Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

ACLU Announces Three Marriage Lawsuits

Jim Burroway

July 9th, 2013

Fresh off its victory in Windsor v. U.S. which struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional, the ACLU’s is filing three more lawsuits, in Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Virginia. In Whitewood v. Corbett, the ACLU is challenging Pennsylvania’s statute which bans same-sex marriage. In Fisher-Borne v. Smith, the ACLU will amend its lawsuit seeking adoption rights to include the right to marriage. In the Virginia case, the ACLU and Lambda Legal are still in the planning stages, with plaintiffs and precise details of the case still being worked out. They expect to file that lawsuit later this summer.

Meanwhile, the ACLU and the National Center for Lesbian Rights have filed a motion with the New Mexico Supreme Court, asking it to order state officials to allow same-sex couples to marry. State law is currently silent on the question. Other lawsuits are working their way through Arkansas, Hawaii, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey and Michigan.



Lindoro Almaviva
July 9th, 2013 | LINK

Poor NOM, when it rains, it is a hurricane.

Mens sana
July 9th, 2013 | LINK

New Mexico also has two additional lawsuits in the works, one in Santa Fe County, the other out of Albuquerque. Both are citing the equal protection argument and both are requesting immediate attention by the State Supreme Court. The SC has requested arguments from both parties by July 22, though no date for a hearing has been set.

Interesting days!

July 10th, 2013 | LINK

I am sending the ACLU a big contribution TODAY!

Regan DuCasse
July 14th, 2013 | LINK

Yep, the smart kids in the class who have paid attention to all the other states and the basis for their bans, know that these bans have no more defense than DOMA or 8 did.
Taken apart, all of the defenses wouldn’t be Constitutional. There are several tenets of the Constitution that are violated, just by any of these bans existing at all.
But the three basis reasons for discrimination, aren’t legal against any heterosexuals in the same situation.
And further, there were pleas in Minnesota to add protections to those serving the public outside of houses of worship, that want to be able to refuse to serve gay people behind their freedom of religion rights.
It’s almost laughable how those who defend this don’t want to be called haters or bigots.
I don’t know why they wouldn’t think that “We don’t want to serve their kind”, had any OTHER interpretation.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.