Date: 13 Mar 96 13:10:16 EST From: Toshav Storrs <103161.1332@compuserve.com> Subject: Press Release DATE: 3/13/96 12:30 PM RE: Press Release Enclosed please find a copy of the Notice and Petition served on the Respondents named in the documents and supporting information. If you have further questions, please contact Eden Stone at FORMBOSTON at 617-868-FORM (email: formboston@aol.com). Thank you. Toshav Storrs Phillip Storrs, Toshav Storrs, Petitioners, v. Court of Public Opinion Arthur J. Golder, NOTICE Patrick Buchanan, Presidential Candidate, Robert Dole, Presidential Candidate, Steven Forbes, Presidential Candidate, Robert Knight, Family Research Council, Concerned Women For America, State of New York, The United States of America, Respondents. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that your are hereby required to appear and be heard in the above-entitled action with twenty (20) days. Failure to respond may cause the attached Petition to be granted and judgment to be taken against you. Phillip Storrs, Toshav Storrs, Petitioners, v. Court of Public Opinion Arthur J. Golder, Patrick Buchanan, Presidential Candidate, Robert Dole, Presidential Candidate, Steven Forbes, Presidential Candidate, Robert Knight, Family Research Council, Concerned Women For America, State of New York, The United States of America, Respondents. marry, Respondents have caused Petitioners to suffer an increased tax burden while enjoying fewer government services. 5. That, upon information and belief, by denying Petitioners' application for a marriage license and thereby eclipsing their opportunity to legally marry, Respondents have denied Petitioners the legal protections afforded couples who avail themselves of the marriage option, including but not limited to equitable distribution, right of survivorship, right of inheritance, privacy of conversation, and next-of-kin status. 6. That, upon information and belief, by denying Petitioners' application for a marriage license and thereby eclipsing their opportunity to legally marry, Respondents have impermissably discriminated against Petitioners on the basis of gender. 7. That, upon information and belief, by denying Petitioners' application for a marriage license and thereby eclipsing their opportunity to legally marry, Respondents have violated state and federal constitutional provisions of equal protection, due process, and freedom of intimate association. 8. That, upon information and belief, Respondents have an interest in fostering stable intimate relationships; encouraging an environment where optimal physical and mental health are more likely, leading to increased life expectancy and improved quality of life; and promoting productivity and community involvement by insuring equal access to legal marriage regardless of the gender of the parties. 9. That, upon information and belief, by denying Petitioners' application for a marriage license and thereby eclipsing their opportunity to legally marry, Respondents favor the religious perspectives of some segments of the population while denying that of others, all contrary to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. 10. That, upon information and belief, by denying Petitioners' application for a marriage license and thereby eclipsing their opportunity to legally marry, Respondents attempt to impose a procreative willingness or ability requirement on same-gender couples while imposing no such requirement on opposite-gender couples. 11. That, upon information and belief, Respondents sanction the opposite sex marriage of convicted murders, rapists, child molesters, and even felons serving life sentences and yet will not sanction the union of a loving, productive, community-involved same-gender couple WHEREAS, Petitioners pray the Court will issue a mandate requiring Respondents to provide equal access to marriage to couples irrespective of the gender of the parties and for all other and further relief that the Court shall deem necessary and proper. WITNESS our hand this 12th day of March, 1996. ______________________ ______________________________ Toshav Storrs Phillip Storrs Subject: TIMELINE Timeline (revised 2/96) 1970 The Los Angeles County Clerk requests the California legislature to tighten its laws on marriage after receiving many inquiries from gay couples wanting marriage licenses. [1] 1971 Baker v. Nelson[2], in Minnesota, the first same-sex marriage case brought in the United States, is ruled against plaintiffs Richard John Baker and James Michael McConnell. Plaintiffs contend that an absence of a specific prohibition on same-sex marriage signifies a legislative intent to recognize them. They also argue that the state marriage statute, as interpreted to provide only for opposite-sex marriages, is unconstitutional on several bases: it "denies