Gay marriage advocates present before the U.S. Supreme Court

Michelle May O’Neil, Dallas, Texas Michelle.Oneil@GodwinLewis.com
Gay marriage advocates prepare to present to the U.S. Supreme Court
Gay marriage advocates prepare to present
to the U.S. Supreme Court
By Michelle May O’Neil
LGBT rights advocate and family law specialist in Dallas, Texas
Michelle O’Neil has been an advocate and ally of gay and lesbian rights since the beginning of her career
as a lawyer. While working in the constitutional division of the Texas Attorney General’s Office, she
learned about the injustice and discrimination that is beset by gay and lesbians in America. From early in
her career, she defied her conservative upbringing and began her lifelong advocacy for the rights of
same-sex couples. Now, as a specialist in Texas family and divorce law, Ms. O’Neil continues her
advocacy for the rights of gay and lesbian couples in securing the right to marry (and the right to
dissolve those marriages), as well as the rights of gay and lesbian couples in parenting their children.
Representing an “other mother” in her quest for custody of her emotional but not biological daughter,
Ms. O’Neil won the first case in the Texas appellate courts granting standing to sue for a non-biological
parent. She is widely respected as a “go-to” lawyer in Dallas, Texas and surrounding areas to represent
gay and lesbians in divorce, property division, and custody cases.
Contact Michelle May O’Neil:
Michelle May O’Neil
Shareholder at Godwin Lewis, P.C.
1201 Elm Street, Suite 1700
Dallas, Texas 75270
214-939-4427
Michelle.Oneil@GodwinLewis.com
www.oneilattorneys.com

Gay marriage lawyers’ arguments have to answer specific questions
Supreme Court Justices questions distinguish between states to ban same-sex marriage
versus states which refuse to recognize same-sex marriages granted in recognition states.
Figure 1Douglas Hallward-Driemeier of RopesDouglas Hallward-Driemeier of Ropes & Gray and Mary Bonauto of Gay & Lesbian
Advocates & Defenders will argue for gay marriage on April 28 in the U.S. Supreme Court.
On April 28,,
2015, the U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in the four cases set to
determine the country’s position on same sex marriage for the foreseeable future. The four cases, one
each from Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee, each upheld gay marriage bans in their states,
creating a conflict between those jurisdictions and other jurisdictions that have stricken such bans. The
conflict between the decisions created the proper playing field for the U.S. Supreme Court to take up
the cases.
Not since U.S. v. Windsor was decided two years ago has the issue of same sex marriage been poised for
determination on the national scene. In Windsor, the Court struck down the part of the federal Defense
of Marriage Act (DOMA) that prevented federal recognition of same sex marriages for the purpose of
granting federal benefits.
The U.S. Supreme Court has stated the issues pending as follows:
1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people
of the same sex?
2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two
people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/obergefell-v-hodges/
On the first question, one lawyer for each side will be given 45 minutes each to present arguments for
and against the question. Mary Bonauto, civil rights project director for Gay & Lesbian Advocates &
Defenders (GLAD), will present the pro-marriage argument on question 1. Former Michigan Solicitor
General John Bursch of Warner Norcross & Judd in Grand Rapids, Michigan will argue question 1 for the
defendants.

