Category Archives: Supreme Court

10 years later, another Supreme wait

The U.S. Supreme Court (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

The U.S. Supreme Court (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

Expectations are high as the wait continues for two decisions expected in June on marriage cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, just as they were 10 years ago when gay rights supporters awaited what amounted to landmark rulings in two other cases.

In 2003, two cases reshaped the landscape for gay rights: the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down state sodomy laws throughout the country, and the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, which for the first time led to the legalization of marriage equality in a U.S. jurisdiction.

The two cases currently before the court — Hollingsworth v. Perry, which aims to strike down California’s Proposition 8, and United States v. Windsor, which is challenging the Defense of Marriage Act — are different in many respects from the cases 10 years ago. Lawrence was related to sodomy laws and Goodridge was a state lawsuit that resulted in a change only in Massachusetts. Still, they’re similar in terms of their potential significance.

The two attorneys who made arguments before the courts in the decades-old lawsuits — in the Goodridge case, Mary Bonauto, civil rights director for Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, and, in the Lawrence case, Paul Smith, a partner at Jenner & Block — acknowledged the magnitude of the cases both then and now, but said it’s hard to compare the significance of the older ones to the newer ones.

Smith said we won’t know the significance of the DOMA and Prop 8 cases until the Supreme Court rules on them, but touted the Lawrence decision striking down sodomy bans across the country as significant in any event.

“It provided the foundation for all the progress that has been made on marriage and other forms of discrimination over the past 10 years,” Smith said. “It did that by establishing that our relationships are just as important and valuable as different-sex relationships and by saying that the government can’t use morality as a justification for interfering with individual choices about who to love and how. With those principles in place it’s very hard for anyone to come up with a legitimate and persuasive justification for discrimination based on sexual orientation.”

Similarly, Bonauto said “it’s not really easy” to compare the significance of the Goodridge case to the Perry and Windsor lawsuits, recalling the different cultural climate 10 years ago in which the Massachusetts case was argued.

“In 2003, these waters were largely uncharted,” Bonauto said. “There were zero marriage states, a civil union system in Vermont, and 36 states with discriminatory statutes and four states with amendments. But then, as now, we were right; right on the constitutional principles and the utter absence of legal justifications for this discrimination.”

Those court rulings — in particular the Goodridge decision because it was the first successful case for full marriage equality in the United States — paved the way for 11 more states to approve same-sex marriage over the course of 10 years, including the legalization of marriage equality in Minnesota just this week.

Just as observers are parsing statements from justices now in an attempt to determine what the court may rule on Prop 8 and DOMA, followers of the court cases a decade ago were also trying to predict the future based on what was said during oral arguments.

In Lawrence, Smith said moderate justices at the time — Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy and then-Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor — were “uncharacteristically quiet,” making it difficult to predict how the court would rule.

“But we took hope from the fact that they didn’t say anything negative,” Smith added. “We were relatively optimistic that the court would strike down the sodomy laws once the court decided to take the case.”

For Goodridge, Bonauto said the wait was different from now in two regards: first because same-sex marriage wasn’t legalized anywhere in the country at the time, and second because there was no set timeline for when the Massachusetts Supreme Court had to make a decision.

“We thought and hoped we were right on the timing,” Bonauto said. “There were a lot of nerves and uncertainty while we waited. The fact that we didn’t know when the decision would come — no clue at all — added to the nerves and fueled the rumor factory. In the end, the decision turned out to be beautifully written and world-changing.”

In the present, many observers believe that the Supreme Court will issue a decision that will strike down DOMA on its merits — either based on equal protection or federalism grounds — although issues of standing were examined.

For Prop 8, much attention has been given to justices’ interest in the standing of Prop 8 proponents to defend the measure in court. A determination that they lack standing would leave in place a lower court ruling and likely invalidate the ban on same-sex marriage in California.

The standing issues before the Supreme Court, as Bonauto noted, also means the wait for Goodrige was different because the Massachusetts Supreme Court couldn’t rule on this basis.

“There were no outs,” Bonauto said. “They had to decide whether denying marriage to gay couples violates the Constitution of the Commonwealth or not. And I was asked very specifically in oral arguments about Vermont civil unions and a remedy that would provide those protections, and I said, ‘That was not what the plaintiffs were seeking; they were seeking access to marriage itself.’”