petitioners a fundamental right guaranteed by the Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, arguably made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, and petitioners are deprived of liberty and property without due process are denied equal protection of the laws, both guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment." In its remarkably short (two-page) decision, the court added: "We dismiss without discussion petitioners' additional contentions that the statute contravenes the First Amendment and Eight Amendment of the United States Constitution. . .The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis." In responding to plaintiffs argument that lack of ability to procreate constituted no bar to marriage for opposite-sex couples, the court responded: ". . .abstract symmetry' is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment." Finally, the court rejected plaintiffs contention that the Loving miscegenation case, as a "same-race" restriction that was overturned, provided precedent for overturning a similar "same-sex" restriction: ". . .in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex." (Precisely why sex constituted a "fundamental" difference, while race did not, was left unexplained.) 1973 Jones v. Hallahan[3], a Kentucky case, is also ruled against plaintiffs, both female. Petitioners relied on constitutional claims: a fundamental right to marry (as ruled by U.S. Supreme Court, but has been applied only to opposite-sex marriages), the right of association, and the right to free exercise of religion (both under the First Amendment), and the contention that the refusal of a marriage license subjects them to cruel and unusual punishment (as forbidden by the Eighth Amendment). In an even shorter decision than Minnesota's two years previously, the court referred to the dictionary definition of marriage as existing between two persons of the "opposite sex." The court wrote: "It appears to us that appellants are prevented from marrying, not by the statutes of Kentucky or the refusal of the County Court Clerk of Jefferson County to issue them a license, but rather by their own incapability of entering into a marriage as that term is defined." 1974 Singer v. Hara [4], a Washington state case, similarly rules against plaintiffs John F. Singer and Barwick. Plaintiffs argued that Washington marriage statutes did not prohibit same-sex marriages; therefore a license must be issued. Unlike the previous two cases, however, plaintiffs also argued that the state's Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) forbad discrimination on the basis of sex, which they in turn argued had occurred in the denial of their marriage license. Plaintiffs also argued violations of their Eight, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Through some tortuous logic, the court argues that because of an exception to the absolute prohibition on sex discrimination exists--that of unique physical characteristics of each of the sexes rather than gender per se--this suit falls within that exception because two males cannot produce children. The court then concedes that many heterosexual married people cannot produce children, but, echoing the Baker court (above), calls that merely an imperfection in the law. But this conclusion directly contradicts the courts above claim: Now, the court argues, physical characteristics are not dispositive.{1} This time echoing the Jones, the court argues: "Appellants were not denied a marriage license because of their sex; rather they were denied a marriage license because of the nature of marriage itself." Two black lesbian mothers from Dayton, Ohio sued for the right to marry, although they lacked both legal representation and support from the local gay community, the latter perhaps in part because they were living on public assistance. They lost. [5] 1975 Two men from Phoenix are granted a marriage license by a county clerk. This license is later revoked. [6] On recommendation of the Boulder, Colorado city district attorney, County Clerk Cela Rorex issues Dave Zamora and Ave McCord a marriage license. This causes a month-long rush on the clerk's office by same-sex couples seeking marriage licenses, until the state Attorney General voided the D.A.'s recommendation. A court later revoked all of the licenses. In April, the Arizona Supreme Court deemed the gay marriage attempts unconstitutional, paving the way for the state legislature to pass an emergency an emergency bill defining marriage as possible only between a man and a woman. [7] The Maryland Attorney General's office rules that the Montgomery County Clerk has no legal basis on which to challenge the validity of the marriage of two women, Michele Bernadette Bush and Paulette Hill, to whom the clerk's office issued a marriage license. The