Leave a Comment Sagesse
Two Illinois county clerks will defend marriage equality ban in court (UPDATED)
July 3, 2012
By Jacob Combs
As we’ve been covering here at Prop8TrialTracker.com, Lambda Legal and the ACLU of Illinois filed a lawsuit late last month in Illinois arguing that the state’s ban on marriage equality violates gay couples’ constitutional right to equal protection under the laws since they are provided the legal rights of marriage through civil unions but not the title of marriage. The Illinois case is a unique one because almost all of the pertinent government actors are supporters of marriage equality: Cook County Clerk David Orr, the named defendant in the two lawsuits, wrote that he hoped they would be “the last hurdle to achieving equal marriage rights for all,” and both Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan and the Cook County State Attorney filed motions in the case supporting the plaintiffs’ constitutional arguments and refusing to defend the law. With none of the official government defendants expressing any desire to defend the statute, it was an open question as to who would do so.
Yesterday, Chicago public radio station WBEZ reported that two downstate clerks, Republican Kerry Hirtzel of Effingham County and Democrat Christie Webb of Tazewell County, filed requests to intervene in the lawsuits (which were recently consolidated by a judge) in place of state’s government lawyers. The Chicago-based Thomas More Society, a conservative law group, had announced that it would support anyone who stepped up to defend Illinois’s marriage ban, and will coordinate with the two county clerks if their request is accepted.
In their filings, the clerks argued that the case could create two sets of marriage laws in the state, one for Cook County and one for the rest of Illinois. ”The potential legal chaos and uncertainty from such a state of affairs is obvious and intolerable,” the motion states. This is an interesting argument to make, since a successful constitutional challenge in Cook County would very likely be extended in a court ruling to apply all gay and lesbian couples in the state. For example, the Prop 8 case in California was officially filed against just two of the state’s 58 county clerks, but the ruling at both the district and appellate court levels is widely understood to apply to all 58 counties.
Still, if the Prop 8 case is any indication, the two county clerks may face an uphill climb is getting their motions to intervene accepted by the court. As Camilla Taylor, the head Lambda Legal lawyer on the case, said to WBEZ, “You can’t intervene just because you have an ideological objection to the potential outcome, or because you’re a public official required to follow the law, and the lawsuit has the potential to change it.”
The consolidated case will be heard by Judge Sophia Hall. No court date has been set.
UPDATED (3:00 p.m. EDT): The Chicago Tribune reports that Judge Hall has granted the clerks’ motion to intervene. Judge Hall also set a hearing date for Sept. 27 for a motion by the Thomas More Society to dismiss the suit filed by Lambda Legal and the ACLU.
Also today, the judge presiding over the Nevada marriage equality case of Sevcik v. Sandoval has set a hearing date for August 6 at 1:30 p.m. local time for oral arguments on motions to intervene and to dismiss the suit. We’ll have full coverage of that hearing when it happens.
Having technical problems? E-mail equalityontrial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!
11 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
Jamie | July 3, 2012 at 8:39 am
There really is no legal basis for them to intervene. Clerks aren't even elected representatives of anyone. They are paid employees.
2.
Lymis | July 3, 2012 at 8:56 am
The legal chaos idea is pretty weak. Iowa has fully marriage equality (on the state, not federal level), Illinois has civil unions with nominally, but not actual full equality to marriage (on the state level), WIsconsin has an anti-gay marriage amendment, but limited domestic partner benefits, and Indiana has no rights for gay relationships under statute but not under amendment. Illinois recognizes out of state marriages as civil unions. Illinois currently deals with all this now, including Illinois citizens who are legally married in another state or country.
Claiming that somehow maintaining the current setup is less legal chaos than simply granting marriage equality is absurd.
And, it essentially comes down to, "But Your Honor, we won't know who to discriminate against!" Yeah, that's going to fly.
3.
Scott | July 3, 2012 at 9:17 am
Actually, in Illinois, we elect our county clerks. Another wrinkle of difference that will make this interesting to watch!
4.
Seth from Maryland | July 3, 2012 at 9:21 am
POLL: Support For Marriage Equality Increases In Ohio | Marriage equality is not as popular in Ohio as in other states, but that is quickly changing. A new poll shows that 37 percent of people in Ohio support same-sex marriage, while 50 percent oppose. Though these numbers are still below national polling, they still represent a 10 point in crease from October’s numbers (32/55). Democrats’ support increased from 46/41 support to a 54/30 majority, and Independents have shifted from opposition (32/51) to support (42/38). A small sample of black voters shifted vastly from opposition (16/63) to support (42/35), reflective of growing support among African-Americans — particularly since President Obama’s endorsement of marriage equality. Though favor on the issue of marriage may be below average, 66 percent of Ohio voters do support some form of legal recognition for same-sex couples, such as civil unions
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/07/03/510392/p…
5.
Steve | July 3, 2012 at 9:32 am
Typical example of democracy run amok. There is absolutely no point in electing such low level flunkies.
6.
Reformed | July 3, 2012 at 9:46 am
This would be like a christian fundamentalist waitress suing Dennys (claiming that their religious rights are being violated) in the event that Dennys decided to start serving alcoholic beverages.
7.
Sagesse | July 3, 2012 at 9:52 am
@
8.
Scott | July 3, 2012 at 1:24 pm
Agreed. You should see the pages and pages of judges we vote in or to retain every cycle. Even a conscientious voter can not keep up.
9.
Mark | July 3, 2012 at 2:17 pm
Downstate County Clerks Get OK To Defend State Gay Marriage Ban http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/03/illinois…
10.
Scott Wooledge | July 3, 2012 at 2:44 pm
Actually, we elect them in New York as well. No opinion on whether that's wise or foolish.
11.
Steve | July 3, 2012 at 5:49 pm
Electing judges is even more absurd as it severely undermines the idea of having an independent judiciary. Only two countries do it: the US and Japan. That alone shows that it's a bad idea.
Leave a Comment
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.