On the second question, one lawyer for each side will be given 30 minutes each to present arguments
for and against the question. Douglas Hallward-Driemeier, who leads the Supreme Court and appellate
practice at Ropes & Gray, will appear at the lectern for their gay and lesbian clients on question 2.
Tennessee Associate Attorney General Joseph Whalen will represent the four states on question 2.
http://www.nationallawjournal.com/id=1202722127019/Supreme-Court-Veteran-FirstTime-Advocate-
to-Argue-for-Gay-Marriage?slreturn=20150312151823
The U.S. Supreme Court’s term end in late June and most knowledgeable court watchers expect a
decision by then.
GLAD’s Mary Bonauto lawyer arguing in favor of same-sex couples’ right
to marry
Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) Civil Rights Project Director Mary L. Bonauto was selected
to argue before the U.S. Supreme Court on April 28, 2015, in favor of the right to marry by gay and
lesbian couples who are presently being excluded from marriage. “Same-sex couples should not be
excluded from the joy, the security, and the full citizenship signified by that institution,” said Bonauto. “I
believe the Court will give us a fair hearing, and I look forward to the day when all LGBT Americans will
be able to marry the person they love.”
Bonauto participated as part of the legal team in Windsor v. U.S., which resulted in the striking down of
the Defense of Marriage Act. She argued GLAD’s case Goodridge v. DPH, which made Massachusets the
first state in which same-sex couples could marry in 2004.
In assisting on DeBoer v. Snyder, the Michigan case presently set for argument before the U.S. Supreme
Court, she assisted in organizing the amicus briefs in favor of the right to marry issues. She will present
argument on behalf of the petitioners from Ohio and Tennessee on the question: “Does the 14th

Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their
marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?”
Read more about Mary Bonauto at the GLAD site: http://www.glad.org/about/staff/mary-bonauto
Same-sex marriage cases pending before the U.S. Supreme Court --
Michigan
Michigan’s case DeBoer v. Snyder ruling against same-sex marriage
A federal judge in Michigan in March 2014 ruled struck down the marriage ban for same-sex couples,
allowing a window of time for same-sex couples to marry. More than 300 same-sex couples across the
state received marriage licenses in a 24-hour period until the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals granted a stay
in the decision. The attorneys representing the pro-marriage plaintiffs include Carole M. Stanyar; Dana
Nessel of Nessel and Kessel Law; Kenneth Mogill of Mogill, Posner & Cohen; Wayne State University Law
Professor Robert Sedler; and Mary Bonauto of the Boston-based Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders
(GLAD).
The trial court’s ruling came following a two-week trial.The judge Bernard A. Friedman dismissed
testimony from the defendants' key witness, Mark Regnerus, author of the so-called "New Family

Structures Study" saying that he found the testimony "entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious
consideration."
April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse are a lesbian couple from Michigan who have been together for more
than 10 years. Both women are nurses who work for Detroit-area hospitals. They are also foster parents
who are licensed by the State of Michigan. Together, they took in four special-needs newborns who
were either abandoned or surrendered at birth. April and Jayne wished to adopt these children
together, but were prevented from doing so because Michigan’s adoption code prohibits unmarried
couples from adopting children jointly. Michigan law also bans same-sex couples from marrying, leaving
April and Jayne with no opportunity for joint legal rights to the children they are raising together. April
adopted the couple’s two daughters while Jayne adopted their two sons.
April and Jayne filed suit to seek the same protections for their children that are afforded to opposite-
sex couples. Subsequently, they included in their case, a challenge to the same-sex marriage ban in
Michigan. DeBoer v. Snyder is their federal court challenge to Michigan’s laws forbidding same-sex
marriage and same-sex second-parent adoptions.
Hat tip to Freedomtomarry.org: http://www.freedomtomarry.org/pages/marriage-cases-seeking-
supreme-court-review
RESOURCES, DeBoer v. Snyder:
Supreme Court Docket (14-571)
State's Opening SCOTUS Brief • 3/27
Plaintiffs' Opening Brief to SCOTUS • 2/27
Response in Support of Certiorari from Michigan • 11/24
Petition for Certiorari to SCOTUS • 11/17
Case Background & Briefs

