Showing posts with label aclu. Show all posts
Showing posts with label aclu. Show all posts
Friday, June 26, 2015
VICTORY! LAW OF THE LAND!
Same-Sex Marriage Is a Right, Supreme Court Rules, 5-4
By ADAM LIPTAKJUNE 26, 2015 NEW YORK TIMES
WASHINGTON — In a long-sought victory for the gay rights movement, the Supreme Court ruled on Friday that the Constitution guarantees a nationwide right to same-sex marriage.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in the 5 to 4 decision. He was joined by the court’s four more liberal justices.
The decision, the culmination of decades of litigation and activism, came against the backdrop of fast-moving changes in public opinion, with polls indicating that most Americans now approve of same-sex marriage.
Justice Kennedy said gay and lesbian couples have a fundamental right to marry.
“No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family,” he wrote. “In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were.”
“It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage,” Justice Kennedy said of the couples challenging state bans on same-sex marriage. “Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.”
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., in a dissent joined by Justice Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, said the Constitution has nothing to say on the subject.
“If you are among the many Americans — of whatever sexual orientation — who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote. “Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.”
In a second dissent, Justice Scalia mocked Justice Kennedy’s soaring language.
Full Article Here
Labels:
aclu,
civil rights,
doma,
Edith Windsor,
Law,
lgbt,
missouri,
SCOTUS,
victory
Monday, October 6, 2014
AG KOSTER BACKS MARRIAGE!
![]() |
| Missouri Attorney General Cris Koster |
Attorney General Koster's statement on his decision not to appeal in Barrier v. Vasterling
Jefferson City, Mo. – Attorney General Chris Koster today released the following statement:
"The circuit court's judgment in Barrier v. Vasterling held that Missouri must recognize marriages lawfully entered into in other states. We will not appeal that judgment. Our national government is founded upon principles of federalism – a system that empowers Missouri to set policy for itself, but also obligates us to honor contracts entered into in other states.
A consequence of this morning's ruling by the United States Supreme Court is that gay marriage will soon be legal in as many as 30 states. At a time when Missouri is competing to attract the nation's premier businesses and most talented employees, we should not demand that certain individuals surrender their marriage licenses in order to live and work among us. Missouri's future will be one of inclusion, not exclusion."
"The circuit court's judgment in Barrier v. Vasterling held that Missouri must recognize marriages lawfully entered into in other states. We will not appeal that judgment. Our national government is founded upon principles of federalism – a system that empowers Missouri to set policy for itself, but also obligates us to honor contracts entered into in other states.
A consequence of this morning's ruling by the United States Supreme Court is that gay marriage will soon be legal in as many as 30 states. At a time when Missouri is competing to attract the nation's premier businesses and most talented employees, we should not demand that certain individuals surrender their marriage licenses in order to live and work among us. Missouri's future will be one of inclusion, not exclusion."
Friday, October 3, 2014
SHOW ME VICTORY!
![]() |
| J. Dale Youngs, a Jackson County, Missouri circuit court judge. Photo by Christian Gooden, cgooden@post-dispatch.com |
KANSAS CITY, Mo. — Oct 3, 2014, 4:51 PM ET
By BILL DRAPER Associated Press
Missouri must recognize the marriages of same-sex couples legally performed in other states, a state judge ruled Friday, saying the state's constitution and laws banning the unions are unconstitutional.
The order by Jackson County Circuit Judge J. Dale Youngs means that such couples will be eligible to sign up for a wide range of tax, health insurance, veterans and other benefits now afforded to opposite-sex couples. Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster, who has defended the state's ban on gay marriage, said it was reviewing the ruling.
Youngs ruling comes in a lawsuit filed by 10 same-sex couples who were married in states where gay marriage is legal. They couple argue that their rights to equal protection and due process are being violated by Missouri's ban on gay marriage.
![]() |
| Janice Barrier (left) and Sherie Schild Photo credit: The Vital Voice |
Young agreed, saying the couples deserve the same recognition as opposite-sex couples who were married in other states. He said the laws serve no legitimate government interest.
The case is among at least three challenging Missouri's ban on same-sex marriage. The others include a federal challenge in Kansas City and a St. Louis case in which city officials granted marriage licenses to four same-sex couples to trigger a legal test of the ban.
The lawsuits are based on the same arguments that led the U.S. Supreme Court last year to overturn part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act that denied a tax, health and other benefits to legally married gay couples.
Same-sex marriage is now legal in 19 states and the District of Columbia. The American Civil Liberties Union says it has marriage cases pending against 13 other states, of which five are before federal appeals courts.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
MEDIA COVERAGE OF UNIVERSITY CITY LAW
The St. Louis Beacon and CBS St. Louis covered the growing number of people against University City proposed bill 9112 at the City Council meeting last night.
Most speakers were against a proposed University City ordinance to make it illegal to stand or walk on a public sidewalk or street in a way that impedes others from using the sidewalk or street.