Notably, the oral arguments in Lawrence v. Texas took place on March 26, 2003, which is exactly 10 years to the day that oral arguments took place in the Prop 8 case on March 26, 2013. A ruling was issued in the Lawrence case on June 26, 2003 just as a ruling is expected in the Prop 8 and DOMA cases in June 2013.

In the Goodridge case, oral arguments took place before the Massachusetts Supreme Court on March 3, 2003, but a decision wasn’t rendered until Nov. 18, 2003.

Mary Bonauto, gay news, Washington Blade

Mary Bonauto (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

It remains to be seen whether the wording of rulings from the Supreme Court will have the same power as the language that justices handed down a decade ago. The 4-3 ruling in the Goodridge case affirmed that same-sex couples had the right to marry with never before seen language.

“The question before us is whether, consistent with the Massachusetts Constitution, the Commonwealth may deny the protections, benefits, and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry,” the decision states. “We conclude that it may not. The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals.”

In the Lawrence case, the 6-3 opinion written by Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy determined that the framers intended language in the U.S. Constitution to be reinterpreted by later generations in accordance with their vision of liberty.

“They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress,” Kennedy wrote “As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.”

Also unknown is how the public might react if the Supreme Court issues affirmative rulings for marriage equality in the Prop 8 and DOMA cases.

In 2003, the court ruling in Massachusetts — combined with then-San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom’s decision to issue marriage licenses to gay couples — sparked a national backlash that led in the next year to 11 states passing constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. Former President George W. Bush ran a successful re-election campaign in which he advocated for passage of a Federal Marriage Amendment.

But Bonauto was skeptical that the legalization of same-sex marriage led to the passage of state constitutional amendments and Bush’s re-election — saying the religious right wanted to enact the amendments anyway and analysis shows the marriage issue wasn’t as much a boon to Bush as it may seem on its face.

“By the time we had filed Goodridge, there were already 36 state statutes and four amendments,” Bonauto said. “So, for a lot of these states, they didn’t have anything else to do but to pass an amendment because they already had statutes barring marriage.  So I really view this as political opportunism both with elected officials and also the organized right-wing. It was trying to cut us off and change the facts on the ground, so that they could isolate this debate and isolate this issue in certain states.”

Given the growing acceptance of marriage equality — one widely noted recent poll shows it enjoys support from 58 percent of the American public, compared to 30 percent support in 2003 — the negative reaction to any pro-gay rulings will likely be more restrained.

In the event the Supreme Court in June renders similarly favorable decisions in support of rights for gay couples, Bonauto predicted some would speak out in opposition, but the reaction generally would be favorable.

“There are going to be people who are going to say things, and some of them have echo chambers and bully pulpits and their blogs,” Bonauto said. “I don’t think we should equate that to a backlash. I just think that is what public discourse is like in 2013. I really believe that the overwhelming majority of Americans are at a point where they accept and embrace the freedom to marry for same-sex couples.”

No DOMA repeal bill until court decision

Rob Portman, United States Senate, Ohio, gay news, Washington Blade

Log Cabin Republicans is expecting Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) to co-sponsor DOMA repeal (Photo public domain)

Lawmakers are holding off on introducing legislation that would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act until after the Supreme Court rules on the anti-gay law, according to multiple sources familiar with the bill, as one Republican LGBT organization expects Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) to sign on as a co-sponsor.

A number of LGBT advocates familiar with the legislation, which has been known as the Respect for Marriage Act, told the Washington Blade its lead sponsors — Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) in the House and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) in the Senate — are delaying introduction until after the expected court ruling in June.

Fred Sainz, HRC’s vice president of communications, said his organization supports the decision to postpone introduction of the bill until after a decision is reached in the DOMA case, known as Windsor v. United States.

“The lead sponsors of the RMA have decided to wait until after the court rules in Windsor,” Sainz said. “We support that decision and look forward to continuing to work with them to advance this important legislation.”

Ian Thompson, legislative representative for the ACLU, said his organization, which filed the lawsuit against DOMA, has a similar understanding that the lead sponsors won’t introduce the Respect for Marriage Act until the Supreme Court rules on plaintiff Edith Windsor’s challenge.

