Lambda Legal Head Announces Retirement

"I am proud of what we have accomplished together and the work will not stop over the next 10 months or the decades ahead. Our community deserves our best efforts, addressing the discrimination, violence, and inequality we still face. I plan to keep us moving forward until my last day at Lambda Legal and I have every confidence in the organization's staff and volunteer leadership -- as well as in the next generation of leaders. As with any major transition, this is an opportunity for Lambda Legal to look toward the future and continue building the capacity of the organization." -   Kevin Cathcart, announcing his retirement in 2016 after 24 years as Lambda Legal's executive director.

More from their press release:

Cathcart is considered by many to be the 'dean' of LGBT leaders, as the longest serving head of a major national LGBT nonprofit. Before coming to Lambda Legal, he served from 1984 to 1992 as the executive director of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) in Boston, New England's LGBT and AIDS legal organization. In all, Cathcart has been the Executive Director of a major LGBT and HIV legal rights organization for 32 years, a time period which encompasses most of the historic victories and advances of our movement. At Lambda Legal, he led the strategy to finally eliminate state anti-sodomy laws that criminalized sexual relations between consenting adults of the same sex, leading to the thrilling and game-changing 2003 Supreme Court victory in Lawrence v. Texas.

While Lawrence and Obergefell were the most historic rulings secured during Cathcart's career, there have been many others that have built the jurisprudence we now rely on: Cammermeyer v. Perry (1994), successfully challenging the removal of a lesbian officer from the military; Nabozny v. Podlesny (1996), finding schools liable for failing to protect gay students from harassment; Romer v. Evans (1996), a Supreme Court victory making clear that antigay sentiment is not a valid basis for laws; Varnum v. Brien (2009), a unanimous ruling by the Iowa Supreme Court in favor of marriage equality; and Glenn v. Brumby (2011), a federal appeals court ruling that Georgia violated the Constitution when it fired an employee because she is transgender.

Lambda Legal: Michigan & North Carolina Laws Are Worse Than Indiana's RFRA

Via press release from Lambda Legal:

Today was a discouraging day for equality and justice. Michigan today enacted a law that allows state-funded adoption and foster care agencies to turn people away on religious grounds, and North Carolina enacted a law allowing government magistrates to refuse to perform civil marriage ceremonies for couples whose union they object to on religious grounds. For anyone with delusions that the work for LGBT rights is close to being done, think again. These laws will be used to deny loving homes to Michigan children in need and to subject same-sex couples to the indignity of being turned away by government-funded agencies in Michigan and by government officials in North Carolina. That that discrimination is based on religion is no excuse. Discrimination inspired by religious views is still discrimination. These measures are in some ways worse than what happened in Indiana because Michigan and North Carolina will be using tax dollars to support such discrimination. Good public policy helps people--it shouldn't hurt them. We expect Lambda Legal's Help Desk will light up with calls from those who suffer discrimination imposed by these laws, and we stand ready to help.

Their help desk is here.

Julianne Moore For Lambda Legal

Lambda Legal: #LoveRules

Lambda Legal has launched a social media campaign in advance of the oral arguments at the Supreme Court. Hit the link for images to use on your Twitter and Facebook profiles.

LGBT Groups Applaud Obama's Support For Laws That Ban "Ex-Gay" Torture

GLSEN

Studies conducted by major mental health organizations and personal testimony from lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth have shown that conversion therapy can create dangerous and even life-threatening effects, including depression, decreased self-esteem, substance abuse and suicidal behavior. We are thrilled that President Obama will call for an end to the use of conversion therapy on minors. It is a harmful and discredited practice that uses rejection, shame and psychological abuse aimed at changing one’s sexual orientation or gender identity/expression. Fifteen years ago, major medical, psychiatric and counseling associations rallied to GLSEN’s side to beat back attempts to force this insidious practice into our schools. We salute them for their pioneering stance and thank the President for his leadership in protecting youth from these damaging and misguided practices.

