Billboard Of The Day

Via Pink News:

A local radio host is taking aim at Caitlyn Jenner’s transition on a new billboard ad – in a town where a trans woman was nearly beaten to death last year. Denny Schaffer, whose show airs on Star 105.5 in Toledo, Ohio, is pictured on the billboard imitating the Olympian’s Vanity Fair cover, on which she unveiled her new identity. The caption reads: “Transition to Star 105.5 and don’t call me Caitlyn.” However some of the local trans community have slammed the station, given just last November a trans woman was attacked in broad daylight and nearly beaten to death in the town. Candice Milligan, 33, was punched, kicked, and robbed of her mobile phone in downtown Toledo, by three male perpetrators who screamed derogatory abuse.

The station is capitalizing on the controversy by inviting listeners to call in and say whether the billboard should come down.

RELATED: Viewership nose-dived this week for the second episode of Jenner's reality show.

Jenner, the former athlete whose transgender journey is probably the most famous in the world, has lost half her audience in the second week of the show. It drew 1.3 million cable viewers on Sunday night, down from 2.7 million for the premiere. The second episode's ratings are lower than for any episode of Keeping Up With the Kardashians, on which Jenner originally starred, according to The Hollywood Reporter. "The series opened to lofty ratings expectations, thanks in big part to the record highs Jenner brought to 20/20 with her exclusive April sit-down with Diane Sawyer," it says of I Am Cait. Variety attributes the 53 per cent drop for the latest episode to "curious viewers" failing to have an appetite for more of the show, which is about the transformation of Jenner from Bruce to Caitlin.

Janet Porter: Demand That Ohio Requests Rehearing Of Obergefell By SCOTUS

"Are you upset about what the Supreme Court did to marriage? Now, there’s something you can do about it. We can ask the court to rehear the case because two justices violated the federal law which states, 'Any justice… of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.' [28 U.S. Code § 455] Justices Kagan and Ginsburg both officiated homosexual so-called weddings, which disqualifies them from ruling on the case. Ask Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine to file a motion for rehearing the marriage case at: 800-282-0515 because it was illegally rendered. Ask him to call for a motion for rehearing the case." - Janet Porter, writing for BarbWire.

RELATED: Porter's recent anti-gay film features Rand Paul, Mike Huckabee, and Theodore Shoebat, the latter of whom has called for executing all homosexuals and all Christians who support same-sex marriage.

OHIO: Defendant In Obergefell V Hodges Attends Same-Sex Wedding

Via the Cleveland Plain Dealer:

Rick Hodges, head of Ohio's Department of Health and named defendant in the landmark case that ended last week with the U.S. Supreme Court legalizing gay marriage nationwide, gave a Bible reading Thursday at a gay wedding. Hodges stood at the Columbus nuptials of Steve George and Jeff Gatwood. "Steve's been my friend for 25 years, and I am looking forward to celebrating with him," Hodges said by telephone shortly before the ceremony began.

A number of top Republicans, including Gov. John Kasich and his wife, Karen, were on hand for the celebration. It's the wedding Kasich mentioned earlier this year when asked by a reporter if he would attend a gay wedding. Kasich, who will announce his candidacy for president this month, has said he was disappointed in the Supreme Court ruling and believes that marriage is between a man and woman.

Obergefell v. Hodges combined six lawsuits filed by 32 couples, widowers and children in four states that don't recognize gay marriage, including Ohio. Several Ohio plaintiffs in the case -- including James Obergefell of Cincinnati -- were widowed after being married in other states and wanted to be listed as surviving spouse on their partners' death certificates. Others filed suit over losing marital protections when they moved to states that didn't recognize their unions.

(Tipped by JMG reader Lynne)

First Grader Faces Down Street Preacher

"Zea faces down a fire and brimstone street preacher, at a festival in Columbus, the day after the SCOTUS marriage equality ruling." 230K views already.

(Tipped by JMG reader Ray)

SCOTUS RULES FOR MARRIAGE!!!

Ohio Governor: I'll Obey SCOTUS

Tweet Of The Day - Big Gay Ice Cream

Big Gay Ice Cream has two Manhattan locations, one in Philadelphia, and one about to open in Los Angeles.

Matt Baume: Marriage News Watch

"We'll have oral argument before the Supreme Court this week. Ted Cruz has introduced two new bills in Congress to stop marriage, but they may backfire on him. And the National Organization for Marriage has lost yet another court case."