“The ACLU understands and respects that decision, and is committed to continuing to work with our sponsors in Congress and coalition partners to advance the Respect for Marriage Act and a full repeal of DOMA to ensure that the federal government recognizes and respects the marriages of same-sex couples across the nation,” Thompson said.

Still, the lawmakers are staying mum. Ilan Kayatsky, a Nadler spokesperson, said he had “no news to report yet” on the timing for the introduction of the DOMA repeal bill, and Feinstein’s office declined to comment.

In the event that the Supreme Court decides to uphold DOMA, the Respect for Marriage Act would be the next approach to lifting the 1996 anti-gay law, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage. Moreover, as previously reported by the Blade, legislation still may be necessary if DOMA is overturned to clear up lingering inequities for married same-sex couples, such as in situations where they move from one state that recognizes their union to another that doesn’t.

Previous versions of the bill had a “certainty provision” spelling out that federal benefits would continue to flow to married gay couples — even if they live in a state that doesn’t recognize same-sex marriage.

David Codell, legal director at the Williams Institute of the University of California, Los Angeles, explained that the Respect for Marriage Act “would serve important purposes” even if the Supreme Court were to strike down the ban on federal recognition of same-sex marriage.

“The Respect for Marriage Act would make clear that the federal government would treat as valid for federal purposes all marriages of same-sex couples in the United States if the marriages were valid where entered — regardless of whether a couple currently lives in a state that permits same-sex couples to marry or recognizes such marriages,” Codell said. “The Act would mean that a validly married same-sex couple could move anywhere in the country without losing federal benefits tied to marriage.”

As they await introduction of a bill, LGBT advocates say they’re continuing to work to bring on additional co-sponsors for the bill, which closed the 112th Congress with 161 co-sponsors in the House and 32 co-sponsors in the Senate. That effort was highlighted by Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry.

“Freedom to Marry’s focus right now is on continuing to add co-sponsors as we prepare to introduce the bill with the strongest momentum possible when ready to move forward,” Wolfson said.

While the House bill had Republican co-sponsors in the 112th Congress — Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), Rep. Richard Hanna (D-N.Y.) and former Rep. Charlie Bass (R-N.H.) — the Senate version of the bill has never had GOP support. Even Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who’s considered an LGBT advocate and champion of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal, wasn’t a co-sponsor.

But the Log Cabin Republicans say that will change. Gregory Angelo, the organization’s executive director, said he expects Portman — who came out in favor of marriage equality after he learned his son is gay — to be among the sponsors of the DOMA repeal.

“Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Congressman Richard Hanna were Republican co-sponsors in the 112th Congress, and we have every expectation they will continue as co-sponsors when the bill is reintroduced,” Angelo said. “Given his recent evolution on marriage equality, we expect Republican Senator Portman to be a co-sponsor in the Senate.”

Angelo later clarified that he’s had no assurances from Portman that he’ll be a sponsor, but was basing his assessment on the senator’s past statements in favor of same-sex marriage.

Portman’s office didn’t respond to a request for comment on whether he’ll sign on as co-sponsor to the Respect for Marriage Act. According to a Cleveland Plain Dealer article at the time Portman came out for marriage equality, Portman told reporters he believes legally married gay couples should receive the federal benefits of marriage, but the report doesn’t quote him as saying he’ll sign on as a sponsor to DOMA repeal legislation per se.

DOMA repeal raises concerns about lingering inequities

Supreme Court, gay marriage, marriage equality, Proposition 8, gay news, Washington Blade

Issues for married same-sex couples may remain even if the Supreme Court strikes down DOMA. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

While many same-sex couples throughout the country have high hopes that a U.S. Supreme Court ruling striking down the Defense of Marriage Act would mean their marriages would finally have legal status in the eyes of the federal government, certain problems may persist even if the court kills the law.

Depending on the scope of a Supreme Court ruling against Section 3 of DOMA, areas of the law in which couples may continue to face challenges include Social Security benefits — especially if a couple moves to a state that doesn’t recognize their marriages — as well as spousal benefits when one party of the couple is a member of the military, although the immigration issue preventing bi-national couples from staying together in the United States is expected to cease immediately.

Mary Bonauto, civil rights director for Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, said prior to oral arguments one issue in a post-DOMA world is Social Security benefits if a same-sex couple marries in one state and moves to another where their union isn’t recognized. The survivor benefits given to spouses upon the death of their loved ones is among the more than 1,000 federal benefits withheld from married gay couples under DOMA.

“Say you are married in Massachusetts … and you apply for Social Security in Massachusetts, there would be no doubt with DOMA gone, that your spouse is a spouse for Social Security purposes,” Bonauto said. “However, should you relocate to Florida and apply for Social Security benefits there, it’s more of a problem because Social Security law is going to look at the validity of the marriage at the time you apply for benefits, so your state of residence at the time you apply really matters.”

Bonauto added the aftermath of a ruling striking down DOMA may create “a patchwork” that in some situations would make same-sex marriage dependent on their state validity. Ironing out this patchwork, she said, would take either more litigation, legislation or advocacy within the administration to make changes.

“The overwhelming majority of federal programs don’t specify what state law applies, so it may just be for some situations, a matter of some guidance coming for the agencies that say whether you’re married for a particular benefit,” Bonauto added. “That’s a very practical nuts-and-bolts thing that, you know, we don’t have the luxury of worrying about right now because DOMA is still on the books.”

Susan Silber, a lesbian Takoma Park-based lawyer who specializes in family law for gay couples, said a ruling could affect gay couples differently if the court strikes down DOMA but leaves the constitutional right to marry in the case against California’s Proposition 8 an open question.

“Let’s say a couple was married for 30 years, but because they couldn’t get married until two years ago, it would look technically like they’ve only been married for two years,” Silber said. “But when they’re now dividing up their property, will courts say, ‘Oh you’ve only been married two years, there’s not a lot of marital property to buy?’ or will the court recognize that longer-term relationships deserve some recognition and do some kind of equity based on the non-technical part.”

The Human Rights Campaign didn’t respond to requests for comment on lingering issues for married gay couples.

But the general agreement is that the Respect for Marriage Act, legislation designed to repeal DOMA, would address lingering problems regarding state validity because of the “certainty clause” in the bill. Under that provision, gay couples that legally marry in one jurisdiction would be assured federal benefits even if they move to another state that doesn’t recognize same-sex marriage. The Respect for Marriage Act has yet to be introduced in the 113th Congress.

Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) said during a Blade interview on Monday that she thinks the Respect for Marriage Act could see additional co-sponsors in the wake of so many legislators coming out for marriage equality, but certain bills may have to be rewritten in the aftermath of a court ruling striking DOMA before going forward.

“I think that trend is a very positive one, and, yet, once the Supreme Court in June announces its decision in these two cases, we’re going to have to read those decisions very carefully, understand their reach, impact and then go about the task of looking at their impact on pending legislation,” Baldwin said. “So it may mean that certain things need to be re-written. And that will be a joyous task if we made progress, but we still have a little bit more to go.”

Jon Davidson, legal director or Lambda Legal, was optimistic adjustments could be made, saying the federal government has had to determine previously whether to recognize certain marriages and disputed any notion advanced by DOMA proponents that overturning the law would create a legal mess.

“It’s very important that it be understood that that argument is baseless, as this issue has always existed without creating undue burdens for the federal government,” Davidson said. “For example, some states allow first cousins, or uncles and nieces and aunts and nephews, to marry, and some other states will not allow couples that closely related to marry and will not recognize marriages like those entered in other states as valid for purposes of their own state law.”

Another piece of legislation may be necessary to address the benefits issue for gay service members with same-sex spouses. Sections of U.S. code governing benefits for U.S. service members define marriage as one man, one woman independent of DOMA. Titles 10, 32 and 37 are controlled by DOMA in terms of their definition of marriage, but Title 38, which addresses veterans benefits, defines “spouse” and “surviving spouse” in similar terms and restricts the definitions of persons to the “opposite sex.”

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), who sponsors legislation known as Charlie Morgan Act that would afford benefits to gay troops, said in a statement to the Blade that she’s prepared to push forward with the bill in the event that the Supreme Court ruling doesn’t address this issue.

“The Charlie Morgan Act would amend the definition of ‘spouse’ in the federal code in four areas and in turn grant same-sex military couples many benefits that they’ve rightfully earned,” Shaheen said. “Depending on how the Supreme Court rules on DOMA, legislation like this could still be necessary to ensure fairness and equality for all our men and women serving in uniform. Regardless of how the Supreme Court rules, I will continue to work with my colleagues on behalf of our LGBT servicemen and women, and their families, because no one should be denied benefits due to their sexual orientation.”

There may be other difficulties as well. A blog posting Monday from National Public Radio’s Michelle Andrews speculates that married gay couples may have trouble covering their families with company insurance, although many businesses are pre-emptively addressing the issue.

“If a same-sex couple both lives and works in the District there may not be insurance difficulties,” Andrews writes. “But what if one of them works in Virginia, where same-sex marriage isn’t recognized? If a Virginia-based employer doesn’t voluntarily provide benefits to same-sex spouses, the employee might not be able to insure a spouse even though they’re legally married in the state where they live.”

But one issue that’s expected to immediately go away in the inability of gay Americans to sponsor their spouses for residency in the United States via a marriage-based green card application. Each time when asked to address the issue, the Obama administration has cited Section 3 of DOMA — and only Section 3 of DOMA — as the reason why sponsorship of a foreign spouse is unavailable for gay couples.

Lavi Soloway, a gay immigration attorney and founder of The DOMA Project, explained during a conference call last week that gay Americans should be able to sponsor their same-sex couples for residency in the United States immediately after the law is struck down.

“The moment the Defense of Marriage is struck down, green card petitions filed by same-sex married couples can be approved,” Soloway said. “There’s no other barrier; we’ve established that by filing 70 green card petitions over the last three years, we’ve established that with 40 appeals to the Board of Immigration Appeals, we’ve established that with 10 remanded cases from the Board of Immigration Appeals. The government’s position is that the law prevents same-sex couples from access only because of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act. I’ve no expectation that the Obama administration will have any different opinion the day after DOMA is struck down — if that happens.”

WGAY podcasts: March 29 and April 5

Recent WGAY podcast discussions of the Blade articles “Supreme showdown as both sides rally for marriage” (March 29) and “Cuccinelli challenges Va. sodomy ruling.”  (April 5)

HRC sparks transgender flag flap

transgender flag, Supreme Court, gay news, Washington Blade

Transgender flag to the left (Photo courtesy GLAAD)

WASHINGTON—LGBT rights advocates have criticized the Human Rights Campaign after a staffer reportedly asked a man not to waive a transgender flag during a pro-gay marriage rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court on March 27.

Former National Stonewall Democrats Executive Director Jerame Davis wrote on Bilerico that he witnessed an HRC staffer and another person “having a less-than-friendly discussion.” Jerssay Arredondo of United We Dream’s Queer Undocumented Immigrant Project also claimed the organization removed references to his immigration status from the speech he gave at the same rally.

“We apologize for having caused harm to the individuals involved,” rally organizers said in a statement.

HRC also responded to the controversy.

“It is not true to suggest that any person or organization was told their flag was less important than another,” it said in a press release. “This did not occur and no HRC staff member would ever tolerate such behavior.”

Legal experts to analyze Prop 8, DOMA cases

Jonathan Capehart, gay news, Washington Blade

Jonathan Capehart (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Former Acting U.S. Solicitor General Walter Dellinger and nationally recognized LGBT rights attorney Paul M. Smith are scheduled to speak at a forum in D.C. on April 15 titled, “After the Arguments: DOMA and Prop 8.”

The D.C. chapter of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association and the Human Rights Campaign are hosting the event, which will take place from 8 a.m. to 10 a.m. at the HRC building at 1640 Rhode Island Ave., N.W.

Commentator Jonathan Capehart of the Washington Post, who’s gay, will serve as moderator.

Dellinger argued numerous cases before the Supreme Court in his role as acting Solicitor General during the Clinton administration and argued additional cases before the high court during the past four years. Smith, who heads the Supreme Court Practice Division at the D.C. law firm Jenner and Block, successfully argued the Supreme Court case Lawrence v. Texas, which overturned state sodomy laws.

Organizers say the April 15 forum will analyze the arguments last week before the Supreme Court on the Prop 8 and DOMA cases and discuss the possible outcomes for both cases.

Kate Clinton Video Blog: Thank Evan

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hF3aYfXuQ-w

Kate gives a shout out to Freedom To Marry’s Evan Wolfson in the wake of Supreme Court hearings regarding California’s Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act.