Truth Wins Out

"We are ecstatic that President Barack Obama spoke out against this harmful practice that psychologically terrorizes too many perfectly healthy LGBT youth and stigmatizes them as mentally ill,” said Truth Wins Out’s Executive Director Wayne Besen. “The President’s wise words gave momentum to efforts to prohibit fringe practitioners from traumatizing vulnerable LGBT adolescents and calling it therapy.” “President Obama’s expression of support shows that he really ‘gets it’ at a fundamental level,” said TWO’s Wayne Besen. “We are very fortunate to have a president who is dedicated to equality and ending the destructive practice of conversion therapy.”

Lambda Legal

In both California and New Jersey, Lambda Legal joined with regional and national organizations working with LGBT young people to advocate on behalf of the ultimately successful efforts in both states to enact legislation preventing licensed mental health providers from using therapies with minors that are demonstrably ineffective and can be deeply harmful, and we were part of the correspondingly successful efforts to defend these bans in court. We will continue to advocate on behalf of LGBT young people as other states likewise move to protect them from this preventable harm. These dangerous and damaging efforts to change sexual orientation and gender identity have wrecked lives. Tonight the President lent the full weight of his leadership to the work our community has been doing for years to protect young people and their families. He joins not only Lambda Legal and our sister organizations, but every leading medical and therapeutic organization, as they have unanimously and unequivocally recognized that LGBT people's identities should not be targeted for change.

Lambda Legal Calls Out Pence's Lies

Via press release from Lambda Legal:

Governor Pence continues to deceive the public about this deeply flawed law. Let's clarify a few things.

Gov. Pence myth: SB 101 is just like Illinois law that then-State Senator Obama voted to support.

Truth: Gov. Pence fails to point out that Illinois has robust nondiscrimination clauses in its state Human Rights Act that specifically protect LGBT people. Indiana does not. This matters because those seeking to discriminate in Indiana may claim that the lack of a statewide law barring sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination means that there is no compelling state interest in enforcing local ordinances providing such protections.

Gov. Pence myth: This law only reinforces established law in Indiana.

Truth: The language in SB 101 is so broadly written that someone can sue even without their religious beliefs having actually been burdened simply by claiming that is 'likely' to happen.

Gov. Pence myth: SB101 is just like federal law that President Clinton signed 20 years ago.

Truth: SB 101 is substantially broader than the federal law. The federal RFRA can only be invoked against government action. SB 101 goes much further, inviting discrimination by allowing religious beliefs to be raised as a defense in lawsuits and administrative proceedings brought by workers, tenants and customers who have suffered discrimination. In addition, SB 101 makes it easier to claim a burden on religious freedom than the federal RFRA by defining the 'exercise of religion' as 'any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.'

"If Governor Pence meant it when he said that SB101 isn't intended to allow discrimination against LGBT people, then why were amendments designed to make that explicit repeatedly rejected during the legislative process? If he truly means what he says, then he and the legislature should work together to add this language: 'This chapter does not establish or eliminate a defense to a claim under any federal, state or local law protecting civil rights or preventing discrimination.' And the Indiana government should include gay and transgender people within Indiana's protections from discrimination."

BOOM.

Who Will Argue For Us At SCOTUS?

As the date for oral arguments before SCOTUS draws closer, LGBT groups have been jockeying for position. Chris Geidner reports on yesterday's developments at Buzzfeed:

Lawyers for the plaintiffs in the six cases out of four states before the Supreme Court asked the justices to split the April 28 arguments, which will include 90 minutes focused on whether states can ban same-sex couples from marrying and 60 minutes focused on whether states can refuse to recognize same-sex couples’ marriages, between four lawyers.

The plaintiffs’ lawyers have asked the court to split the marriage question between the Michigan and Kentucky teams and to split the marriage recognition question between the Ohio and Tennessee teams. The letter did not, however, announce who would be arguing in each spot.

What’s more, those four as-of-yet unnamed lawyers support the request of Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. to also argue in support of marriage equality — meaning a total of five lawyers, each with 15 minutes, likely will appear at the podium to present arguments in support of marriage and marriage recognition.

On the other side of the arguments, the situation is much more simple. On the marriage question, the Michigan Attorney General’s Office has announced that the state’s former solicitor general, John Bursch, will be arguing in defense of state bans on same-sex couples’ marriages. Joe Whalen, the associate solicitor general in the Tennessee Attorney General’s Office, will argue in defense of the recognition bans.

