Leave a Comment Sagesse
Nevada’s marriage equality lawsuit: could it be bigger than the Prop 8 trial?
August 10, 2012
Marriage Equality Trials Sevcik v Sandoval
By Jacob Combs
UPDATE:: Just in: the federal judge has agreed the case can go forward.
This morning, at 9 a.m. Pacific time, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada will hear arguments in Sevcik v. Sandoval, a marriage equality lawsuit filed by a group of committed gay and lesbian couples challenging the constitutionality of the state’s domestic partnership law. And although the Sevcik case may not make big news headlines the way that the Prop 8 trial has throughout its journey through the courts, it may end up being a even more important decision in the long-term fight for full federal LGBT equality.
Beverly Sevcik and Mary Baranovich of Carson City, the lead plaintiffs in Sevcik who are represented in court by Lambda Legal, have been together for more than 40 years, and have raised three children together. Along with the seven other couples included in the filing, Sevcik and Baranovich argue that Nevada’s domestic partnership law, which provides gay and lesbian couples with many of the rights and responsibilities of marriage without the title itself, violate their equal protection rights under the U.S. Constitution.
As I wrote in April when the case was announced, the Sevcik case is certainly a sibling case to the Prop 8 trial, Perry v. Brown, in that argues that laws denying gays and lesbians full legal recognition of their committed relationships is a practice abhorrent to the federal constitution. Unlike the Prop 8 case, however, in which lawyers argued that gays and lesbians have a fundamental right to marriage (a right that the Supreme Court has recognized as fundamental, albeit not explicitly for gay couples, many times in the past), the Sevcik case focuses only on making an equal protection claim.
Tomorrow’s hearing may not be a headliner because it is somewhat procedural: the court will consider two motions, one filed by Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval seeking to dismiss the lawsuit (citing the antiquated Supreme Court case Baker v. Nelson, which we’ve written about before on this site), and another by the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage, the main proponent of the state ballot initiative that banned marriage equality in Nevada. In its brief, the Coalition seeks to intervene in the lawsuit as a defendant.
Three years ago, though, the Prop 8 case itself had similarly modest beginnings. Today, it is a major lawsuit followed closely by the media, and it will most likely garner even more headlines this fall when the Supreme Court decides whether or not to take up the case for review in its next term. If it does, the stage will be set for a landmark ruling that would huge ramifications for gay and lesbian couples across the United States.
But there are many court-watchers, myself included, who believe that the Supreme Court will in fact decline to review the Prop 8 case, opting to put off until a later date any decision on the issue of whether or not there is fundamental right to marry for gay and lesbian couples. If that were to occur, the Ninth Circuit’s narrow ruling, which expressly limits its effect (and its legal reasoning) to California only, would stand. That would be a major victory, since it would bring equality back to the nation’s largest state and the thousands of gay and lesbian couples whose relationships are currently treated as second-class in California.
But once Prop 8 is history, the central question of the Perry lawsuit, the one the Supreme Court may likely choose to avoid answering, will remain: is it constitutional for gay couples’ relationships to be denied the same recognition and respect as straight couples? And just as importantly, what is the road to equality for gays and lesbians who are not living in states like California, where public opinion is by and large favorable to marriage equality? When the American Foundation for Equal Rights filed the Prop 8 lawsuit in 2009, they made clear that their goal was nothing less than full federal marriage equality: they wanted their case to be the marriage equivalent of Lawrence v. Texas, the 2003 Supreme Court decision that struck down anti-sodomy laws across the country.
If Perry doesn’t end up being a sweeping victory for the LGBT equality movement like Lawrence was, that future landmark case will still be waiting in the wings. Besides Sevcik, there is only one other case in the country regarding a federal right to marriage that is currently making its way through the court system, Jackson v. Abercrombie, in which a district court judge ruled just this week against gay couples seeking full equality in the state. If either case makes its way to the Supreme Court, it won’t do so for several years, by which time the marriage equality situation in America may look quite different, with more states offering marriage rights and, potentially, a Supreme Court decision striking down the Defense of Marriage Act.
Today’s hearing in Sevcik v. Sandoval is important because it is an incremental step in a larger legal and socio-political movement that looks likely to outlast the Prop 8 trial. And while it may not make headlines today, it just might make history some day soon.
Having technical problems? E-mail equalityontrial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!
40 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
Guest | August 10, 2012 at 9:10 am
So will there be any arguments pertaining to marriage equality today, or will the hearings be solely about the two motions?
2.
Stefan | August 10, 2012 at 9:22 am
I predict that this case and the case from Hawaii may very well get consolidated along the way.
I agree completely and expect the Supreme Court to deny certiori in Perry v Brown.
3.
Adam Bink | August 10, 2012 at 9:29 am
This is a really salient point Jacob is making. The case is vastly underreported.
4.
Scottie Thomaston | August 10, 2012 at 9:43 am
In fact, I just did a search, and the last news item I saw was from the beginning of last month. Wow. The Prop 8 trial was wall-to-wall coverage from the time the complaint was filed!
5.
