Milwaukee lesbian couple challenge Wisconsin’s same-sex marriage ban

Bypassing lower courts, a Milwaukee lesbian couple filed a lawsuit Wednesday directly with the Wisconsin Supreme Court in an effort to invalidate the state’s ban on same-sex marriage.

Katherine Halopka-Ivery and Linda Halopka-Ivery named state and Milwaukee County officials as defendants in the 35-page lawsuit. They are represented by Milwaukee attorney Paul Ksicinski.

Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen said he will defend the action.

The declaratory judgment action contends that original jurisdiction with the Supreme Court is proper because the matter of the legality of same-sex marriage is of great public importance to the state.

The lawsuit comes as one state after another is moving toward legalizing gay marriage.

The suit notes that in 1982, Wisconsin was the first state to ban discrimination against gays in housing, public accommodation and employment, and that, unlike some other states, Wisconsin never banned marriage between people of different races.

Now, it states, while 17 states and the District of Columbia recognize same-sex marriages, Wisconsin has one of the most restrictive bans.

The lawsuit also cites the U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, saying it found that “in marriage, separate is not equal.”

That decision bestowed federal marriage benefits on same-sex couples who are lawfully married and reside in states that recognize such unions. Therefore, the Halopka-Iverys contend, they are being denied those federal benefits.

The plaintiffs say they were legally married in California in December but are now subject to possible criminal prosecution in Wisconsin under the state’s so-called "marriage evasion" law. A gay or lesbian couple who go elsewhere to obtain a marriage specifically prohibited under Wisconsin law could face up to nine months in jail and $10,000 fines, if convicted.

According to the suit, Katherine Halopka-Ivery tried to transfer ownership of real estate in her name to the couple and Milwaukee County register of deeds officials refused to record the transfer unless the couple filed for a Wisconsin domestic partnership.

Read more

11/4/14

Photo

'Private Birthday Party': Rare Photos From Kansas City's 1960s Drag Scene

In 2006, artist Robert Heishman was poking around a Kansas City salvage yard, looking for material for an undergraduate documentary class, when he stumbled upon a slide carousel labeled “Jack’s Slides: Chicago and Kansas City.”

This is the only king in the set published by The Cut. Click through for an interview and the rest of the pictures, full of vintage queens.

'Private Birthday Party': Rare Photos From Kansas City's 1960s Drag Scene

In 2006, artist Robert Heishman was poking around a Kansas City salvage yard, looking for material for an undergraduate documentary class, when he stumbled upon a slide carousel labeled “Jack’s Slides: Chicago and Kansas City.”

This is the only king in the set published by The Cut. Click through for an interview and the rest of the pictures, full of vintage queens.

09/4/14

Photo

Reblog Via:

spinsterprivilege:

afterellen:

1988 UW-Madison Women’s Studies 103 Handout: “When You Meet a Lesbian: Hints for the Heterosexual Women.”
ASSUME NOTHING

"If you must back away, do so slowly and with discretion" omfg

spinsterprivilege:

afterellen:

1988 UW-Madison Women’s Studies 103 Handout: “When You Meet a Lesbian: Hints for the Heterosexual Women.”

ASSUME NOTHING

"If you must back away, do so slowly and with discretion" omfg

10/3/14

Link

Reblog Via:

kropotkitten:

They had a 5 year old child together too.

Organize.

14/2/14

Quote

Reblog Via:

“I’m here today because I am gay. And because… maybe I can make a difference. To help others have an easier and more hopeful time. Regardless, for me, I feel a personal obligation and a social responsibility. I also do it selfishly, because I am tired of hiding and I am tired of lying by omission. I suffered for years because I was scared to be out. My spirit suffered, my mental health suffered and my relationships suffered. And I’m standing here today, with all of you, on the other side of all that pain. I am young, yes, but what I have learned is that love, the beauty of it, the joy of it and yes, even the pain of it, is the most incredible gift to give and to receive as a human being. And we deserve to experience love fully, equally, without shame and without compromise.”