Hit the link for the full responses from both sides.

ARKANSAS: LGBT Groups Issue Last Minute Veto Plea To Governor

Two weeks ago the Arkansas legislature approved a bill that would ban any municipality from enacting LGBT anti-discrimination ordinances. Without a veto from Gov. Asa Hutchinson, that law goes into effect tomorrow. Yesterday Lambda Legal, the ACLU, GLAD, and the NCLR issued a last-minute plea to Hutchinson.

SB 202 was passed to thwart cities like Fayetteville and Eureka Springs that recently have enacted sexual orientation and gender identity nondiscrimination protections. So if Governor Hutchinson allows this bill to take effect, it will amount to a giant, flashing “Gays Stay Away” sign. It will block sincere local efforts to show that Arkansas communities are welcoming places beckoning talent, innovation and workforce diversity. It will do precisely what Arizona’s Governor Brewer decided to avoid last year when she vetoed that state’s “discrimination as religion” bill.

Recalling Colorado's fatally flawed Amendment 2, which years ago explicitly targeted lesbians, gay men and bisexuals (and not heterosexuals), many are asking whether SB 202 is a similarly unconstitutional denial of equal protection. When the Supreme Court struck down Amendment 2 in Romer v. Evans, it underscored that the case record revealed anti-gay "animus" propelling the popular vote and no legitimate government reasons for precluding local nondiscrimination protections for LGBT people, and for no one else.

It is that manifest and dangerously discriminatory purpose that causes so many to call out the equal protection problem at the heart of SB 202. Every lawmaker who voted for this bill has taken an oath to uphold both the Arkansas Constitution and the United States Constitution. Both charters contain equal protection guarantees. Governor Hutchinson has taken that oath as well. He also has pledged to shepherd the State's economy. We call on him to honor both commitments by vetoing SB 202.

C-SPAN: Brian Brown Vs Lambda Legal

Brian Brown appeared on C-SPAN's Washington Journal this morning to debate Lambda Legal litigation director Susan Sommer. As you'd expect, much of the discussion centered on Alabama and Roy Moore. Brown says that it's "absurd" to believe that the 14th Amendment creates the right to marry "out of thin air." Also: polygamy! The clip is not embeddable and can been seen here. Start at the 5:00 mark. (Tipped by JMG reader Bill)

INDIANA: Plaintiff In Same-Sex Marriage Case Dies Of Ovarian Cancer

Via the Indianapolis Star:

Niki Quasney (left), the Munster woman who, along with her wife Amy Sandler, became one of the most prominent figures in the movement last year to legalize same-sex marriage in Indiana, has died. She was 38. Quasney passed away Thursday, more than five years after she was diagnosed with ovarian cancer. Quasney and Sandler attracted national attention last spring, when a federal judge granted an emergency request to recognize their Massachusetts marriage, a decision that made them the first — and for a time, only — legally married same-sex couple in the state. The order paved the way for widespread recognition of same-sex couples in Indiana. “Niki and Amy and their daughters became Indiana’s first family when they bravely joined Lambda Legal’s marriage case, which meant openly sharing very personal and painful parts of their journey together as Niki battled cancer,” Paul Castillo, the Lambda Legal attorney who represented the couple, said in a statement.

(Tipped by JMG reader Matt)

GEORGIA: Marriage Case Put On Hold

From Lambda Legal's brief:

Plaintiffs have conferred with counsel for Defendants Deborah Aderhold and Monica Fenton (“Defendants”) and are informed that those Defendants would seek at least four months of discovery were the case to proceed. Accordingly, Obergefell will be argued – and likely decided – well before the parties could finish discovery and then proceed to dispositive motions for the Court. Since Obergefell will likely significantly reshape the issues for discovery, and may decide this case, and given the discovery that Defendants believe is necessary, Plaintiffs believe that proceeding with the case before Obergefell is decided would not serve the interests of efficiency or judicial economy.

Lambda Legal: What If We Lose?

"If the Supreme Court were to rule in the cases in which it today granted review that the U.S. Constitution does not protect same-sex couples' right to marry and does not require states to respect marriages same-sex couples lawfully have entered in other jurisdictions, a number of issues would arise.

