Equality For All
Index of Cases
PFAWF has long supported the right of same-sex couples to marry and believes that the denial of this right violates, among other things, the right of gay men and lesbians to the equal protection of the laws. In order to help vindicate these important rights, PFAWF has participated in litigation across the country, typically through the filing of amicus curiae briefs, supporting same-sex couples who are challenging the denial of equal marriage rights. Recent and currently pending cases include the following:
California
In January 2006, PFAWF joined more than a dozen other civil rights organizations in filing an amicus curiae brief in the California Court of Appeal in Woo v. Lockyer, explaining why statutes that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation (as does the California marriage statute) must be struck down under the California Constitution unless they pass muster under heightened scrutiny. The case has been brought by same-sex couples challenging the state’s refusal to allow them to marry. In March 2005, the trial court ruled in their favor, holding that the California marriage law limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violates the state Constitution. On October 5, 2006, the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the state is not required to allow same-sex couples to marry. The plaintiffs have appealed to the California Supreme Court, where the case is now pending. PFAWF joined other civil rights organizations in filing an amicus brief before the Supreme Court.
Massachusetts
PFAWF participated as an amicus curiae in the historic Goodridge case, in which the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that the state’s refusal to allow same-sex couples to marry violated the state Constitution. Since then, we have also participated as an amicus curiae in related litigation, including Cote-Whitacre v. Department of Public Health, in which the plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of the state’s resurrection of a 1913 state law to bar all non-resident same-sex couples from marrying in Massachusetts. In March 2005, PFAWF joined a large group of civil rights organizations and law professors in filing an amicus curiae brief in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in this case in support of the plaintiffs. Oral argument was held on October 6, 2005. On March 30, 2006, the Court issued an opinion upholding the state's action but allowing plaintiffs from certain states an opportunity to prove to the trial court whether same-sex marriage is prohibited in those states, in which case a non-resident couple cannot marry in Massachusetts. A trial court subsequently ruled that same-sex couples from Rhode Island must be allowed to marry in Massachusetts, as Rhode Island law contains no explicit provisions prohibiting their marriages.
New Jersey
In October 2005, PFAWF joined an amicus curiae brief filed in the New Jersey Supreme Court in Lewis v. Harris, a case in which same-sex couples challenged the refusal by the state of New Jersey to allow them to marry. The state court of appeals ruled against the plaintiffs in a 2-1 decision issued in June 2005. Our brief in the state Supreme Court explained that the only remedy that will redress the state constitutional violation is to allow same-sex couples to marry. Oral argument was held on February 15, 2006. In a unanimous ruling issued on October 25, 2006, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that same-sex couples are constitutionally entitled to all of the rights, benefits and responsibilities of marriage. In a 4-3 ruling, however, the Court gave the state legislature 180 days to determine whether to end marriage discrimination by allowing same-sex couples to marry or by some other means (such as civil unions). In response, the legislature adopted a civil union statute, which in practice has failed to provide same-sex couples with all the rights of married couples under New Jersey law.
New York
During 2005, PFAWF joined amicus curiae briefs filed in the appellate division of the New York state courts in three cases in which the plaintiffs were challenging, under the New York Constitution, the state’s refusal to allow same-sex couples to marry. The cases were: Hernandez v. Robles (1st Dept.), Shields v. Madigan (2d Dept.), and Samuels v. NYS Dep’t of Health (3d Dept.). In December 2005, the appellate court in Hernandez reversed the trial court ruling that same-sex couples must be allowed to marry. On May 31, 2006, the New York Court of Appeals (the state's highest court) heard oral arguments in several of the marriage cases. As it did in the courts below, PFAWF signed an amicus curiae brief supporting the plaintiffs' challenge to the denial of the right to marry. On July 6, 2006, the Court of Appeals, in a sharply divided 4-2 ruling, upheld the state's refusal to allow same-sex couples to marry. Chief Judge Judith Kaye issued a strongly worded dissent, joined by a colleague, ending with the statement that "I am confident that future generations will look back on today's decision as an unfortunate misstep."
Maryland
In October 2006, PFAWF joined an amicus curiae brief filed in the Maryland Court of Appeals (that state's highest court) in Conaway v. Deane, in which same-sex couples challenged that state's refusal to allow them to marry. The plaintiffs prevailed in the state trial level court, securing a ruling that the state's prohibition on the marriage of same-sex couples violates the Maryland Constitution. The amicus brief that we joined in the Court of Appeals addresse's the proper application of rational basis review in the event the Court determine's to apply this lower standard of review to marriage discrimination by the state, while urging the Court to apply heightened scrutiny as the correct basis of review. In particular, the brief addressed the flawed rational basis scrutiny in which other state courts upholding marriage discrimination have engaged. In September 2007, the Court ruled that a State's refusal to allow same-sex couples to marry does not violate the state Constitution. Efforts are underway in the state legislature to pass a law that would give legal recognition to same-sex couples.
Connecticut
In December 2006, PFAWF joined a group of individuals and national and state organizations in filing an amicus curiae brief in the Connecticut Supreme Court in Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health in support of same-sex couples challenging that state's refusal to allow them to marry. Our brief focuses on the "civil union" status accorded to same-sex couples in Connecticut, explains why this status is not equal to marriage, and in any event further explains why the concept of "separate but equal" that has been rejected in other civil rights contexts should also be rejected here.
Back to top
In July 2006, the Township of Riverside passed the so-called Illegal Immigration Relief Act, a restrictive anti-immigrant provision. The ordinance attempts to ban immigrants from renting, residing, using property or being employed in the township. For example, it prohibits any activities that "aid or abet" any "illegal" immigrants in Riverside. "Aiding and abetting" could include activities ranging from employment to service at a grocery store. Due to this vagueness, the ordinance will be nearly impossible to obey and will severely harm local businesses and Riverside Residents.
On October 18, 2006 PFAWF joined as co-counsel in a lawsuit filed in state court on behalf of the Riverside Coalition of Businesses and Landlords and individual plaintiffs against the Township of Riverside. The complaint challenges the Illegal Immigration Relief Act on the grounds that it oversteps the city’s authority, is too vague, unfairly puts businesses and others at risk and violates civil rights under state law. Other co-counsel include the ACLU, Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, and the law firms of Spear Wilderman P.C., and Ragonese, Albano & Viola.
Back to top
One day after the violent arrest of Election Protection volunteer James S. Henry in Palm Beach County, PFAW Foundation, along with local Florida counsel, filed a lawsuit on November 1, 2004, requesting that the Palm Beach County court grant a temporary injunction ordering the defendant Supervisor of Elections and the Sheriff of Palm Beach County to refrain from prohibiting communication with voters, written, oral or expressive, including distribution of the Election Protection Voters’ Bill of Rights, outside the 50-foot buffer zone. Although a local judge refused to grant a temporary restraining order against the rule on the day before the election, LePore’s successor has indicated a willingness to reconsider the rule, and the litigation is continuing.
Back to top
Facebook
Change.org
MySpace
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr