Comments

  1. kujhawker says

    And while they are fighting DOMA, the government is paying to promote straight marriage.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/02/government-funds-national-campaign-promote-marriage/

    They have created this site:

    http://www.twoofus.org/index.aspx

    5 Millon tax payer dollars to promote marriage to straight people. Pictures of happy straight couples.

    New Administration – Same Back of the Bus Discrimination.

    So if federal dollars are promoting straight marriage, I don’t have much hope for DOMA.

  2. David in Houston says

    I wish these people all the luck in the world. DOMA is just a big pile of discrimination.

    Thanks for posting the link to http://www.twoofus.org, Kujhawker. I find it offensive (and yes, discriminatory) that my tax dollars paid for that website. Why does the government think they need to educate people on how to interact with each other? That’s so unbelievably stupid. Then they pretend that gay people don’t even exist! It just boggles my mind.

  3. MAJeff says

    ****we think the Supreme Court is receptive to these fundamental notions of equality and the balance between federal and state governments.”****

    Hate to say it, but that statement is completely delusional. I’ve got a very bad feeling about this lawsuit…like Bowers v Hardwick bad feeling.

  4. MAJeff says

    Kipewquire,

    The folks at GLAD are the ones responsible for Baker v. Vermont (which gave Civil Unions there), Goodridge v. Department of Public Health (Marriage in Massachusetts), and Kerrigan-Mock v. Department of Public Health (Marriage in Connecticut). They’ve won cases before SCOTUS, and are an integral part of the LGBT legal movement. Might want to inform yourself.

  5. says

    Ditto, MAJEFF re: KIPESQUIRE’s remark. I know Mary Bonauto’s (GLAD’s Civil Rights Project Director) work via the successful Baker v. Vermont case, and she–and, I trust, GLAD–would not participate in “an ill-advised publicity stunt.” They know their stuff. I’m no lawyer and have no idea whether this will be successful, but the arguments are strong and need to be made. Let the challenge begin.

  6. says

    Thanks Kipewquire and MAJEFF – We at GLAD have a long history of legal victories that have changed the legal landscape for GLBT persons and those living with HIV/AIDS. For thirty years GLAD has stood as New England’s premier impact litigation firm working on full equality for our community. And, our work is not limited to marriage – GLAD has fought and won cases on transgender non-discrimination in public schools, ensuring access to medical treatments for those living with AIDS, combating a discriminatory adoption policy in the state of MA,and securing victim compensation for same-sex partners of 9-11 victims – just to name a few of our hard won victories. For more info visit our website: http://www.glad.org.

  7. tjc says

    kipesquire — as the others have said, GLAD is the organization that got us — and kept us — marriage in Massachusetts. They are an awesome organization, one of the (if not the) best legal advocacy groups in the country, for any cause.

    GLAD and Lambda are similar orgs, but with distinct geographic boundaries. GLAD is exclusive to New England; Lambda got the rest of the country in the settlement.

    In many respects, this makes GLAD’s job a bit easier: they can focus on a tight-knit region, and it makes office space easier to handle.

    And you can be certain that GLAD and Lambda communicate on these things.

    Finally, your rule of thumb _IS_ valid, more or less, if modified a bit: if GLAD or Lambda is not involved, watch out. Of course, if GLAD’s involved — watch out too, but in a very good way.

    This particular case was GLAD’s and GLAD’s alone, because only MA and CT have full marriage rights.

  8. Brix says

    I do enjoy reading the literate and reasoned comments. Unfortunately, I don’t think I posses either of those admirable qualities.

    The timing is ill advised. The probable ruling will be a much worse obstacle to overcome then DOMA. This case and ruling will set us back. There have been 8 years of Cheney/Rove judges filling the Federal bench, (let alone SCOTUS). This is a feel-good masturbatory stunt that will cost all of us.

  9. says

    Obviously some people don’t know GLAD and its history. They would not be filing this suit if they didn’t think it has a good chance of winning. It is very narrow in scope, and it sounds to me like it would be hard to argue that DOMA does not discriminate against married gay people at the Federal level.

  10. Jon Davidson says

    As the Legal Director of Lambda Legal, I want to make clear that we have tremendous respect for the amazing work and consistently wise judgment of our colleagues at GLAD. We and the lawyers at other LGBT organizations have consistently counseled that a challenge to federal non-recognition of lawful marriages should not be brought precipitously. Instead, we have explained that any such case would need to be carefully planned and executed. GLAD has done just that. Their suit appropriately focuses on individual harms caused by the federal government’s unprecedented discriminatory treatment of one class of a state’s valid marriages and it has surmounted the many procedural and substantive hurdles that could derail a less expertly crafted suit. As the lawyers who won the Massachusetts marriage case, it was appropriate for GLAD to be the organization to bring this challenge to the federal government’s unequal treatment of the marriages same-sex couples have entered in that state. We look forward to lending GLAD our support in this latest chapter of the struggle for marriage equality.

Leave A Reply