"With respect to same-sex couples who already have married as a result of court rulings, Lambda Legal strongly believes -- as a federal district court in Michigan ruled just yesterday with respect to marriages entered in that state before the 6th Circuit's adverse ruling -- that those marriages will remain valid and will need to continue to be respected by the states in which those marriages were entered. Nonetheless, the validity of those couples' marriages may be challenged and those couples may want to take additional steps (such as executing wills, durable health care powers of attorney, and securing second parent adoptions) to provide them and their families extra peace of mind and security.

"With respect to whether same-sex couples would be able to marry and would have their marriages respected in other states, that would vary from state to state. States in which marriage equality was achieved by a ruling under the state's constitution, by legislative reform, or at the ballot box, would be unaffected. Unmarried same-sex couples in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee (the states whose marriage laws the Supreme Court today agreed to review) would be forced to seek reform through the political process. States in which a final judgment has been obtained in federal court would be required to continue to allow same-sex couples to marry and to respect out-of-state marriages entered by same-sex couples unless and until someone with standing makes a motion to reopen the judgment and that motion is granted (unless stays are properly obtained before then). In some states, there may be no one with standing interested in seeking to set aside the existing judgment. Same-sex couples in states in which a judgment is on appeal or can still be appealed whose judgments have not been stayed should be able to continue to marry and to have their out-of-state marriages honored by the state until the existing judgment is stayed or reversed.

"There's no question that it would be a mess. This is one additional reason why the Supreme Court should reverse the 6th Circuit's aberrant decision and hold that same-sex couples, like all other couples, share the fundamental right to marry and that it violates federal guarantees of equality and liberty to refuse to allow them to marry or to deny recognition to the marriages they lawfully have entered in other states." - Jon Davidson, legal director for Lambda Legal, via email.

LGBT Rights Groups React To SCOTUS

Freedom To Marry

"The Supreme Court's decision today begins what we hope will be the last chapter in our campaign to win marriage nationwide - and it's time," said Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry. "Freedom to Marry's national strategy has been to build a critical mass of marriage states and critical mass of support for ending marriage discrimination, and after a long journey and much debate, America is ready for the freedom to marry. But couples are still discriminated against in 14 states, and the patchwork of discrimination harms families and businesses throughout the country. We will keep working hard to underscore the urgency of the Supreme Court's bringing the country to national resolution, so that by June, all Americans share in the freedom to marry and our country stands on the right side of history."

People For The American Way

“This is unquestionably an important step towards marriage equality for all Americans,” said Michael Keegan, President of People For the American Way Foundation. “Since the Sixth Circuit got this wrong and denied people in four states their basic rights, the Supreme Court did the right thing by taking these cases. Now the Court needs to do the right thing by making a clear statement about the Constitution’s guarantee of fundamental equality for all people. The time is long overdue for every American to have the right to marry the person they love.” “That said, this is likely to be yet another five-four decision from the Court that gave us Citizens United and Hobby Lobby and gutted the Voting Rights Act. That should be a reminder that our fundamental rights are in jeopardy in our nation’s highest court— and the future of the Court and these rights will be in the next President's hands. Americans should be able to depend on the Supreme Court to defend the rights of ordinary Americans—whether that’s the right to marry, or to vote, or to be treated fairly on the job, or to control their own reproductive health.

National Center For Lesbian Rights

The Tennessee plaintiff couples are Dr. Valeria Tanco and Dr. Sophy Jesty of Knoxville; Army Reserve Sergeant First Class Ijpe DeKoe and Thom Kostura of Memphis; and Matthew Mansell and Johno Espejo of Franklin. They are represented by Shannon Minter, Christopher F. Stoll, and David C. Codell of the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), Tennessee attorneys Abby Rubenfeld, Maureen Holland, and Regina Lambert, and the law firms of Sherrard & Roe PLC and Ropes & Gray LLP. Today’s decision follows the couples’ request that the Supreme Court hear the case to ensure that the marriages of same-sex couples are treated equally across the country. “This is an important day because it means that our family will finally have an opportunity to share our story with the Court and explain how this discriminatory law hurts us each day,” said Tanco, who has a young daughter with Jesty. “We live in fear for ourselves and our little girl because we don’t have the same legal protections in Tennessee as other families. We are hopeful the Supreme Court will resolve this issue so we no longer need to live in fear.”