license was later revoked. [8] The Washington, D.C., City Council considered a bill that would provide for gay marriage. [9] Two lesbians, Nancy Davis and Toby Schneiter. are arrested after a five-hour sit-in at the county's marriage license bureau to protest refusal of a license. They vow to go on a hunger strike in jail. [10] 1977 Mikhail Itkin and Larry Lawrence are denied a marriage license by the Los Angeles County clerk's office. That office indicated that this was not the first time such an application had been made, but that such requests come "three of four times a week." They indicated they would sue the state, but no litigation seems to have resulted. [11] Both branches of the state legislature later passed bills banning legal same-sex marriage, but were apparently not signed into law by then Governor Jerry Brown. The Senate sponsor of the bill was John Briggs[12], who would later offer the "Briggs Initiative," a measure to ban gay schoolteachers that was defeated b y a movement led by openly gay San Francisco Supervisor Harvey Milk. 1978-1985 No significant activity around the issue of same-sex marriage. 1986 The ACLU's Executive Director and Board of Directors say their organization will seek to eliminate legal barriers preventing gays from marrying. [13] 1989 The Bar Association of San Francisco calls for gay marriages. In Chicago, two journalists for gay publications, Rex Wockner and Paul Varnell, file complaints with the Illinois Department of Human Rights charging the state with sex discrimination because it refuses to allow gay marriages. [14] In a poll, 69% of respondents say they disapprove of gay marriages; 23% approve, 8% are unsure. [15] 1990 Several gay couples, including Jeff Graubart-Cervone and Frank Cervone-Graubart, apply for and are denied marriage licenses at the Cook County clerk's office in Chicago. A bill is filed in the California legislature allowing for gay marriage. It is endorsed by the California Bar Association and the Bar Association of San Francisco. 1991 The Massachusetts Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Civil Rights launches a campaign to pass a gay marriage bill. The group found a handful of Democratic co-sponsors. [16] Dean v. D.C.[17], a District of Columbia same-sex marriage case, is ruled against plaintiffs Craig Dean and Patrick Gill. No constitutional issues are raised. Plaintiffs argued that the D.C. Marriage and Divorce Act authorized gay marriage, and that the D.C. Human Rights Act forbade discrimination in issuance of marriage licenses. In what many critics consider to be the most unjudicious and homophobic ruling on a marriage case to date, the court cites previous cases as well as the bible, and alleges a legislative intent to disallow gay marriages. [18] The D.C. Human Rights Commission sided with the couple, contending that the marriage bureau violated city law by discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. The author of the city's Human Rights Act testified that the Council did not intend to forbid gay marriage. However, the court noted that two years prior to adoption of the act, the District did reject a proposal that would have explicitly recognized gay marriage. [19] Now Mayor Sharon Pratt Dixon had been quoted by the Washington Times newspaper during the 1990 mayoral campaign as promising to support gay marriage. Tom Stoddard of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund responded to the ruling: "If we do file another [gay marriage] case, it should be in a state with a political climate that is relatively favorable to gays and lesbians, and it should be filed in a state court and deal with a state constitution." [20] An appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals (the highest court in D.C.) also resulted in a loss. Plaintiffs have now asked for a for an en banc (full court) hearing; the court has not yet responded. 1992 In another poll, 58% of respondents disapprove of gay marriage; 35% approve, and 7% are unsure. This represents a significant change in attitude from the poll conducted three years earlier (see above). Because the margins of error in the two polls were 3% and 5% for 1989 and 1992 respectively [21], this demonstrates a statistically significant increase in support for gay marriage of between 4% and 14%. 