Among those urging the council to reject the initiative, which was tabled, was Sara Ferrill (right), a former University City resident who now lives in Jefferson City. She told the audience of her own days when she and youngsters such as herself were "persecuted" because of the way they dressed. She recalled it was not unusual for her to have magenta hair, an eyebrow pierced, striped stockings and cut-off pants.
"I'm now 32 years old, a very responsible mother and contributing to society. These kids are disenfranchised, too. They have nowhere to go, nothing to do after school. They are not thugs. We need to offer them a chance to engage in our community rather than turn them away."
She urged merchants and others to have more dialogue with youngsters about why they visit the Loop, their parents and what their home environments are like. Getting to know the youngsters will help them engage in positive activities, she said.
The public criticism of teens and young adults in the Loop began the weekend of April 9 when warm weather drew many people to the area. Merchants and some others complained that some of the young people were rude, harassing customers and impeding traffic on crowded sidewalks and streets. The criticism quickened after a St. Louis police officer allegedly was assaulted by a 21-year-old man when the officer attempted to make an arrest at the Metro Station just east of the Loop.
Reports of arrests this spring, since April 8, show that juveniles aren't the only people causing disturbances in the Loop. During the past five weekends, police have arrested 17 people in the Loop, 11 adults and six juveniles. Some merchants have accused juveniles of taking items from sidewalk tables. Two such incidents have been reported to police in five weekends. Both occurred on April 8 and 9.
In one of the incidents, police say a large group of males ran past an outdoor table and took a wallet and cell phone. In the other incident, police say a cell phone was also taken from a sidewalk table. The police reports don't indicate that juveniles were involved in either incident. Most of the juveniles taken into custody in the Loop this spring have accused of fighting or curfew violations. A University City police spokesperson reviewing the crime statistics said the volume of incidents this spring seemed no different from last year.
Many of those who spoke against the proposed new ordinance said the plan raised constitutional issues because the law would end up targeting African-American youths. Ed Reggi (right), who describes himself as an entertainer, told the council that he was troubled by the proposed ordinance. "I come to the Loop two or three times a week to eat, shop or go to the Tivoli," he said. "These laws are usually created in cities that can't deal with crowds, and they are used to target African-American youngsters."
University City Police respond that they do not target anyone but merely confront or apprehend anyone who is caught breaking the law.
William Schwulst, who lives in University City, argues that the proposal as written is too broad and too vague. When in the Loop last week, he said he saw instances where the ordinance would have applied to law-abiding people "blocking my way, children and families pushing strollers and window shopping. But they were blocking my personal way to the sidewalk. This law is a little bit overkill."
Mayor Welsch says growing public opposition was behind the council's decision to table the measure and perhaps take up a revised proposal in two weeks.
"I came in today and had lots of email from people around University City and St. Louis" against the proposed ordinance, the mayor said Monday. "The issue that resonated with me was whether the ordinance was specific enough on how the police could enforce it. This ordinance is not directed toward one group. It in no way mentions children, does not mention the color of their skin. We were thinking of a way to try to keep traffic moving on nice days when we have hundreds of people coming to the Loop."
She said the city attorney would take another look at the proposal "just so we are clear that what we are proposal is in fact constitutional."

Michael Calhoun
UNIVERSITY CITY (KMOX) - University City leaders are holding off on proposed hefty fines for sidewalk obstructors — a.k.a. loitering teenagers. The restriction is meant to quell a surge of teenagers, flocking in packs and jamming passageways along the Delmar Loop. Shop owners have claimed they chase away customers on Friday and Saturday nights. The fine for ”interfering with the use of sidewalks or streets” would be $1-thousand per violation.
Council members agreed to postpone the issue, in part due to concerns raised by a majority of speakers at Monday’s night council meeting.
Civil right activist Ed Reggi pointed out a series of relevant laws, already on the books, including failure to comply with a law enforcement officer, interference with city officers or employees, fighting in public, panhandling, unlawful assembly, harassment and noise.
But the most appropriate, he said is disturbing the peace, which deals with ”physically obstructing vehicle or pedestrian traffic,” extremely similar to the language in the proposed new ordinance.
But the most appropriate, he said is disturbing the peace, which deals with ”physically obstructing vehicle or pedestrian traffic,” extremely similar to the language in the proposed new ordinance.
To that end, he questioned whether the ordinance is designed to overtly target African-American teenagers. “That will be by far a bigger public relations nightmare that University City will never be able to fight,” he said. “For us to say that we’re going to target one particular group, just really hurts my heart as a member of this society,” former resident Sarah Farrell added. ”These are kids. They are not thugs. They simply are wanting something to do and we need to offer them a chance to engage in our community rather than turn them away.”
She said she was once a rowdy teenager in the Loop, and noted techniques which were effective in the mid-1990s to battle the loitering: beautification projects, planting trees and flowers, street art, music performances.
Council members, after discussing the legality of the proposal with the City Attorney and the set of already-existing laws with the Police Chief, will reconsider the matter at their next meeting.