Lambda Legal

The U.S. Supreme Court today announced it has granted review of all six marriage equality cases decided by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, including two Ohio cases litigated by Lambda Legal, the ACLU and Gerhardstein & Branch. The two cases are Henry v. Hodges, where Lambda Legal joined Gerhardstein & Branch, and Obergefell v. Hodges, where the ACLU joined Gerhardstein & Branch. Oral argument is expected to take place later this year. “After years of struggle and the dedicated work of thousands across the movement, we are finally within sight of the day when same-sex couples across the country will be able to share equally in the joys, protections and responsibilities of marriage,” said Jon W. Davidson, Legal Director and Eden/Rushing Chair at Lambda Legal. “While these cases will carry the marriage standard before the Supreme Court, they represent literally dozens of cases in state and federal courts nationwide and the collective effort of Lambda Legal, NCLR, the ACLU, GLAD, and other sister LGBT groups and private (often pro-bono) counsel dating back years.”

ACLU

The American Civil Liberties Union and Stanford Law School Supreme Court Litigation Clinic are co-counsel in the two Kentucky cases, Bourke v. Beshear and Love v. Beshear, brought by lawyers at Clay Daniel Walton & Adams and the Fauver Law Office. These cases challenge Kentucky’s anti-marriage laws on the ground that they violate due process and equal protection provisions of the U.S. Constitution. The ACLU along with Lambda Legal and Gerhardstein & Branch are also co-counsel in the Ohio case, Obergefell, et al v. Hodges. “We are thrilled the court will finally decide this issue,” said James Esseks, director of the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender & HIV Project. “The country is ready for a national solution that treats lesbian and gay couples fairly. Every single day we wait means more people die before they have a chance to marry, more children are born without proper protections, more people face medical emergencies without being able to count on recognition of their spouses. It is time for the American values of freedom and equality to apply to all couples.”

GEORGIA: Marriage Lawsuit Advances

Via press release from Lambda Legal:

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ruled today to allow Lambda Legal’s case challenging Georgia’s discriminatory marriage ban to proceed. The case was filed on behalf of four same-sex couples and the surviving spouse of a fifth couple -- Christopher Inniss and Shelton Stroman of Snellville, Rayshawn Chandler and Avery Chandler of Jonesboro, Michael Bishop and Shane Thomas of Atlanta, Beth and Krista Wurz of Brunswick and Jennifer Sisson of Decatur.

"We are delighted that the Court will allow this case to continue. We look forward to our day in court to demonstrate Georgia’s marriage ban is unconstitutional and relegates the state’s same-sex couples to a second-class status that keeps them and their families vulnerable," said Tara Borelli, Senior Attorney in Lambda Legal’s Southern Regional Office based in Atlanta.

"Today, after the blizzard of rulings over the last few months, Georgia now finds itself in the minority of states continuing to enforce these discriminatory marriage bans.” Borelli said. “Surely, Georgia state officials must see the writing on the wall. Georgians believe in the Southern values of love, honor and family, but as long as the State of Georgia continues to bar same-sex couples from marriage, it devalues these families and reinforces unfairness and discrimination. These families need marriage equality and should not have to live with a law that treats them as inferior."

But the news isn't entirely good. Via the Los Angeles Times:

A Georgia federal judge disagreed with nearly every legal argument by four same-sex couples and the surviving member of a fifth couple seeking to marry, but nevertheless found that he could not dismiss their case. U.S. District Judge William S. Duffey Jr. said in an opinion issued late Thursday that the couples do not have a fundamental right to marry a person of the same sex, but he disagreed that Georgia’s “interests in child welfare and procreation are advanced by the state’s prohibition on same-sex marriages.” The state filed a motion in August seeking to have the cased tossed out. Duffey's ruling means the Georgia case can proceed to trial. But much of his decision centered on the deficiencies of the same-sex couples’ arguments. He declined, for instance, to “extrapolate a fundamental right to marry a person of the same sex. … The court concludes that the Supreme Court’s decisions regarding the fundamental right to marry are confined to members of the opposite sex—a conclusion that is confirmed by the decisions of the Supreme Court.”