1993 Gay couple Benjamin Cable and Marcial McCarthy try to submit a marriage license application to the Los Angeles County Clerk's office, but are refused. Represented by Lawyer Paul S. Marchand, the couple file a lawsuit in the 2nd District Court of Appeal for Los Angeles. [22] This case has not been reported out, and is believed to be on hold, at the request of the plaintiffs, pending a final outcome in the Baehr Hawaii case (see below). Baehr v. Lewin [23], a landmark same-sex marriage case in Hawaii, rules that the state's refusal to issue marriage licenses to three same sex couples, Joseph Melilio and Pat Lagon, Genora Dancel and Ninia Baehr, and Tammi Rodrigues and Antoinette Pregil, presumptively violates Hawaii's Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) barring discrimination on the basis of sex (a "suspect class" due to the ERA). Unless the state can, under "strict scrutiny" analysis (back in the lower court, on remand) demonstrate a "compelling state interest" in this denial, it will have to issue marriage licenses to these and all other same-sex couples who otherwise qualify. Many commentators have stated that final victory is almost assured, given that "strict scrutiny" in theory leads in practice to virtually certain death for those statutes or state actions to which it is applied. The plaintiffs actually argued their case on the claim of a violation of their right to privacy. But the court took a very minor point made in plaintiffs arguments--literally a footnote regarding the ERA--and made that the basis of their decision. The court wrote in part: "The facts in Loving...on the one hand, and the United States Supreme Court, on the other, both discredit the reasoning of Jones and unmask the tautological and circular nature of [defendant's] argument." About Singer it commented brusquely: "As in Jones, we reject this exercise in tortured and conclusory sophistry." The court did, however, rejected plaintiffs claim to a "fundamental right" to marriage. [24] This fact is unlikely to affect the actual result of this case, but may prove the usefulness of this case as precedent, in other states lacking ERA's, to be limited. Because no federal Constitutional issues were raised here, state courts have the last word. [25],[26] Additionally, if the final outcome of this case is in favor of the plaintiffs, because the ruling was based on the state constitution, only an amendment to the constitution could allow the continued denial of same-sex marriage licenses. (This in turn would require either a two thirds vote of the legislature plus ratification by a popular vote, or a constitutional convention.) (Some legislative attempts have been made to counter the current and/or future Baehr ruling, but they have been unsuccessful, and in any case could only be symbolic--see above.) The legislature has begun hearings on the issue of same-sex marriage. A same-sex marriage case was brought in Wisconsin, but this is believed to be on hold pending a final decision in Baehr. No case number has been assigned. Washington Post poll finds that 70% of Americans oppose gay marriage. [27] Hawaii poll found that about sixty percent oppose gay marriage. [28] 1994 Another poll finds that 62% are opposed to gay marriage. Presumably those in favor were 38%, although precise figures for that as well as "undecided" are unavailable. (The margin of error is also unknown.) [29] It is interesting to note that despite the legality of inter racial marriage since 1967, its acceptance by 1983 had risen to only 40% -only marginally greater than that for gay marriage. [30] Historian John Boswell's landmark book Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe is released. In it, he proves that the Christian church performed gay unions in Europe throughout the medieval period, and even that gay "marriages" occurred before heterosexual ones. {2} The controversy surrounding this best-selling book causes several newspapers to refuse to run a "Doonesbury" cartoon which discusses it. In an Orlando, Florida court, Shawna Underwood and Donia Davis bring a same-sex marriage lawsuit. This case has not been reported out, nor has it apparently even been assigned a case number. Like the California case (see above), it is believed to be on hold pending a final decision in Baehr. Callender v. Corbett[31], an Arizona same-sex marriage case brought by plaintiffs Jerry Callender, Antonio Muniz, John Duran, Stephen Baker, Eileen Maura Jutras, Lizbeth M. Petrucci, Kathy Greaves, and Aileen McMurrer. Their lawyer is Paul Gattone. A Superior Court judge rules against them, citing, as had been cited in some previous cases, that any change in marriage law was a matter for the state legislature. Although this case was lost, plans for appeal are believed to be on hold pending a final decision in Baehr. Three lesbian couples seeking marriage licenses are turned away by the County Clerk's office in Green Bay, Wisconsin. Among them are Georgina and Annette Grinkey. [32] 1995 An Ithaca, New York couple, Toshav and Philip Storrs, request a marriage license from the Ithaca City Clerk, Julie Newcomb. Mayor Benjamin Nichols, as well as the full City Council, endorse the concept of issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples who apply and otherwise qualify. The city is prepared to issue a license, but