Connect with us

Robicheaux et al. – The Little Equality Case That Could

Published

on

var addthis_config = {“data_track_addressbar”:true};

It seems that the fires of Equality are spreading, and like the new SHERMAN of the south, they are burning away the bigoted traditions of old, allowing, once again, FREEDOM to shine through.  It has been an exciting week for LGBT rights across the U.S. particularly in the two southern states of Virginia and Kentucky where in the last two days both states’ bans on marriage equality have been ruled unconstitutional. And if you turn your attention further south you will see more fires raging.

As you well know, we started the marriage equality fight seven months ago on July 16, 2013 filing in Federal Court a lawsuit Robicheaux et al. – challenging Louisiana’s constitutional ban on gay marriage. In my last piece I reported that On Jan. 27, Judge Feldman denied our motion for our two cases (one on appeal and one newly filed in federal court) to be unconsolidated with a notation at the bottom of the order reading, “Both cases are obviously related.”   To read more on the history of our case please refer to my last article.

After much consultation with our lawyer and other experts, we decided to drop the appeal (dealing with sovereign immunity, a lesser issue we can fight another time) in an effort to release the stay of the new case allowing it proceed forward.   On February 7th Judge Feldman granted our motion to add Robert Welles and his Partner Garth Beauregard, removing the brakes that he previously put on the case. Louisiana marriage equality was back in full force with just one case moving forward in federal court.

That was until February 12th.

Just this past Wednesday a local gay rights organization called the Forum for Equality, along with four couples, filed another federal lawsuit challenging Louisiana’s ban on same-sex marriage.  The local New Orleans based Forum and their plaintiffs are challenging the ban citing “equal protection and free speech in the U.S. Constitution”.

According to their website:

“The lawsuit charges that Louisiana’s refusal to recognize same-sex marriages violates the US constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process. The lawsuit also asserts that state officials infringe the couples’ First Amendment rights by requiring them to claim that they are unmarried on state tax returns.”

“Louisiana’s disparate treatment of same-sex and opposite-sex couples who are married outside of Louisiana demonstrates that the purpose of the Louisiana Anti-Recognition Laws is to ‘impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages’ that were lawfully celebrated in other states,” according to the lawsuit, which frequently cites the US Supreme Court’s 2013 decision overturning a portion of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. (United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 12). You can read the complaint here.

Comparing and contrasting our own longstanding suit and what was filed by the forum,  they appear similar in that they both seek to have couples who wed out-of-state recognized here in Louisiana.  One difference that I have found, is that in our latest motion we have added Garth and Robert who were not wed out-of-state, but applied for an in-state marriage license, which was denied.  This addition takes our case one step further by asking not only, for out-of-state marriages to be recognized, but also to allow for same-sex couples to be legally wed here in Louisiana, mirroring most other cases that are currently filed across the United States.

What does this mean in the long run for the two cases? We are not entirely sure.  At my best guess, given Feldman’s history of consolidating our appeal with our current case because of the “obvious relation” of subject matter, I would guess he may very well do the same with the two current cases at hand.   As for us and “our little equality case that could”, we are back on track, adding much-needed wind to this equality fire that is sweeping through the south.  Just this week in our case, one of the defendants, Secretary of Revenue Tim Barfield, has already waived service and now has 60 days to answer, giving him until April 14 to do so.

This track has been a long one and we have been derailed at times, but we will keep pushing forward and fighting for what is TRUE and JUST!

We welcome the Forum and their plaintiffs to our ongoing battle for marriage equality here in Louisiana, as this matter is of the utmost importance to all LGBT families across the state.

As these matters develop you can count that I will keep you up to date on the progress of our case.   You can also follow our case by visiting our website or going to our Facebook page.  Our amended complaint can be found here.

// <![CDATA[
var addthis_config = {“data_track_addressbar”:true};
// ]]>

 

derek penton Derek Penton, 35, is a native of Mississippi and a longtime resident of New Orleans.  He holds degrees in computer information systems and paramedicine.  After more than five years together, Penton and his husband, Jonathan Robicheaux, were legally married in Iowa on Sept. 23, 2012.

 

 

Photos used with permission

There's a reason 10,000 people subscribe to NCRM. You can get the news before it breaks just by subscribing, plus you can learn something new every day.
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

‘Disgraceful’: ICE Slammed After Allegedly Pepper-Spraying US Congresswoman

Published

on

U.S. Rep. Adelita Grijalva (D-AZ) is accusing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents of pepper-spraying her in her face while she was at a local Tucson, Arizona restaurant.

Rep. Grijalva in a video on social media said she saw about 40 mostly-masked ICE agents at a restaurant she frequents weekly.

The agents were “in several vehicles that the community had stopped right here, right in the middle of the street, because they were afraid that they were taking people without due process, without any kind of notice.”

READ MORE: Warning Signs Flash as Trump Slump Raises Fears of 2018 Blue Wave Rerun: Conservative

She said that the community was “protecting their people” when she was “sprayed in the face by a very aggressive agent,” and “pushed around by others when I literally was not being aggressive.”

“I was asking for clarification, which is my right as a member of Congress,” she continued. “So, once I introduced myself, once I did, I assumed that it would be a little calmer, but there was literally only one person that was trying to speak to me in any kind of civil tone, and everyone else was being rude and disrespectful, and I just can only imagine if they’re going to treat me like that, how they’re treating everybody else.”

Congresswoman Grijalva said she saw “people directly sprayed,” including “members of our press” and staff members.

She blasted President Donald Trump, saying that he “has no regard for any due process, the rule of law, the Constitution — they’re literally disappearing people from the streets.”

Critics slammed the agents’ action.