Read the ruling.

Lambda Legal: End HIV Criminalization

Via press release:

On World AIDS Day 2014, Lambda Legal urges those tasked with enforcing U.S. criminal law - from governors to prosecutors to police detectives - to halt the criminal prosecution of people based on their HIV status, thereby assisting efforts to combat the misconceptions, fear, stereotypes, discrimination and stigma faced by people living with HIV that fuel the epidemic in the U.S. and around the world.

HIV criminalization is a striking example of how misinformation, stereotypes and unfounded fears affect people living with HIV and of the government engaging in discrimination that perpetuates these stigmatizing messages. Imposing unjustified and unnecessary criminal prohibitions on people with HIV has led to a society where people are - among other forms of oppression - imprisoned, classified as felons and forced to register as sex offenders, based on outdated and inaccurate information regarding HIV.

We have not come nearly far enough in educating the public about HIV and in reducing stigma and discrimination. Fear and ignorance about HIV and discrimination against people living with HIV remains a serious problem that both marginalizes people and poses barriers to treatment and care.

Lambda Legal remains committed to securing equal protection and equal rights for this community - because living with HIV is not a crime. Lambda Legal's commitment to fighting HIV and AIDS stigma and discrimination began more than twenty-five years ago in 1983 when we filed the nation's first challenge to AIDS discrimination and helped secure a court order stopping the efforts of neighbors to evict a doctor from his offices because he treated HIV-positive patients.

That commitment remains strong today. People living with HIV have a right to work and live free from discrimination, and laws, policies and other governmental actions should be based on sound science rather than fear and bias.

RELATED:  In June, Lambda Legal won a case before the Iowa Supreme Court which reversed the conviction of an HIV+ man who had initially been sentenced to 25 years in prison for not disclosing his status before having a one-time sexual encounter during which he used a condom. The ruling came one month of Iowa reformed its laws on infectious disease exposure and transmission. Deliberate intent to infect the other person must now be proven.

LGBT Groups Disappointed With President Obama's Plan For Immigration Reform

Via press release from Lambda Legal:

While we praise President Obama’s efforts to do what is in his executive power to improve immigration, we are deeply disappointed that his plan unfairly excludes many members of the LGBT community. President Obama’s plan allows immigrants who have children who are citizens or lawful permanent residents to obtain legal work documents and temporarily be protected from deportation. We urge President Obama to undertake reforms that are more LGBT-inclusive, such as recognizing length of residency as a stand-alone qualification. Thousands of LGBT immigrants, many who have fled countries where LGBT people are unprotected and subjected to horrific abuse and violence, have been waiting for humane immigration reform for years due to Congressional inaction and cannot afford to wait any longer.

This effort by the President does not absolve Congress of its responsibility to provide a permanent fix to our outdated immigration system so that it is fair to all the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the US today, waiting to be fully American. So while we commend this order for providing much-needed immediate relief to many undocumented immigrants, we note that requiring individuals to have children disproportionately excludes LGBT immigrants who are childless because the barriers to creating a family are higher for people who cannot afford assisted reproduction or are disqualified from adoption by antigay laws. We need a plan that recognizes community ties and longtime residency.

From the National Center for Lesbian Rights:

We welcome today’s announcement as a first step towards repairing a broken and discriminatory immigration system that has victimized undocumented immigrants and their families, including at least 267,000 undocumented people who identify as LGBT. We applaud the vision and courage of our President in making good on his promise to act on immigration reform. We know that this is a first step and we are gratified that many of the cruel policies of the past will be replaced with more humane and effective strategies. However, we remain deeply concerned that the plan leaves out too many LGBT immigrant families. LGBT families are less likely to have legally recognized or biological relationships with each other, and thus relief based wholly on familial ties will exclude too many LGBT families. In addition, many of the restrictions requiring consistent employment and limiting access for people with non-violent criminal histories will disproportionately impact LGBT immigrants, especially in the transgender community.

