“No one should be denied the opportunity to choose his or her spouse. It is a basic human right and deeply personal decision. Throughout history, we have only moved forward when society has distinguished between traditional values and valueless traditions. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is a valueless tradition that undermines the spirit of love and commitment that couples share and sends the wrong message to society. It is time for its repeal.” Representative Polis, co-sponsor of the Respect for Marriage Act
The freedom to choose whether and whom to marry is a fundamental human right. Being excluded from this right not only deprives same-sex couples of critical legal protections, it also demeans and stigmatizes same-sex relationships and encourages anti-LGBT discrimination. Throughout history, governments have denied the right to marry in order to dehumanize particular groups. Today, the same is true of laws that exclude LGBT people from marriage. While not everyone in our community wishes to marry, everyone deserves the freedom to make this choice. As a community, LGBT people deserve to be treated with equal dignity and respect and to have equal protection of the laws.
NCLR is committed to assuring that LGBT couples who wish to marry are free to do so. As the past few years have dramatically illustrated, the battle to win this freedom will have a lasting impact on the pace and progress of all LGBT civil and human rights in this country—for generations. By demanding fairness and equality for our families, we have changed the terms of the debate and made unprecedented strides. NCLR is at the forefront of this historic fight.
news & opinion
Press Releaase
National Center for Lesbian Rights Applauds Enactment of California Law to Clarify Rights of Same-Sex Couples Married Outside the State
10.27.09—The National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) applauds the passage of California’s SB 54, a bill authored by Senator Mark Leno and signed into law by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on October 11, 2009. SB 54 clarifies the rights and responsibilities of same-sex couples who get married outside of California. NCLR worked closely with Equality California and Senator Leno’s office to support the measure throughout the legislative process, from helping to draft the bill’s language, to testifying at committee hearings, to meeting with the Governor’s staff to answer questions about the bill’s effect.
Statement
Statement from NCLR Executive Director Kate Kendell on Department of Justice Reply Brief in Challenge to the Federal Defense of Marriage Act
08.17.09—The Department of Justice filed its reply brief today in Smelt v. United States, a federal lawsuit challenging the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which excludes same-sex couples from all federal benefits and protections given to heterosexual married couples.
Statement
A Statement from NCLR Legal Director Shannon Minter on the California Supreme Court’s Modification of Its Opinion in Prop 8 Challenge
06.19.09—The California Supreme Court has issued a modified version of its opinion in the cases challenging Proposition 8, to correct a factual error pointed out in a petition filed by NCLR and our co-counsel (Lambda Legal, the ACLU, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, and David Codell) and joined by the City and County of San Francisco. The revised opinion clarifies that the racially discriminatory initiative amendment that was challenged on federal constitutional grounds in Mulkey v. Reitman was also challenged, in a companion case, on the alternative ground that it was an unlawful revision to the California constitution (i.e., the same ground upon which we challenged Prop 8). This correction will be helpful to future courts, as the distinction between an amendment and a revision will continue to be an important issue under California law.
from the docket
Victory! (California)
In re Marriage Cases
NCLR was lead counsel on behalf of same-sex couples, Equality California, and Our Family Coalition in In re Marriage Cases, the marriage equality case decided favorably by the California Supreme Court on May 15, 2008. This was the first decision to hold that same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry and that LGBT people are subject to the highest level of protection under the California Constitution. NCLR’s co-counsel in the case were Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe LLP; Lambda Legal; the ACLU; and the Law Office of David C. Codell.
Victory! (Iowa)
Varnum v. Brien
On April 3, 2009, the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously struck down the 1998 state ban on marriage for same-sex couples.
Victory! (Connecticut)
Kerrigan & Mock v. Connecticut Department of Public Health
The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that the state cannot exclude same-sex couples from marriage. The Court held that preventing same-sex couples from marrying is unconstitutional discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The Court also held that the state’s civil union system for same-sex couples was inherently unequal because civil unions do not provide the same dignity, stature, and respect as marriage.
Respect for Marriage Act (DOMA Repeal Act)
The so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA) was enacted in 1996 amid a wave of anti-gay sentiment and discriminates against same-sex couples by purporting to bar any federal recognition of same-sex couples or individuals who are validly married under state law. Under DOMA, the federal government denies married same-sex couples the rights and benefits provided to married heterosexual couples. DOMA also purports to provide states with the authority to refuse to give full faith and credit to the marriages of same-sex couples from other states.
On September 15, 2009, the Respect for Marriage Act was introduced in the House by Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Chair of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), and Congressman Jared Polis (D-CO). The bill had 87 co-sponsors.
The bill would repeal both sections 2 and 3 of DOMA. Section 2 creates an exception to the full faith and credit clause for married same-sex couples. The Respect for Marriage Act would eliminate that provision, but it would leave each state free to decide whether to recognize marriages of same-sex couples from other states. Section 3 excludes same-sex spouses from all federal benefits and protections, including Social Security survivor benefits, the right to file joint taxes, and the right to petition for permanent residence for a foreign spouse. The Respect for Marriage Act would require that the federal government treat all married couples equally.