Lesbian couple on origins of Calif. marriage fight

Diane Olson, Robin Tyler, Supreme Court, gay news, Washington Blade, gay marriage, same sex marriage, marriage equality, Proposition 8

Diane Olson and Robin Tyler were in D.C. for last week’s Supreme Court oral arguments in the Prop 8 case. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

For lesbian activists Robin Tyler and Diane Olson, who have been a couple for more than 19 years, last week’s Supreme Court hearing on California’s Proposition 8 had a special meaning.

In February 2004, Tyler and Olson were among the first two couples to file a lawsuit challenging the California law prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying. The lawsuit led to the California Supreme Court’s decision in 2008 declaring that same-sex marriages must be recognized under the state’s constitution.

The two were among the 18,000 same-sex couples to marry in California before marriage equality opponents placed Prop 8 on the ballot that same year. Upon its approval by voters in November 2008, recognition of all subsequent same-sex nuptials ended. Marriage equality activists, however, responded by filing another lawsuit challenging Prop 8, which took the fight to the U.S. Supreme Court.

As Tyler and Olson sat in the Supreme Court chambers on March 26 watching the attorneys argue for and against whether Prop 8 should be declared unconstitutional, each said they couldn’t help but recall how it all started for them 12 years earlier in Beverly Hills, where Olson was raised.

“What happened is starting in 2001 Diane and I would go…to the Beverly Hills courthouse every year to try to get a marriage license,” Tyler said. “And of course they turned us down.”

Added Tyler, “The first year we almost got arrested because MCC brought a cake and they said we couldn’t serve a cake on the sidewalk.” She was referring to the LGBT supportive Metropolitan Community Church, a longtime advocate for marriage equality.

Tyler, an out lesbian comic and entertainer since the 1970s, served as an organizer for the 1979 LGBT march on Washington and two subsequent LGBT marches on Washington in 1987 and 1993. At all three marches, Tyler helped organize same-sex marriage rallies outside the IRS headquarters in downtown D.C., in which hundreds of same-sex couples participated in marriage ceremonies they considered symbolic but that had no legal recognition.

With that as a backdrop, Tyler said the proverbial ‘last straw’ happened to her and Olson in 2004 shortly before she and Olson planned their annual ritual of going to the Beverly Hills courthouse to request a marriage license on or around Valentine’s Day. At the time, the two had been a couple for 10 years.

Gloria Allred, gay news, Washington Blade

Gloria Allred (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

“I was going to be 65,” she said. “So I called the American Federation of Radio and Television Artists. I’ve been in the union for years because I was a comic. And I say, you know, I can purchase domestic partnership insurance for Diane,” Tyler recalled.

“But when I retired they said no you are not. And I said why not?” Tyler told the Blade. “And they said because you’re not married. And I said we can’t get married. And the woman said to me, ‘That’s just the way it is, hon.’ And she hung up on me.”

Tyler said she immediately called Gloria Allred, a nationally recognized civil rights lawyer based in Los Angeles, whose clients have been among some of the most famous Hollywood figures. Tyler said she and Allred had been friends for a long time.

“And the next morning she called and said you know what? I’m going to take the case. I’m going to sue for your right to get married to Diane and I’m going to do it pro bono,” Tyler said.

At Allred’s suggestion, Tyler and Olson agreed to invite Rev. Troy Perry, head of the MCC churches, and his husband, Philip De Blieck, who he married in Canada, to be a party to the suit.

Since Valentine’s Day fell on a Saturday in 2004, Tyler said the two couples and Allred decided to go to the Beverly Hills courthouse that year on Feb. 12.

“They handed us this little thing like they did every year – you know, you can’t get married because marriage is a between a man and a woman,” said Tyler. “Gloria was with us and we walked outside and had a huge press conference, and Gloria announced our right to marry.”

Allred said she informed the media that the lawsuit would challenge a state family code that banned same-gender marriage.

In a development that surprised them and their supporters in L.A., then San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom that same week began performing same-sex marriages in City Hall in defiance of the state law banning such marriages. The first couple that Newsom himself married was veteran lesbian activists Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, who were in their 80s.

“Someone called me and said Del and Phyllis, who were friends of ours, are getting married,” Tyler said. “I said what? And we turned on the television and there is Gavin Newsom Marrying Del and Phyllis.”

Allred said some have confused the role that Newsom and litigants like Tyler and Olson played in the marriage equality battle.