UNIVERSITY CITY POSTPONES BILL 9112

In a sudden turn of events this evening, the University City Council and Mayor decided to postpone the passing of Bill 9112, also known as the "Obstructing the sidewalks" law that opponents suggest will target black youth standing, walking, and strolling on the Loop during busy peak hours.
We must remain vigilant until the Bill is killed, defeated or tabled forever.
ShowMeNoHate wants to thank the following organizations and people:
ACLU - New Jersey
ACLU - Eastern Missouri
Fairness Campaign - Louisville, Kentucky
Beyond Housing - St. Louis, Missouri
Normandy School District
Denise Lieberman
Sara Jean Ferrill
Samati Niyomchai
William Schwulst
And many other citizens who made calls, wrote letters and spoke at City Hall tonight against new Bill 9112. We need you to return on Monday May 23, 6:30pm when the Council will again attempt to vote on the new ordinance. Stay tuned here for details.
Please share with your folks on social media. We understand there are problems in the Loop during peak weeknight and weekend hours; however, these problems needs to have smart solutions.
Let's make the City Council and Mayor come up with clever, smart, highly creative and race-neutral solutions.
Labels:
aclu,
equality,
fairness campaign,
home,
news,
race,
university city
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Thursday, December 2, 2010
SURVIVING SAME-SEX PARTNER OF STATE TROOPER SEEKS FAIRNESS
Kelly Glossip's partner of nearly 15 years, Dennis Engelhard, was a Missouri state trooper killed in the line of duty while responding to an accident on Christmas Day of last year. Survivor benefits not available to Glossip.
SURVIVING PARTNER OF MISSOURI STATE TROOPER CHALLENGES BENEFITS POLICY
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 2, 2010
Surviving Partner Of Missouri State Trooper Killed On Duty Challenges Discriminatory Benefits Policy Same-Sex Couples Excluded From Receiving Survivor Benefits
JEFFERSON CITY, MO – The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Eastern Missouri and the ACLU of Kansas & Western Missouri filed a lawsuit today on behalf of Kelly Glossip, whose partner, Dennis Engelhard, was a state trooper killed in the line of duty while responding to an accident on Christmas Day of last year. Missouri offers survivor benefits to spouses of state troopers who are killed in the line of duty, but excludes committed same-sex partners from receiving those benefits. Glossip is seeking the same survivor benefits provided to opposite-sex partners.
“Dennis and I loved each other and lived in a committed relationship for 15 years. We depended on each other emotionally and financially in our life together like any other committed couple. We exchanged rings and would have married in Missouri if the state didn’t exclude us from marriage,” said Glossip. “I‘m just seeking the same financial protections the state provides to heterosexual couples. It is hard enough coping with the grief of losing Dennis. It is even more painful to have the state treat Dennis and me as though we were total strangers.”
Spouses of Missouri State Highway Patrol employees are entitled to an annuity of 50 percent of the employee’s average salary if the employee is killed on duty. Since Engelhard’s death, Glossip has struggled with paying the mortgage on the home they both owned. While Glossip is not challenging the definition of marriage under Missouri law, he is challenging the benefits policy as a violation of his rights under the Missouri Constitution.
“Dennis and Kelly were a family in every sense of the word,” said John Knight, staff attorney with the ACLU Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Project. “They owned a home together, shared cars and bank accounts, and Dennis even helped Kelly care for his child from a former marriage. They vowed to take care of each other in good times and in bad. As a matter of basic fairness, Kelly should be entitled to the same security as other bereaved partners of troopers killed in the line of duty.”
Engelhard was struck by a vehicle while responding to an accident on Christmas Day, 2009. Following his death, the governor ordered all U.S. and Missouri flags to be flown at half-staff. Kelly attended a ceremony in Washington, D.C. in May 2010 commemorating the loss of police officers nationwide, and was recognized with a medallion as Engelhard’s surviving partner.
“Kelly is merely seeking the same treatment he would have received if his partner had been a woman, rather than a man,” said Anthony Rothert, Legal Director of the ACLU of Eastern Missouri. “Kelly may not have been able to marry the person of his choice under Missouri state law, but he is still entitled to equal protection and the fundamental right to the family relationship he formed with Dennis Engelhard. He is seeking the same dignity and security for his family that is granted to other state troopers’ families.”
Attorneys on the case include Rothert and Grant R. Doty of the ACLU of Eastern Missouri, Stephen Douglas Bonney of the ACLU of Kansas and Western Missouri, Knight and Joshua Block of the ACLU LGBT Project and Roger K. Heidenreich of SNR Denton.

For more information on this case, including a video, photos and legal documents, please visit: www.aclu.org/glossip
MEDIA CONTACT:
Robyn Shepherd, ACLU National, (212) 519-7829 or 549-2666; media@aclu.org
Debbie Read, ACLU of Eastern Missouri, (314) 652-3114; debbie@aclu-em.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)




