Marriage Lawsuit Advances to California Supreme Court
Briefs Argue Marriage BanIs Unconstitutional
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org
SAN FRANCISCO -- In briefs filed today with the CaliforniaSupreme Court, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Centerfor Lesbian Rights, and Lambda Legal argue that California violates itsown constitution by denying same-sex couples the freedom to marry.
“When two people fall in love and decide to getmarried, theyare saying to the world, ‘this is my family; this is my dreamfor the future,’” said Tamara Lange, a senior staffattorney with the ACLU. “We think the court will see thatsame-sex couples fall in love just like everyone else andshouldn’t be denied the ability to fulfill their dreamsthrough marriage.”
The organizations filed the briefs in the coordinated marriagecasesnow before the California Supreme Court. They respond to argumentspresented by the state of California, which is defending thediscriminatory law, and to four supplemental questions asked by theCalifornia Supreme Court on June 20. NCLR, Lambda Legal, the ACLU,Heller Ehrman LLP, and the Law Office of David C. Codell represent 15same-sex couples, Equality California, and Our Family Coalition.
“Everyone knows marriage has nosubstitute,” saidShannon Minter, Legal Director of the National Center for LesbianRights. “Marriage is the way loving couples express theircommitment and love, and this is true for lesbian and gay couples aswell, who long for the opportunity to marry. The time has come to bringthis unconstitutional discrimination to an end.”
The California Supreme Court agreed to hear the case last yearafterthe California Court of Appeal reversed a decision by San FranciscoSuperior Court Judge Richard A. Kramer finding that barring same-sexcouples from marriage unconstitutionally discriminates on the basis ofsex and violates the fundamental right to marry.
“Anything less than marriage leaves lesbian and gaycouplesin a confusing and discriminatory twilight zone,” said LambdaLegal Senior Counsel Jennifer C. Pizer. “We know this becausewe answer the distress calls every day—calls that began withthe first statewide domestic partner bill in 1999 and haven’tslowed as the law broadened over the years. To the contrary, thedistress calls have increased as more couples register, hoping toshield their families, and encounter inconsistent, incompleteprotections. We’ve welcomed the Supreme Court’sinvitation to explain how far domestic partnerships fall short of fullmarriage.”
On September 17, more than 250 religious and civil rightsorganizations, including the California NAACP, Mexican American LegalDefense and Educational Fund, California Council of Churches, AsianPacific American Legal Center, and National Black Justice Coalition,will file friend-of-the-court amicus briefs in support of marriage forsame-sex couples. The briefing process concludes with responses toamicus briefs, which are due October. The court will set oral argumentsat the conclusion of the briefing.
The 15 represented couples have made life-long commitments toeachother. Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin have been together more than 50years. Karen Shane and Judy Sokolower have been together more than 30years. The couples come from across the state and from all walks oflife, with some working in business, some in education, and others inhealth professions. Many are raising children together. Others areretired.
“Marriage validates relationships and strengthens Californiafamilies by honoring the commitments of every loving couple,”said EQCA Executive Director Geoff Kors. “We have alreadylearned that domestic partnerships and civil unions cannot replace thecritical legal protections, universal recognition and dignity thatmarriage affords. Excluding same-sex couples from marriage deniescountless couples legal recognition of the love they share.”
The Supreme Court is considering six marriage cases under thetitle Inre Marriage Cases. The briefs field today and other information aboutthe case are available at www.aclu.org/caseprofiles; , and at .
###
The National Center for Lesbian Rights is a national legalorganizationcommitted to advancing the civil and human rights of lesbian, gay,bisexual, and transgender people and their families through litigation,public policy advocacy, and public education. NCLR is lead counsel inIn re Marriage Cases. .
Lambda Legal is a national organization committed to achievingfullrecognition of the civil rights of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals,transgender people and those with HIV through impact litigation,education and public policy work.
The American Civil Liberties Union is America’sforemostadvocate of individual rights. It fights discrimination and movespublic opinion on LGBT rights through the courts, legislatures andpublic education. www.aclu.org
Equality California is a nonprofit, nonpartisan,grassroots-based,statewide advocacy organization whose mission is to achieve equalityand civil rights for all lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT)Californians. .