READ MORE: Trump: Democrats Are Plotting ‘Total Obliteration’ of Supreme Court

U.S. Senator Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) wrote that Rep. Grijalva “was doing her job, standing up for her community.”

“Pepper-spraying a sitting member of Congress is disgraceful, unacceptable, and absolutely not what we voted for. Period,” he added.

“This is unacceptable and outrageous,” observed Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes. “Enforcing the rule [of] law does not mean pepper spraying a member of Congress for simply asking questions. Effective law enforcement requires restraint and accountability, not unchecked aggression.”

The Bulwark’s Sam Stein noted, “quite the beginning for Grijalva, who wasn’t seated for weeks, [cast] the decisive vote to get the Epstein files, and now has apparently been pepper sprayed in the face by immigration agents.”

Also calling the action “outrageous,” U.S. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) wrote: “We are Members of Congress with oversight authority of ICE. Rep Grijalva was completely within her rights to stand up for her constituents. ICE is completely lawless.”

“First they tackle a sitting Senator,” noted U.S. Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-NY). “Now they’re pepper spraying a Representative. It’s clear ICE is spinning out of control. We will hold the agency accountable.”

READ MORE: Trump’s Ballroom Seen as ‘Key Evidence’ He’s Out of Touch as Cost of Living Spikes

 

Image via Reuters 

Continue Reading

News

Warning Signs Flash as Trump Slump Raises Fears of 2018 Blue Wave Rerun: Conservative

Published

on

A well-known conservative commentator has a warning for the Republican Party: take action now or face a repeat of the 2018 midterms when the GOP lost 41 House seats in a landslide. And this time, he says, the Senate could go to the Democrats as well.

Award-winning writer and journalist Bernard Goldberg reminded readers at The Hill that in 2018, during President Donald Trump’s first term, “Republicans got walloped … and a good chunk of that had President Trump’s name written all over it.”

Trump’s “approval ratings were in the low 40s, and independents — the folks who usually decide elections — had seen enough. They broke hard for the Democrats,” Goldberg noted. “Now here we are, staring down 2026, and you can almost hear history clearing its throat, getting ready to repeat itself.”

READ MORE: Trump: Democrats Are Plotting ‘Total Obliteration’ of Supreme Court

Goldberg noted that Trump’s approval rating is currently the lowest it’s been this term.

“Among Republicans, his support dropped from 91 percent right after the 2024 election to 84 percent last month. Among independents, it cratered — from 42 percent to just 25 percent.”

“If the trend continues,” he warned, “Republicans could be headed for another blue wave — and this time, it could wash away not just the House majority, but control of the Senate too.”

Why?

“It’s the economy — still,” he wrote.

“Trump is out there saying the economy is humming. Biden said the same thing before him. But voters didn’t buy it then, and they’re not buying it now. Why? Because it’s not GDP numbers that matter. It’s affordability,” Goldberg noted.

READ MORE: Trump’s Ballroom Seen as ‘Key Evidence’ He’s Out of Touch as Cost of Living Spikes

That’s a word that President Trump continues to call a “con job,” while his own administration tries to claim he is focused on.

He pointed to a Karl Rove Wall Street Journal column and wrote: “The Republicans may have ‘avoided disaster’ in Tennessee, but the result should be a wake-up call for Republicans. He’s right.”

Goldberg asked: “will anyone in the Republican Party actually pick up the phone?”

“Because if Republicans don’t wake up — and fast — they’re going to find out the hard way what happens when you keep rerunning the same movie and expecting a different ending. To lose in 2026, all they have to do is nothing. And right now, that’s pretty much what they’re doing.”

READ MORE: Trump Urges Judge Aileen Cannon to Keep Jack Smith Report Secret

 

 

Continue Reading

News

Trump: Democrats Are Plotting ‘Total Obliteration’ of Supreme Court

Published

on

President Donald Trump is claiming that the top priority of Democrats is the “total obliteration” of the U.S. Supreme Court. His remarks came just hours after SCOTUS gave Republicans a 6-3 win along partisan lines, in the form of approving Texas’s redrawn mid-decade congressional maps that could help add five GOP-held seats to the U.S. House of Representatives. A lower court had ruled the redrawn Texas maps were likely racially biased.

Although there are different ways to measure, one study by Court Accountability this fall found that the Supreme Court has ruled in Trump’s favor 90% of the time.

“Most of these wins for the president came from the court’s ‘shadow docket’ slate of opinions — where the court has typically, in the past, only ruled on administrative measures,” according to Truthout. “However, in recent years, the Supreme Court has been making announcements on cases, issuing injunctions or allowances of actions to remain in place, that have the same effect, essentially, as a final decision.”

READ MORE: White House Touts Trump’s ‘Track Record’ on Affordability

On Friday, the president declared that the “Democrats number one policy push is the complete and total OBLITERATION of our great United States Supreme Court.”

“They will do this on their very first day in office, through the simple Termination of the Filibuster, SHOULD THEY WIN THE UPCOMING ELECTIONS,” he wrote.

Trump has strongly advocated for Republicans to eliminate the Senate filibuster.

“The Radical Left Democrats are looking at 21 Justices, with immediate ascension,” he wrote, claiming that Democrats would more than double the current size of the court.

“This would be terrible for our Country. Fear not, however, Republicans will not let it, or any of their other catastrophic policies, happen. Our Country is now in very good hands. MAGA!!!”

Some court reform advocates have suggested the Supreme Court be expanded to 13 justices, one for each of the thirteen U.S. Courts of Appeals.

READ MORE: Trump’s Ballroom Seen as ‘Key Evidence’ He’s Out of Touch as Cost of Living Spikes

 

Image via Reuters 

 

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.