Ohio Gov. John Kasich: I'm Waiting For God To Tell Me To Run For President

Unlike in 2012 when such claims were made by Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann, and Rick Santorum, so far none of the declared GOP presidential candidates have explicitly said that God told them to run for president. That may soon change. Politico reports:

Ohio Gov. John Kasich continued to signal his increasing interest in running for president Sunday, saying he’s waiting for a signal from God before making the call. “My family is a consideration,” the Republican governor said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “Number two, the most important thing is, what does the Lord want me to do with my life?” While he awaits that clarity, Kasich said he’s been active on the trail just in case. “I’m not going to figure [it] out laying in bed, hoping lightning strikes,” he said.

Washington Post Profiles Main SCOTUS Same-Sex Marriage Plaintiff Jim Obergefell

Via the Washington Post:

Jim Obergefell cannot fathom hearing his name mentioned alongside Brown or Roe. For one thing, he knows people will mispronounce it. (It’s Oh-ber-guh-fell.) And he never wanted to be the face of a movement or a legal groundbreaker. “I’m just Jim,” he said. “I just stood up for our marriage.”

It was not a long marriage, just three months and 11 days — the time it took his husband, John Arthur, to struggle to say, “I thee wed,” and then die from ALS. Now their union, and the 20-year relationship that preceded it, is at the center of Obergefell v. Hodges, the title case of four consolidated appeals the Supreme Court will hear this month to decide whether gay couples have a constitutional right to marry.

For Obergefell, the case is simply about that tricky-to-pronounce name: He wants it on Arthur’s death certificate as the surviving spouse, an idea the state of Ohio, where same-sex marriage is illegal, opposes. Should Obergefell win, history books will probably take a more expansive view of his quest.

Hit the link and read the rest. You might need a tissue.

Matt Baume: Marriage News Watch

Clip recap: "Michigan says that they don't want to let gay people get married because that would be demeaning to gay people. Kentucky says that their marriage ban isn't discriminatory, since LGBTs are free to get straight-married. Ohio wants to maintain its marriage ban out of concern for the people who voted for it. And Tennessee is just fixated on sex."

Who Will Argue At SCOTUS?

The good guys from all four states headed for SCOTUS gathered in Michigan this weekend where they participated in a mock courtroom hearing to work out who will make oral arguments in the two issues before the court. We might get their decision today. Via Reuters:

Intense negotiations peaked in Ann Arbor, Michigan, on Sunday when contenders involved met for the legal equivalent of a bakeoff, and sources close to the talks said an announcement was likely to come on Tuesday. Front-runners for the two spots appeared to be Mary Bonauto, a prominent gay advocate who has worked for the cause for decades, and Douglas Hallward-Driemeier, a former assistant U.S. solicitor general who is now an appellate specialist in private practice.

At issue before the nine justices on April 28 will be two questions: whether the U.S. Constitution protects a right to same-sex marriage, and if it does not, whether states that ban it must recognize marriages performed in states permitting such unions. It has been difficult to fully assess the tenor of negotiations, since key leaders have declined to talk about the selection process of the two lawyers, one to argue each legal question. Skirmishes often occur in consolidated cases, when multiple parties are on a side but only one lawyer gets a spot at the lectern.

Mary Bonauto is with GLAD and would argue the constitutional issue. Per the above-linked report, Hallward-Driemeier has already been chosen and will argue the recognition issue.

UPDATE: The word is official and both of the above have been selected.

Lawyers for Michigan nurses April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse, who seek to marry in their home state of Michigan, today announced Mary L. Bonauto will represent the team making the case’s oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court on April 28. Bonauto will present arguments for question 1, “Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?”

“I’m humbled to be standing up for the petitioners from Kentucky and Michigan who seek the freedom to marry, along with the Michigan team of Carole Stanyar, Dana Nessel, Ken Mogill, and Robert Sedler, and with support from the other legal teams,” said Mary L. Bonauto, Civil Rights Project Director at Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders. “The road that we’ve all travelled to get here has been built by so many people who believe that marriage is a fundamental right. Same-sex couples should not be excluded from the joy, the security, and the full citizenship signified by that institution. I believe the Court will give us a fair hearing, and I look forward to the day when all LGBT Americans will be able to marry the person they love.”

“April and Jayne’s family, and tens of thousands of families like theirs in Michigan, will be represented by a dynamic litigator who has a history of fighting and winning LGBT rights cases in states and districts across the country,” said Nessel. “We are very pleased that an attorney representing the DeBoer-Rowse family will be addressing the issue of marriage equality for what we hope will be the last time in our nation’s history.”

Douglas Hallward-Driemeier will present oral arguments on behalf of plaintiffs in Ohio and Tennessee for question 2, “Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?”

UPDATE II: Here's their notice to SCOTUS.