the Storrs request that this be delayed pending consultation with legal experts to determine the possible ramifications of issuance. Many, though not all, gay leaders have taken the position that the license should not be issued because it would have a negative impact on the long-term ability of same-sex couples to achieve marriage rights. Officials of the City of Ithaca announced that, though they are supportive of the right to marriage for gay couples, they would not be issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples at this time. This decision was reportedly reached based on legal as well as strategic factors. The couple has indicated they may bring a lawsuit. Utah passes anti-marriage bill. South Dakota introduces anti-marriage bill, but it dies in committee. In Alaska, a case is filed by Jay Brause and Gene Dugan. A trial date has not yet been set, nor has the court yet responded officially. Hawaii's Commission on Sexual Orientation votes 5-2 to recommend marriage rights for same-sex couples. This represents the first time that an official state body has endorsed marriage rights for gay couples. 1996 Anti-marriage bills are introduced in the following states: Alabama, Alaska, California, Maine, Missouri, New Mexico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota (re-introduced), Tennessee, Virginia, Washington. As of this writing, none of these have passed, although California appears very close to passage. Maine's bill was withdrawn. NOTES FOOTNOTES******************************** {1} "Dispositive" is a legal term meaning that the question at issue is thereby completely resolved; i.e., "disposed of." {2} "Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality," by John Boswell, University of Chicago, 1980, pgs. 10, 25, 180. ENDNOTES******************************** [1]. Long Road to Freedom, edited by Mark Thompson, St. Martin's, 1994, pg. 36. [2]. 291 Minnesota 191 N.W.2d 185 (1971) [3]. Court of Appeals Kentucky 501 S.W.2d 588 (1973) [4]. 11 Washington App. 247, 522 P.2d 1187 (1974) [5]. Long Road to Freedom, edited by Mark Thompson, St. Martin's, 1994, pg. 101. [6]. Ibid., pg. 115. [7]. Ibid., pg. 115. [8]. "Official Rules on Wedding of 2 Women," by B.D. Colen, in The Washington Post, July 10, 1975, pgs. C1, C11. [9]. "Divorce Bill Chance 'Excellent'," by Patricia Camp, in The Washington Post, July 9, 1975, pg. C2. [10]. "Lesbians Protest at Marriage Office," by Jeff Lyon, in The Chicago Tribune, October 21, 1975. [11]. "Gay Couple Can't Wed," by Myrna Oliver, in The Los Angeles Times, March 16, 1977, pg. 6. [12]. "Senate Approves Measure Banning Gay Marriages," (UPI), in The Los Angeles Times, August 12, 1977, and "On a 66-2 Vote," (newsnote), in The Los Angeles Times, August 14, 1977. [13]. "ACLU Seeks to Lift Gay Marriage Bans," (AP), in The Chicago Tribune, October 29, 1986. [14]. "A Nontraditional Way to Say 'I Do'," by Clarence Page, in The Chicago Tribune, October 8, 1989. [15]. "Should Gays Have Marriage Rights?," by Walter Isaacson, in Time, November 20, 1989, pp. 101-102. [16]. "Coalition Readies Bill to Recognize Same-Sex Marriage," by Kay Longcope, in The Boston Globe, June 12, 1991. [17]. District of Columbia Superior Court, No. 90-13892 (1991) [18]. "Gay Couple Sues D.C. Over Marriage License," by Richard Keil, in The Boston Globe, November 27, 1990. [19]. "Citing the Bible, Federal Judge O.K.'s Ban on Marriage," by Chris Bull, in The Advocate, February 11, 1992, pg. 20. [20]. "D.C. Couple Files Gay Marriage Suit; Outlook Called Dim," by Rick Harding, in The Advocate, January 1, 1991, pg. 24. [21]. "Gays Under Fire," author unknown, in Newsweek, September 14, 1992. [22]. "Gay Couple Challenge State Laws on Marriage," by Kathleen Kelleher, in The Los Angeles Times, April 21, 1993. [23]. Hawaii Supreme Court, No. 15689 (1993) [24]. "Ruling by Hawaii's Supreme Court Opens the Way to Gay Marriages," by Joan Biskupic, in The Washington Post, May 7, 1993, pg. A10. [25]. "Hawaii Court Revives Suit on Gay Marriages," by Bettina Boxall, in The Los Angeles Times, May 7, 1993, pgs. A3, A27. [26]. "Gay Marriage Ruling," by John Wilke and Arthur Hayes, in The Wall Street Journal, May 7, 1993. [27]. "For Better or For Worse," by Eloise Salholz, Lucille Beachy, Dogan Hannah, Vicki Quade, and Melinda Liu, in Newsweek, May 24, 1993, pg. 69. [28]. "A Conflict of Laws and Morals: The Choice of Law Implications of Hawaii's Recognition of Same-Sex Marriages," by Joseph Hovermill, in Maryla [29]. "Gay Marriages Opposes in Poll," (Reuters), in The Boston Globe, February 7, 1994. [30]. "Why Discrimination Against Lesbians and Gay Men Is Sex Discrimination," by Andrew Koppelman, in New York University Law Review, May, 1994, pg. 231. [31]. No. 296666 (Az. Super. Ct., Apr. 13, 1994). [32]. Lesbian/Gay Law Notes, September, 1994, pg. 102.