“The most important thing was that we were challenging the law, which prohibited them from being able to enjoy the right to marry each other,” Allred said. “What happened in San Francisco was slightly different. The mayor started marrying couples without getting a judicial declaration that the family code prohibiting such marriages was unconstitutional.”

Marriage equality opponents quickly obtained a court order halting San Francisco from performing same-sex marriages. Opponents next persuaded the court to invalidate all of those marriages on grounds that they had no legal standing.

Many of the couples whose marriages were invalidated joined the San Francisco County Attorney in filing their own lawsuits challenging the state’s same-sex marriage ban. The court later merged those suits with the suit filed by Tyler, Olson, Perry, DeBlieck and others.

After four years of litigation, the California Supreme Court ruled in early 2008 that the state’s same-sex marriage ban violated the California Constitution and that same-sex marriages must be recognized in the state.

Due to their role as the first to file suit over the marriage question, Tyler and Olson were given permission to be the first same-sex couple to marry in L.A. County – one day ahead of everyone else.

Tyler and Olson acknowledge that the joy of their wedding was dampened later in the year when Prop 8 passed, even though the state Supreme Court ruled their marriage and those of the 18,000 other same-sex couples who married prior to the approval of Prop 8 would remain valid.

But the two said their wedding on the steps of the Beverly Hills courthouse was a special moment for them and their friends and supporters.

“And I want to tell you the mayor of Beverly Hills offered us City Hall, which would have been my dream,” Tyler said. “But we decided to marry in front of the courthouse because that’s the same courthouse that had turned us down all those years,” she said.

“And this time when we walked in with Gloria to get our marriage license the woman behind the counter that gave us the license started to cry,” said Tyler. “She said I’ve wanted to give this to you ever since you started to come in.

“And we walked out and we had no idea that the press would be there from all over the world,” Tyler continued. “And a policeman came up to me and said I was the cop that almost arrested you in 2001 for serving cake, and I’m proud to be at your wedding. So it had come full circle for us when we got married.”

Nine years later, as Tyler, Olson and Allred watched with great interest as the Supreme Court justices asked sharp questions in Washington to the lawyers arguing for and against Prop 8, Tyler said the comments by some of the justices cause her great discomfort.

“I was so full of emotion and so angry having to sit in the Supreme Court and hearing them refer to us as an experiment and to compare us to cell phones and the Internet,” she said, referring to comments by Justice Samuel Alito.

In remarks she said he hadn’t planned to make before the C-SPAN TV cameras on the plaza outside the Supreme Court, Tyler said she expressed her outrage over the remarks by some of the justices.

“I said we’re a civil rights movement. We’re not an experiment. And we’re going to win,” she told the Blade. “How dare they…,” she added, before cutting short her own comment.

White House won’t make predictions on Supreme Court

The White House

The White House on Thursday wouldn’t make predictions on marriage rulings at the Supreme Court (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

Legal experts are prognosticating on how the U.S. Supreme Court will rule on marriage equality cases based on oral arguments this week, but don’t look to the White House for an assessment.

Under questioning from the Washington Blade, White House Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest declined to say on Thursday whether President Obama is confident justices will strike down California’s Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act.

“It was about a year ago that I was actually standing at this podium in this room, where people were warning of the terrible argument that had taken place before the Supreme Court in defense of the President’s Affordable Care Act — people warning that the Supreme Court was poised to strike down that in a pretty decisive fashion based solely on the arguments that were made by the attorneys, and by the questions that were posed by the justices,” Earnest said. “Those predictions demonstrated how unwise it is to make predictions about the outcome of Supreme Court cases based solely on the arguments that were presented orally, so I don’t want to judge, or prejudge, or predict what the Supreme Court’s ruling will be when it’s announced later this summer.”

Earnest similarly dodged when asked if Obama would welcome a ruling from the Supreme Court that would institute marriage equality throughout the country.

“Again, I don’t want to get into parsing how the president would respond to possible decisions that are offered by the justices, so when we get an announcement of a decision from them later this summer, you can expect a reaction from us,” Earnest said.

Watch the video here:

WGAY podcasts: March 15 and March 22

Discussions of recent Blade articles on the new Pope (March 15 podcast) and the Supreme Court hearing on the constitutionality of Prop. 8 (March 22 podcast).