LOUISIANA: Lambda Legal Files Appeal Of Marriage Ruling To Supreme Court

Via Lambda Legal:

Lambda Legal and the lawyers representing Forum for Equality Louisiana and seven same-sex Louisiana couples today asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review September’s U.S. District Court ruling upholding Louisiana’s discriminatory marriage ban. The groups are seeking U.S. Supreme Court review in advance of the hearing in the case, Robicheaux v. Caldwell, before the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals scheduled for January. “The ruling from the lower court in this case is a time-warped reading of the Constitution and neglects developments in the law, including since the Supreme Court’s decision in Windsor,” said Lambda Legal Senior Counsel Kenneth D. Upton, Jr. “We have seen a blizzard of well-reasoned rulings in recent months holding similarly discriminatory bans unconstitutional, including rulings out of the Fourth, Seventh, Ninth and Tenth Circuits Courts of Appeal. We are asking for the Supreme Court’s review now while it is considering the Sixth Circuit decision because together these cases present the full gamut of aberrant arguments supporting these discriminatory bans, and, in Louisiana specifically, present in one state a case covering both the right of same-sex couples to marry, and for legally married same-sex couples to have those marriages recognized.

Read the appeal.

BREAKING: Fourth Circuit Court DENIES Marriage Stay For South Carolina

UPDATE: Lambda Legal reacts via press release:

Today, the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied the State of South Carolina’s motion to stay last week’s U.S. District Court ruling striking down the state’s discriminatory marriage ban, setting the stage for marriages to begin for same-sex couples at Noon on Thursday, November 20. South Carolina’s Attorney General filed a motion for an emergency stay to delay marriages following a ruling by the U. S. District Court for the District of South Carolina striking down the state’s discriminatory marriage ban in accordance with the Fourth Circuit’s earlier decision striking down a similar ban in Virginia.

"The end game is clear - marriage will soon be available for same-sex couples in South Carolina. This is a great victory for same-sex couples and their families because it removes one more hurdle to finally walking down the aisle," said Beth Littrell, Senior Attorney in Lambda Legal’s Southern Regional Office based in Atlanta. “We urge the Attorney General to stop trying to delay the inevitable - their actions are damaging to families they were elected to protect,” said South Carolina Equality lawyer Malissa Burnette, partner at Callison Tighe & Robinson. “We are ecstatic as we get ready to go pick up our license at Noon on Thursday,” said Lambda Legal client Colleen Condon.

OHIO: Lambda Legal And ACLU Jointly Petition SCOTUS For Marriage Review

Lambda Legal and the ACLU are first in the coming wave of demands that SCOTUS review last week's ruling by the Sixth Circuit Court.  From their Ohio petition:

These cases are about love, from birth to death. The relationships at the heart of each case involve the love spouses share, with each other and with the children they jointly raise, and the love that survives the death of a spouse. This enduring love has prompted this Court to hold that “choices about marriage” belong to the individual and are “sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.” Yet, despite this Court’s unequivocal insistence that the Fourteenth Amendment encompasses a fundamental right to marry “for all individuals,” Ohio singles out the lawful marriages of lesbians and gay men and treats them as invalid, turning members of these committed families into legal strangers. By disrespecting their marriages, Ohio has done more than deny petitioners basic legal rights to which they are entitled. It has treated Petitioners as second-class citizens whose most intimate relationships have been denied the dignity and respect they deserve.

Read the full petition.

SOUTH CAROLINA: Federal Court Could Rule On Marriage Case By November 3rd

Via the Post & Courier:

A lawsuit filed by two Charleston women seeking to bring gay marriage to South Carolina will move more quickly after a federal judge on Friday denied an attorney's request for extra time to file responses and after attorneys agreed not to pursue hearings that could have delayed the case. That means U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel could rule as early as Nov. 3 in a lawsuit filed last week by Charleston County Councilwoman Colleen Condon and her partner, Nichols Bleckley. They contend the state must allow them to marry following the U.S. Supreme Court's Oct. 6 refusal to review an appellate case overturning Virginia's gay marriage ban. Late Wednesday, Bleckley and Condon requested a temporary injunction prohibiting state officials from enforcing the state's constitutional ban on gay marriage. That would open the state's doors to same-sex marriages.

The case above was filed by Lambda Legal and South Carolina Equality. A separate case filed last year by private lawyers remains pending.