— Ellen Page (x)

(Source: stereobone)

12/2/14

Text

Anonymous asked: Hi, I don't know if this has been asked before, but how do you feel about bisexual women and their reclamation of the dyke label or identifying as lesbian and/or with lesbian women? Thank you!

When bi women and lesbian women become preoccupied with in-fighting, straight people win. All women-loving women have a stake in the fight against homophobia and in a community of women-loving women.

As for the reclamation of “dyke,” you’ll notice that bi women have been featured before on dykesanddykery. It’s my opinion, as a lesbian, that the reclamation of this slur should be something each bi woman considers carefully for herself. Each bi woman’s situation will be different. My girlfriend is bi, but I’m the only one in our relationship who has ever been in a straight relationship (denial’s a hell of a drug!). Should she be barred from reclaiming that slur, when the people who would use it against us while we walked down the street would have no way of knowing she was also attracted to men? But a different bi woman may find herself falling in love with and committing the rest of her life to a man. She will certainly still experience issues relating to being a woman-loving woman, but will she feel comfortable reclaiming that slur? Maybe she’s very visibly non-heterosexual, even in a relationship with a man, and feels that it is still her right. Or maybe she feels that, with the small cushion passing as straight gives her, she would rather leave that particularly hurtful word to women who are more likely to hear it spit at them.

What I’m getting at here is that there is no one hard and fast rule, in my opinion, other than: be thoughtful and considerate when making that decision. (And don’t pull an Erika Moen and let your husband, if you have one, use that word, especially at a god damn pride parade.)

07/2/14

Video

Reblog Via:

Cheryl Maas, a Dutch snowboarder who is married to a woman, raised a rainbow glove toward a camera after competition in Sochi yesterday. [vine link here]

(Source: bertiedav)

22/1/14

Text

Court: Jurors can’t be cut because they are gay

A lawyer can’t remove prospective jurors from a panel because they are gay or lesbian, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday in a decision that could open the door to challenges of other types of discrimination based on sexual orientation.

The ruling by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco extends to gays and lesbians the same rights in jury selection that the U.S. Supreme Court granted to African Americans in 1986 and to women in 1994. Just as importantly, the appeals court interpreted a recent Supreme Court ruling as requiring “heightened scrutiny” for any government discrimination based on sexual orientation - the same standard that covers gender bias.

The June 2013 ruling that granted same-sex married couples equal rights to federal benefits made it clear that the high court “refuses to tolerate the imposition of a second-class status on gays and lesbians,” Judge Stephen Reinhardt said in the appeals court’s 3-0 decision.

Any time the government discriminates based on sexual orientation, by removing a prospective juror or in some other action, “we must examine its actual purposes and carefully consider the resulting inequality to ensure that our most fundamental institution neither send nor reinforce messages of stigma or second-class status,” Reinhardt said.

Read more

Australia high court overturns ACT gay marriage law

Australia’s High Court has overturned legislation allowing gay marriage in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT).

The ACT parliament passed a bill in October making the territory the first part of Australia to legalise same-sex weddings.

But the national government challenged the decision, saying it was inconsistent with federal laws.

Some 27 couples who married since the law came into effect last weekend will now have their unions declared invalid.

The court said the issue should be decided by parliament - which in September 2012 voted down gay marriage legislation.

'Matter for lawmakers'

The ACT legislation had allowed gay couples to marry inside the ACT, which includes the Australian capital, Canberra - regardless of which state they live in.

Federal law, however, specified in 2004 that marriage was between a man and a woman.

Civil unions are allowed in some states in Australia.

Read more

12/12/13

Link

Reblog Via:

asaap:

We are saddened to hear this news today, our thoughts are with our communities affected by this archaic ruling. The battle isn’t over yet.

Next Page » Page 1 of 142