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
President Biden Must Veto Defense Bill Attacking Military Families with Transgender YouthPresident Biden Must Veto Defense Bill Attacking Military Families with Transgender Youth
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate today passed a version of the National Defense Authorization Act that would ban coverage for gender-affirming care for transgender youth whose parents are active-duty military personnel. The American Civil Liberties Union is opposing final passage of the defense bill over the inclusion of this health care ban and calling on President Joe Biden to veto the bill. Section 708 of the NDAA would prohibit insurance coverage for “medical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoria” such as hormone therapy and puberty-suppressant medications, which Speaker Mike Johnson says would “permanently ban transgender medical treatment for minors.” The same treatments would be covered by TRICARE for any medical purpose other than treating gender dysphoria, the clinical diagnosis for the psychological distress experienced by transgender people related to their gender identity. “By passing this bill, the House and Senate are forcing thousands of active-duty service members to choose between their careers in the military and the future of their transgender children,” said Mike Zamore, national director of policy & government affairs at the ACLU. “This unconscionable and unjustifiable attack on those families stands in direct contrast to President Joe Biden’s legacy of defending the civil rights of transgender Americans — including when few in his own party showed the courage to do so. President Biden should cement his legacy by vetoing this bill and sending it back to Congress to pass without Speaker Johnson’s last minute health care ban for servicemembers’ kids.” If signed by President Biden, this health care ban would be the first new anti-LGBTQ provision enacted by Congress and signed into law by the president since the enactment of the military’s since-repealed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy for LGBTQ servicemembers and the since-repealed federal law barring recognition of same-sex marriages known as the Defense of Marriage Act. It is unknown how many transgender youth are currently enrolled in TRICARE or how many of those enrolled are currently receiving coverage for gender-affirming care. In one 2022 analysis, 2,500 minor patients sought care for gender dysphoria through TRICARE Prime insurance at military or civilian treatment facilities in 2017, and 900 received puberty suppressants or gender-affirming hormones. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a landmark case brought by the ACLU, the ACLU of Tennessee, Lambda Legal, and Akin Gump on behalf of three families and a medical provider challenging a Tennessee ban on gender-affirming hormonal therapies for transgender youth on the grounds the ban violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Montana Court Blocks State From Refusing to Correct Sex Markers on Transgender People's Birth Certificates and Driver's LicensesMontana Court Blocks State From Refusing to Correct Sex Markers on Transgender People's Birth Certificates and Driver's Licenses
HELENA, Mont. – A Montana court has granted a preliminary injunction preventing the state of Montana from enforcing policies that bar transgender people from obtaining accurate sex designations on their birth certificates and driver’s licenses. After a prior restriction on amendments of birth certificates was struck down by the courts, in early 2024 the state of Montana enacted a new rule that categorically bars transgender Montanans from correcting the sex designation on their birth certificates. Around the same time, the Montana Department of Justice adopted a policy similarly restricting amendment of driver’s licenses. The plaintiffs challenged these policies in state district court, arguing that they violate various constitutional provisions, including the right to equal protection of the law. In a recent Montana Supreme Court decision, two justices concluded that discrimination on the basis of transgender status – as the state is engaging in here – is a form of sex discrimination that violates the Montana Constitution’s equal protection clause. The plaintiffs, two transgender women, are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Montana, and Nixon Peabody LLP. Plaintiff Jessica Kalarchik, a veteran who served in the United States Army for 31 years, said: “After finally being able to live my life openly as the woman I know myself to be, I am frustrated that my birth state, Montana, wants me to carry around a birth certificate that incorrectly lists my sex as male. I live my life openly as a woman, I am treated as a woman in my daily life, and there is no reason I should be forced to carry a birth certificate that incorrectly identifies me as male. Fortunately, the court agrees that this ridiculous policy should not be in effect.” “Once again the State of Montana chose to adopt a draconian policy that is clearly intended to marginalize transgender Montanans, only for that discriminatory action to be blocked by the courts,” said Akilah Deernose, executive director for the ACLU of Montana. “Here in Montana we treasure our right to privacy and to live our lives free from governmental intrusion. The State of Montana clearly has not learned any lessons from the past few years, where courts have repeatedly struck down unconstitutional laws targeting transgender Montanans.” “Forcing anyone to carry documents that contradict their identity unjustly violates their rights to privacy, equal treatment, and not being compelled to convey a government message about their sex that they disagree with,” said Malita Picasso, staff attorney for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. “Such a policy marks transgender people for further mistreatment and discrimination, essentially requiring them to carry papers that out them as transgender any time they need to provide identity documents. Fortunately, the court has refused to allow the state of Montana to subvert the freedom of transgender Montanans to control their own identity as this case goes forward.” In granting the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, the court held, “[i]f the challenged state actions discriminate against transgender individuals on the basis of their transgender status, they also necessarily discriminate the basis of sex.” The state has the option of appealing the district court’s ruling to the Montana Supreme Court, but the underlying case will proceed in district court. A trial has not yet been scheduled. -
FloridaDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Keohane v. DixonKeohane v. Dixon
On September 30, 2024, the Florida Department of Corrections rescinded its policy regarding treatment of gender dysphoria, which allowed for hormone therapy when deemed medically necessary, as well as access to clothing and grooming standards that accord with one’s gender identity. Under this new policy, grooming and clothing accommodations have been stripped away, and hormone therapy is not permitted unless an exception is deemed constitutionally required. The ACLU brought a class action challenging the policy. -
IdahoDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Robinson v. LabradorRobinson v. Labrador
Two incarcerated transgender women have sued the state of Idaho alleging that HB 688, a 2024 law barring state funding for gender-affirming medical care for transgender people, denies them access to the health care their doctors have prescribed for them and is a violation of their Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. They represent a class of all incarcerated folks within the state of Idaho who face the loss of hormone therapy due to HB 668.