Tennessee
Tennessee’s case Tanco v. Haslan ruling against same-sex marriage
Figure 2: Three Tennessee couples are the plaintiffs in one of the same-sex marriage cases pending before the U.S. Supreme
Court.
Three lesbian couples sued in Tennessee for recognition of their marriages. The couples, who include a
full-time Army reservist and his husband and two professors of veterinary medicine, all formerly lived
and married in other states and later moved to Tennessee to pursue careers and make new homes for
their families. Tennessee law currently prohibits recognition of their marriages and treats the couples as
legal strangers.
The lawsuit argues that Tennessee’s laws prohibiting recognition of the couples’ marriages violates the
federal Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection and due process and the constitutionally
protected right to travel between and move to other states.
A federal judge granted the plaintiffs’ relief and ordered state officials to respect the marriages of three
same-sex couples. The couples are represented by the National Center for Lesbian Rights. The 6th
Circuit
federal court of appeals reversed the ruling of the trial court, upholding Tennessee ban against
recognition of other states’ legal same-sex marriages.
RESOURCES, Tanco v. Haslam:
Response Opposed to Certiorari from Tennessee • 12/15
Case Background & Briefs from NCLR

Same-sex marriage cases pending before the U.S. Supreme Court -- Ohio
Ohio’s case Obergefell v. Hodges & Henry v. Hodges ruling against same-sex marriage
Figure 3: Gay married partners John Arthur and James Obergefell sued the state of Ohio for recognition of their marriage.
In July 2013, a federal judge in Ohio ruled that state officials must respect the marriage of a Cincinnati
couple, John Arthur and James Obergefell, who married in MD after 20 years together. John and James
made the journey to Maryland to marry as John neared the end of his battle with ALS, which made the
trip by medical transport plane expensive and complicated. The wedding ceremony was performed by
John’s aunt on the tarmac at the Baltimore airport before returning to Ohio.
The couple then sued their home state of Ohio, which has a discriminatory constitutional amendment
that excludes same-sex couples from marriage and bars them from attaining any other form of family
status. In his decision, the trial judge wrote, "There is insufficient evidence of a legitimate state interest
to justify this singling out of same sex married couples given the severe and irreparable harm it
imposes."
Watch full video from the ceremony: http://bcove.me/1y6ht4qb
The 6th
Circuit federal court of appeals reversed the federal trial court ruling and upheld the marriage
ban.
John Arther died in October 2013, 3 months after the marriage ceremony.
RESOURCES, Obergefell & Henry v. Hodges:

State's SCOTUS Opening Brief • 3/27
Plaintiffs' Reply Brief in Support of Certiorari • 12/20
Response in Support of Certiorari from Ohio • 12/12
Kentucky
Kentucky’s case Bourke v. Beshear & Love v. Beshear ruling against same-sex marriage
The Kentucky case is made up of 6 gay and lesbian couples as plaintiffs fighting for marriage equality. In
February 2014, a federal trial judge ruled that the state of Kentucky must recognize marriages legally
performed in recognition states and held the state’s marriage ban unconsitutional. The Kentucky
Attorney General declined to defend marriage discrimination, but the Governor hired private counsel to
file the appeal challenging the trial judge’s ruling.
The 6th
Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the trial judge’s ruling and reinstated the marriage ban.
RESOURCES, Bourke & Love v. Beshear:

Plaintiffs' Reply Brief in Support of Certiorari • 12/22
Response in Support of Certiorari from Kentucky • 12/9
Polling data shows majority of Americans support marriage equality
Republicans support marriage equality by 40%
A National Supermajority:
CNN conducted a poll in February 2015 which showed that of Americans believe same-sex couples have
a constitutional right to marriage equality. The poll also showed that marriage equality has support with
every age group of Americans with 70% of Americans under 50 supporting same-sex marriage and 52%
of Americans over age 65 supporting the cause.
Bipartisan Momentum:
A Washington Post poll from a year ago showed that support for same-sex marriage crosses party lines,
with 40% of Republicans favoring marriage equality, and 23 % strongly supporting.
Coast-to-Coast Support:
The CNN poll from 2015 also showed that support for freedom to marriage extends to every region of
the country. The West supports marriage 67%; the Midwest 60%; the Northeast 70%; and, in the South,
a record 57% show support for the constitutional right to marry.

Gay marriage advocates present before the U.S. Supreme Court

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Dernier

Dernier (20)

En vedette

En vedette (20)

Gay marriage advocates present before the U.S. Supreme Court