It’s About More Than Flowers

Curt Freed and Robert Ingersoll got engaged just before The Supreme Court ruled for marriage equality, when the State of Washington was recognizing same-sex marriages.  The couple were longtime customers of Arlene’s Flowers in Richland, Washington. The couple asked owner Barronelle Stutzman about arrangements for their wedding.

Stutzman, who is an ardent evangelical, denied the couple’s request saying she could not support a wedding that her faith forbids. “I was not discriminating at all,” she told CNN in 2013. “I never told him he couldn’t get married. I gave him recommendations for other flower shops.”

The couple sued along with the state attorney general. On February 16, 2017 the Washington State Supreme Court ruled that the florist violated the state’s anti-discrimination law.

The judges sided with Ingersoll and Freed’s argument that their case was about more than access to flowers, just as civil rights cases of the 1960s were about more than access to sandwiches.  “As every other court to address the question has concluded, public accommodations laws do not simply guarantee access to goods or services. Instead, they serve a broader societal purpose: eradicating barriers to the equal treatment of all citizens in the commercial marketplace.”

With marriage equality now legal in all fifty states, this ruling joins “a growing body of case law rejecting business owners’ claims of first amendment protections as grounds for discrimination,” said Elizabeth Gill, the ACLU’s senior staff attorney and co-counsel for the couple. “It sends a really strong message that for the state of Washington inclusion and acceptance is incredibly important,” she said. “It’s an important contribution to the growing body of case law that rejects the idea that people operating in the public space can discriminate.”

“We’re thrilled that the Washington Supreme Court has ruled in our favor. The court affirmed that we are on the right side of law and the right side of history,” Freed and Ingersoll said in a statement. “We felt it was so important that we stand up against discrimination because we don’t want what happened to us to happen to anyone else. We are so glad that we stood up for our rights.”

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/16/us/washington-florist-same-sex-wedding-discrimination-lawsuit/

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The War on Marriage Equality Begins in Texas

After first refusing an appeal, the Texas Supreme Court has agreed to take on a case that appears designed to chip away at marriage equality in Texas. Last year the Texas Supreme Court refused to hear a case in which a lower court affirmed that, under the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling of 2015, cities cannot deny same-gender couples the employee benefits given to opposite-sex couples.

The case, known as Pidgeon v. Turner, is a complicated one but important one. Watch a summary video of the case here.

Tags: , ,

Australian Government at Odds over Same Sex Marriage

You may be shocked to hear but Australia still doesn’t have same sex marriage. With large metropolitan and open-minded cities like Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane – folks often forget they are still fighting the fight Down Under. So what’s the latest? Recently, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull declared he wants a public vote on same sex marriage because he is not a “dictator.” He also has said that a public vote is the quickest and easiest way to legalize same sex marriage because after the public vote, a parliamentary vote must be held.

The Labour Party wants a parliamentary vote only. The Labour Party calls the public vote “expensive and pointless.”
The cost of the public vote would be between $160 million – $500 billion dollars and its taxpayers money, when the majority of parliamentarians in Australia are pro-same-sex marriage.

We’re watching Australia.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/08/28/australian-prime-minister-calls-labor-villains-for-threat-to-block-public-same-sex-marriage-vote/?utm_source=PNT&utm_medium=SocialTwitter&utm_content=TwitterJM&utm_campaign=PNTwitter

Tags: , , , ,

Supreme Court Rules a Win for Same-Sex Marriage!

