again as Nevada's own Sevcik v. Sandoval law suit arrives in San Francisco. And with Governor Brian Sandoval (R) and outgoing Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto (D) both declining to defend Nevada's marriage ban any longer, Nevada may soon go the way of California and Virginia.
Outgoing Secretary of State and current Attorney General candidate Ross Miller (D) refused to mince words when he delivered a passionate legal and personal endorsement of marriage equality in Reno last month. His general election opponent, Adam Laxalt (R), has dismissed this and other LGBTQ civil rights matters as mere "political issues" that he prefers to mock and demean.
Funny enough, Virginia Republicans have been screaming at Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring (D) ever since he decided to drop the state's defense of its marriage ban. Perhaps they even sensed this was coming, as Virginia Republicans spent millions trying to defeat Mark Herring in the very hotly contested Attorney General race last year.
A State Attorney General's job is to defend both the state constitution and the federal constitution. But when the 2 are in conflict, the US Constitution trumps all. Ross Miller seems to understand this, yet Adam Laxalt does not. Keep an eye on this, as it may become a "political issue" this fall that Mr. Laxalt may later come to regret mocking.
Tuesday, July 22, 2014
Frivolous Law Suit
They couldn't stop it when it was originally in Congress. They couldn't gather enough votes to repeal it thereafter. They couldn't get it completely overturned in court. And they couldn't defeat the President who fought for the bill and signed it into law.
So now, they're doing whatever they can to undermine it. And if that means striking a painful blow to working families, so be it. If that means making health insurance unaffordable for 6.5 million Americans, so be it.
Earlier today, a 3 judge panel on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in Halbig v. Burwell. It just so happens that 2 of those judges are Republican appointees, and 1 in particular has been notorious for his ideological tirades from the bench. So of course, it was a 2-1 vote to essentially blow up Obamacare by removing health insurance tax credits from the 36 states on the federal health insurance exchange. (And now that Nevada's exchange is a state/federal partnership, we may be affected by this ruling.)
This ruling isn't the end of this story, far from it. The Obama Administration will request an en banc hearing of the full court. And since the full DC Circuit Court now has an 8-5 Democratic/Republican composition, there's more than a decent chance this 3 judge panel decision will be overturned by the full court.
And then, there's this. At the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, a 3 judge panel ruled in favor of the defendants in King v. Burwell. And that ruling was unanimous. Here's what Senior Judge Andre Davis wrote in the unanimous panel decision.
So now, we have 2 competing 3 judge panel decisions. And both look set to receive en banc reviews. And both may end up at the door of the US Supreme Court (where the majority already upheld the foundation of the Affordable Care Act in June 2012).
They couldn't stop it in 2010. They couldn't repeal it in 2011. They couldn't sue it to death or defeat the President who championed it in 2012. And they couldn't even shut down the government to defund it to death in 2013. So now, the usual G-O-TEA suspects are back in court in yet another last ditch effort to sue it to death today. They don't mind hurting millions of Americans just to score political points... And they still don't realize the futility of their frivolous law suits and careless obstruction.
So now, they're doing whatever they can to undermine it. And if that means striking a painful blow to working families, so be it. If that means making health insurance unaffordable for 6.5 million Americans, so be it.
Earlier today, a 3 judge panel on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in Halbig v. Burwell. It just so happens that 2 of those judges are Republican appointees, and 1 in particular has been notorious for his ideological tirades from the bench. So of course, it was a 2-1 vote to essentially blow up Obamacare by removing health insurance tax credits from the 36 states on the federal health insurance exchange. (And now that Nevada's exchange is a state/federal partnership, we may be affected by this ruling.)
This ruling isn't the end of this story, far from it. The Obama Administration will request an en banc hearing of the full court. And since the full DC Circuit Court now has an 8-5 Democratic/Republican composition, there's more than a decent chance this 3 judge panel decision will be overturned by the full court.
And then, there's this. At the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, a 3 judge panel ruled in favor of the defendants in King v. Burwell. And that ruling was unanimous. Here's what Senior Judge Andre Davis wrote in the unanimous panel decision.
"I am pleased to join in full the majority’s holding that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act “permits” the Internal Revenue Service to decide whether premium tax credits should be available to consumers who purchase health insurance coverage on federally-run Exchanges. But I am also persuaded that, even if one takes the view that the Act is not ambiguous in the manner and for the reasons described, the necessary outcome of this case is precisely the same. That is, I would hold that Congress has mandated in the Act that the IRS provide tax credits to all consumers regardless of whether the Exchange on which they purchased their health insurance coverage is a creature of the state or the federal bureaucracy."
So now, we have 2 competing 3 judge panel decisions. And both look set to receive en banc reviews. And both may end up at the door of the US Supreme Court (where the majority already upheld the foundation of the Affordable Care Act in June 2012).