States File Their Briefs To SCOTUS

Michigan, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Ohio all filed their marriage ban defense briefs with the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon. Chris Geidner reports at Buzzfeed:

In Michigan, where a same-sex couple wishes to marry and has sued the state, the state filed its brief with the Supreme Court on Friday afternoon, arguing that the Constitution does not require that states allow same-sex couples to marry. “This case is not about the best definition of marriage or any stereotypes about families. Families come in all types, and parents of all types—married or single, gay or straight—love their children,” lawyers for the state write. “This case is about whether the Fourteenth Amendment imposes a single marriage view on all states such that the people have no right to decide. It does not.”

Former Michigan Solicitor General John Bursch has been brought back on board as the counsel of record for the state and will be arguing before the justices in defense of such bans for Michigan and Kentucky on April 28. Tennessee Associate Solicitor General Joseph Whalen will be arguing in defense of recognition bans for Tennessee, Kentucky, and Ohio.  In Ohio, where the state’s law and amendment banning recognition of same-sex couples’ marriages granted elsewhere are being challenged, Attorney General Mike DeWine’s office filed a brief arguing that the marriage issue is best left to the “democratic process” — an argument that formed a significant portion of the appeals court decision upholding the four states’ bans.

Here are all four briefs: Michigan, Kentucky, Tennessee, Ohio. Dig in and excerpt the parts that jump out at you.

The Story Of John Arthur & Jim Obergefell

Chris Geidner has written a wonderful profile of the late John Arthur and his husband Jim Obergefell, whose marriage will take center stage at the Supreme Court next month. Geidner's Buzzfeed piece begins:

The plane was only on the ground a matter of minutes. Just enough time for wedding vows and little else. Jim Obergefell and John Arthur had wanted to marry for a long time. In 2013, after the Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act, they decided this was the time to do it — even though Arthur was very, very ill. He had been diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) in 2011, a fatal neurological disease that paralyzes the body. He was confined to his bed.

The couple could not get married in their home state of Ohio. They could, however, get married in one of the handful of states that did allow same-sex couples to marry. So their wedding took place aboard a small, specially equipped medical plane with two pilots, a nurse, and Arthur’s aunt — she performed the ceremony.

“We landed at Baltimore, sat on the tarmac for a little bit, said ‘I do,’ and 10 minutes later were in the air on the way home,” Obergefell said. The marriage performed there on the tarmac of Baltimore-Washington International Airport has become iconic within the marriage equality movement and beyond, a testament to a couple’s commitment and to the absurd lengths the law required them to undertake for a simple ceremony.

Hit the link and read the full story.

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.

OHIO: Parents Sue Amazon After Son Overdoses On Caffeine Powder

Via the Associated Press:

The parents of an Ohio high-school student who overdosed on caffeine powder last May have filed a lawsuit against Amazon and the powder’s manufacturer, claiming they failed to provide suitable warnings. Doctors caution that people can overdose with ease. Dennis and Katie Stiner of LaGrange, Ohio claim the online retailer sold the Hard Rhino caffeine powder to a classmate of their son. Logan Stiner, 18, was found dead inside the family home last May, after consuming the powder. Medical examination declared the cause of death to be “cardiac arrhythmia and seizure caused by acute caffeine toxicity.” Amazon has declined to comment on the lawsuit, but the company did stop selling Hard Rhino after another man died in Georgia last summer. “Parents should be aware that these products may be attractive to young people,” the Food and Drug Agency said in an advisory issued, in December 2014, urging consumers to “avoid powdered pure caffeine” as it is “nearly impossible to accurately measure” a proper dosage at home.

The Hard Rhino powder has 4700mg of caffeine per teaspoon. An average cup of coffee contains about 320mg.

Freep This Ohio Poll

Right here. (Tipped by JMG reader RFW)

Feds Partner With Cyndi Lauper's True Colors Fund On LGBT Homelessness

Via press release from the True Colors Fund:

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the True Colors Fund are excited to announce the beginning stages of implementation of the LGBTQ Youth Homelessness Prevention Initiative, a first-of-its-kind effort to identify successful strategies to ensure that no young person is left without a home because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. HUD and the True Colors Fund have been working together since 2013 to conceive the elements of the Initiative, which is now ready to be implemented in Harris County, TX and Hamilton County, OH. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning (LGBTQ) youth comprise up to 40% of the homeless youth population in the United States, yet they make up only 5-7% of the general youth population. Family conflict is the most frequently reported reason that young people experience homelessness, and for LGBTQ youth, that conflict is often related to their sexual orientation or gender identity.

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.”