Washington (CNN)

In a landmark opinion, the Supreme Court ruled Friday that states cannot ban same-sex marriage, establishing a new civil right and handing gay rights advocates a victory that until very recently would have seemed unthinkable.The 5-4 ruling had Justice Anthony Kennedy writing for the majority with the four liberal justices. Each of the four conservative justices wrote their own dissent.The far-reaching decision settles one of the major civil rights fights of this era — one that has rapidly evolved in the minds of the American pubic and its leaders, including President Barack Obama. He struggled publicly with the issue and ultimately embraced same-sex marriage in the months before his 2012 re-election.”No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family,” Kennedy wrote. “In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than they once were.”In a dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia blasted the Court’s “threat to American democracy.””The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me,” he wrote. “But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today’s judicial Putsch.”Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the decision had “nothing to do with the Constitution.”If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal,” he wrote. “Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.”The U.S. is now the 21st country to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide. Married same-sex couples will now enjoy the same legal rights and benefits as married heterosexual couples nationwide and will be recognized on official documents such as birth and death certificates.By the numbers: Same-sex marriageThe decision affirmed growing public support in the U.S. for gay marriage, with about two-thirds of Americans now in favor. And it comes as gay rights groups have seen gay marriage bans fall rapidly in recent years, with the number of states allowing gay marriage swelling most recently to 37 — that is, until this ruling.There were two questions before the Court, the first asked whether states could ban same sex marriage, the second asked whether states had to recognize lawful marriages performed out of state.The relevant cases were argued earlier this year. Attorney John Bursch, serving as Michigan’s Special Assistant Attorney General, defended four states’ bans on gay marriage before the Court, arguing that the case was not about how to define marriage, but rather about who gets to decide the question.The case came before the Supreme Court after several lower courts overturned state bans on gay marriage. A federal appeals court had previously ruled in favor of the state bans, with Judge Jeffrey Sutton of the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals writing a majority opinion in line with the rationale that the issue should be decided through the political process, not the courts.Fourteen couples and two widowers challenged the bans. Attorneys Mary Bonauto and Doug Hallward-Driemeier presented their case before the Court, arguing that the freedom to marry is a fundamental right for all people and should not be left to popular vote.

Three years after Obama first voiced his support for gay couples’ right to marry, his administration supported the same sex couples at the Supreme Court.”Gay and lesbian people are equal,” Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. told the justices at the oral arguments earlier this year. “It is simply untenable — untenable — to suggest that they can be denied the right of equal participation in an institution of marriage, or that they can be required to wait until the majority decides that it is ready to treat gay and lesbian people as equals.Map: Where same-sex marriage is recognized in the U.S.The same-sex couples who challenged gay marriage bans in Michigan, Tennessee, Kentucky and Ohio were just a few of the estimated 650,000 same-sex couples in the United States, 125,000 of whom are raising children.The challenges included same-sex couples who wanted to marry, those who sought to have their lawful out-of-state marriage recognized, as well as those who wanted to amend a birth or death certificate with their marriage status.The lead plaintiff in the case is Jim Obergefell who married his spouse John Arthur in 2013 months before Arthur died.The couple, who lived in Ohio, had to travel to Maryland aboard a medical jet to get married when Arthur became gravely ill. And when Arthur died, Obergefell began to fight to be recognized as Arthur’s spouse on his death certificate.The plaintiffs from Michigan are April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse, two Detroit-area nurses who are

Source: Supreme Court rules states must allow same-sex marriage – CNNPolitics.com

Tags: , ,
Who’s Confused Now?

Who’s Confused Now?

We have to admit, it’s almost comical.

Historically, it’s always been the LGBTQ-ers of the world that have been called and considered “confused.”

Who’s confused now?

The United States of America, that’s who.

Missouri especially.  Right now in St. Louis same-sex marriage is legal but not quite yet in other counties across the state.

To be exact, same-sex marriage is legal in thirty-two states. But, what happens to your hard-earned marriage when you cross into Tennessee? Does love become illegal?

Frankly, we second what Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry said when he urged the Supreme Court to “swiftly take these cases, affirm the freedom to marry, and bring national resolution once and for all.”

We grew up holding our hand over our heart and pledging allegiance to the flag, “one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.”  Nowhere in there does it, did it or has it ever said, “depending on where you live.”

 

 

 

Tags: ,