They couldn't stop it in 2010. They couldn't repeal it in 2011. They couldn't sue it to death or defeat the President who championed it in 2012. And they couldn't even shut down the government to defund it to death in 2013. So now, the usual G-O-TEA suspects are back in court in yet another last ditch effort to sue it to death today. They don't mind hurting millions of Americans just to score political points... And they still don't realize the futility of their frivolous law suits and careless obstruction.
Monday, June 30, 2014
This Is Why Elections Matter.
This morning, the US Supreme Court decided to tinker with workers' right to unionize... And the very survival of the American labor movement... And women's rights at work... And employers' ability to dictate their workers' health care decisions.
Both decisions were allegedly narrow, but they have the potential to set very dangerous precedents. Oh, and both decisions were 5-4. Who could have guessed the Roberts Court is so extremely ideologically divided?
In Harris v. Quinn, the 5 conservative Justices ruled in favor of a handful of home health care workers who did not want to pay union dues to enjoy the benefits of union negotiations. In order to curb "free riders", non - union workers were required to pay some sort of reimbursement fees to the unions for negotiating higher pay and better benefits for them. But now, 5 Justices (guess who!) just punctured a hole in this arrangement.
Now, they claim there's a separate class of workers who are "public employees" but are not really "public employees". Confused yet? Try Andy Kroll's Mother Jones primer for Harris. Suffice to say, today's ruling doesn't completely eviscerate the American labor movement... But it does bruise workers and threatens more pain ahead.
And then, there's Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby. Once again, we have a 5-4 ruling. Once again, we have a troubling precedent that threatens workers' rights. And once again, we have theoretical "religious freedom" valued over real women's health.
In Hobby Lobby, 5 Justices (guess who!) ruled that "closely held corporations" (essentially family run enterprises) can claim "religious objections" when denying workers contraception and other forms of reproductive health care. Strangely enough, some progressives are breathing sighs of relief today because this rather jumbled ruling actually gave plenty of room for the federal government to step in and provide reproductive health care to affected workers. The ruling was also designed to be narrow enough to avoid threatening other health care benefits (like blood transfusions and vaccinations) and/or legalizing workplace discrimination.
Still, this sets a frightening precedent. What if the hardest of hard-line conservative Justices just had one or two more votes on the Supreme Court? The message from Justice Samuel Alito (who authored both majority opinions) seems to be that he's waiting for just this to go even further in the direction of undoing the entire past century of progress on workers' rights and women's rights.
Here's a helpful hint: This is why elections matter. Presidents appoint and Senators confirm Supreme Court Justices. And there's a good chance we'll see at least one more vacancy this decade. Imagine the difference one vote could have made today.
This is why elections matter.
Both decisions were allegedly narrow, but they have the potential to set very dangerous precedents. Oh, and both decisions were 5-4. Who could have guessed the Roberts Court is so extremely ideologically divided?
In Harris v. Quinn, the 5 conservative Justices ruled in favor of a handful of home health care workers who did not want to pay union dues to enjoy the benefits of union negotiations. In order to curb "free riders", non - union workers were required to pay some sort of reimbursement fees to the unions for negotiating higher pay and better benefits for them. But now, 5 Justices (guess who!) just punctured a hole in this arrangement.
Now, they claim there's a separate class of workers who are "public employees" but are not really "public employees". Confused yet? Try Andy Kroll's Mother Jones primer for Harris. Suffice to say, today's ruling doesn't completely eviscerate the American labor movement... But it does bruise workers and threatens more pain ahead.
And then, there's Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby. Once again, we have a 5-4 ruling. Once again, we have a troubling precedent that threatens workers' rights. And once again, we have theoretical "religious freedom" valued over real women's health.
In Hobby Lobby, 5 Justices (guess who!) ruled that "closely held corporations" (essentially family run enterprises) can claim "religious objections" when denying workers contraception and other forms of reproductive health care. Strangely enough, some progressives are breathing sighs of relief today because this rather jumbled ruling actually gave plenty of room for the federal government to step in and provide reproductive health care to affected workers. The ruling was also designed to be narrow enough to avoid threatening other health care benefits (like blood transfusions and vaccinations) and/or legalizing workplace discrimination.
Still, this sets a frightening precedent. What if the hardest of hard-line conservative Justices just had one or two more votes on the Supreme Court? The message from Justice Samuel Alito (who authored both majority opinions) seems to be that he's waiting for just this to go even further in the direction of undoing the entire past century of progress on workers' rights and women's rights.
Here's a helpful hint: This is why elections matter. Presidents appoint and Senators confirm Supreme Court Justices. And there's a good chance we'll see at least one more vacancy this decade. Imagine the difference one vote could have made today.
This is why elections matter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)