hollingsworth v. perry

As an out gay monk, reverend and private-practice counselor/social worker, I daily witness the impact of Windsor v. United States.
False myths like same-sex parents make poor parents. Fact 2: in June 1967, Loving v. Virginia: Does the Windsor v. United
With or without the Supreme Court's blessing, Americans on both sides of the same-sex marriage debate -- even while they deliberate -- can begin the process of healing now by taking the same high road of tolerance parents demand of their children.
When I call up Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo, they're in the car -- as Katami puts it, "We're running around today." It's all remarkably ordinary in a way, a marked change from the whirlwind June for the two men who, along with another couple, successfully brought Proposition 8 to its knees.
Winning the struggle for marriage equality will require time and energy spent on two separate fronts; discriminatory laws must be fought on both the federal and state levels.
Impact litigation is a suit filed to bring change to the nation when legislatures prove unwilling or unable to act, presenting a chance to change the conversation where ballot measures and bills have hit a wall. It's disruptive, cutting through the noise and the politics and allowing the facts to surface.
I participated in a conference call with the American Foundation for Equal Rights moments after their Supreme Court victory. Speaking on the call are AFER Executive Director Adam Umhoefer; lead co-counsel David Boies; plaintiffs Kris Perry, Sandy Stier, Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo; and others.
When I got married, less than two weeks before the November 2008 election, more than a few straight male friends said, in a tone of irreverence, "What's wrong with gay marriage? If you want to be as miserable as the rest of us, fine." Nearly five years in, I've succumbed to the same schtick.
It's hard to sum up just how incredible this week has been: a Supreme Court victory that will be remembered for decades, rallies all over the country, and redoubled determination to attain full federal equality. Here's a montage of some of the best-of-the-best news coverage.
The realization of being different and the fear of rejections plague us and follow us in every area of our life -- no matter how hard we fight it. It is a rare occasion that takes some of the shame away. June 26, 2013 was one of those occasions.
It is worth remembering that before there was Loving v. Virginia, there was Naim v. Naim and 13 years of activism and action to change hearts and minds.
What is striking about the Windsor opinion is the way the court seems to understand why DOMA is an egregious violation of the constitution's equality guarantee. Words like "demean," "degrade," and "humiliation" do not appear often in Supreme Court opinions in reference to unconstitutional laws.
By simultaneously moving in opposite directions on fundamental principles of civil rights, this Court has torn a hole in our political fabric, and once again left the nation part equal and part unequal.
So much bile has been spewed for so long by those who predicted society's total collapse if gay folk were granted equality under the law -- our simple right to the pursuit of happiness.
I'm going to stop using the term "gay marriage" ever again in my writing. There is no "same-sex" and "opposite-sex" marriage anymore. There is just marriage, period.
Some have argued that the Supreme Court's decision should only affect the two couples who filed suit against Prop 8, or the two counties in which the couples reside, because the suit wasn't brought on behalf of California's same-sex couples as a class. This argument has little merit.
Katami and Zarillo, of Burbank, Calif., have been together since 1998 and were two of the plaintiffs in the case against
The fight for equality in 37 other states continues. But we now have clear direction that the Constitution, in addition to the political process and changing attitudes of the general public, are coalescing in favor of marriage equality across the entire country.
Paul Ryan, a lawyer with the Campaign Legal Center, a campaign finance watchdog group in Washington, D.C., doubted that the