Scottie Thomaston | August 10, 2012 at 9:44 am
It's my understanding that the only discussions today will be over the motion to intervene and over the Governor's attempt to dismiss the case because of Baker v Nelson. Nothing else is supposed to happen.
6.
Str8Grandmother | August 10, 2012 at 9:53 am
I think this is going to end up just like Perry. Perry is turning out to be an only applies to California Case.
Sevcik is basing it's claims on "We have domestic partnerships now give us Marriage because domestic partnership is un-equal."
The only real sweeping Court Case would be one from a State that has no protections or recognitions of same sex couples at all.
If I am right in what I remember of Sevcik (and I could be wrong) this would end up to be, "States that offer Civil Unions or Domestic Partnerships must convert to offering Civil Marriage" NOT the big sweeping Court Case so many of us are hoping for. Again, my memory could be wring but I seem to recall that is the basis of the Court Case.
7.
jpmassar | August 10, 2012 at 9:53 am
Since the Jackson case has been decided at the Federal District Court level, and the Sevcik case is still in its preliminary stages in Federal District Court, it seems much more likely, does it not, that the Jackson case will be decided by the Ninth Circuit and on its way to SCOTUS before the Sevcik case?
Unless there is some sort of consolidation at some point.
8.
Larry | August 10, 2012 at 9:59 am
If today's hearing is only about the motion to dismiss based on Baker v Nelson, then will there be another hearing about the merits of the case? That could be another 1-2 months, let alone however long it takes for a decision on summary judgement (if the judge orders a full trial as in the Prop 8 case, that would add a lot more time). Meanwhile, the Hawaii case will probably be appealed soon, and if the plaintiffs request an expedited hearing (just as in the Prop 8 case), the Hawaii case could be briefed by the end of the year and argued by next Spring, no? That'd be way before the Nevada case is ready for argument.
9.
Kathleen | August 10, 2012 at 10:00 am
All, or at least most, of the filings in this case have been posted here at P8TT either embedded in a post or in a quick hit (for those of you who like to read these things). If there's anything you're looking for and can't find let me know
And I wouldn't describe today's hearing as mostly procedural. Most of the cases we follow here have been decided on motions to dismiss or summary judgment without there being a "trial" (in the way most people think of, with testimony in court). If the motion to dismiss is granted that's the end of the case until/unless appealed.
10.
Gregory in SLC | August 10, 2012 at 10:01 am
Outside court room, Nevada district court right now. Hearing has ended. Judge seems clearly conservative. He was skeptical of entering any expert testimony to support plaintiffs. Mary and Beverly are dear beautiful people, as are the other plaintiffs we met. Next court date on this case set for Monday after thanksgiving in Reno, NV.
11.
Kathleen | August 10, 2012 at 10:05 am
So glad you made it, Gregory!
12.
Kathleen | August 10, 2012 at 10:07 am
Wanted to also point out that the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage brought the Hawaii case to the court's attention as soon as the decision came out and indicated they intend to reference the case frequently in today's hearing.
13.
Gregory in SLC | August 10, 2012 at 10:14 am
Thanks for your help, alerting us and court advice
. Judge relying heavily on Baker, he called judge Walkers ruling absurd, and celebrates Hawaii's ruling.
14.
SHOES THROWER | August 10, 2012 at 10:32 am
I expect the Supreme Court to grant cert, because the decision conflicts with Dayton Board of Education v. Brinkman, 433 U.S. 406 (1977), and Crawford v. Board of Education, 458 U.S. 527 (1982) See also 2 Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States 533 (1833) (explaining it would be “novel and absurd” to suggest that
“the same act passed by one legislature will be constitutional, and by another unconstitutional") A ban on same-sex marriage can not be constitutional on one side of Stateline Avenue and unconstitutional on the opposite side.
The Perry ruling also violates equal protection. from doing such a thing. But that is what the panel did. It effectively granted homosexuals in California, and only California, a right to marry their same-sex partner. Homosexuals in California who want to marry their partners may now rely on the protections of the 14th Amendment if their ability is infringed because of the sex of their partner. Homosexuals in Arizona, Nevada, and Oregon may not rely on this protection if their ability to marry is infringed because of the sex of their partner, but instead must appeal to their respective states to amend their respective state constitutions.
15.
Steve | August 10, 2012 at 10:35 am
That could have implications for the west coast though. Hawaii, Oregon and Washington are in the same situation and only WA currently has prospects of change.
16.
Kathleen | August 10, 2012 at 10:38 am
Sounds ominous. I want to believe that judges set aside their prejudices, especially those based on their religion, but I sometimes wonder if they do. Here's the judge on the case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Clive_Jones
(And glad I could facilitate your attendance!)
17.
Kathleen | August 10, 2012 at 10:50 am
Just in from Lambda Legal:
The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada today agreed to hear a lawsuit brought by Lambda Legal on behalf of eight same-sex couples challenging Nevada's law banning marriage for same-sex couples.
Gov. Brian Sandoval, joined by Carson City Clerk-Recorder Alan Glover, had moved to dismiss the case. Today, the Court agreed to hear that motion at the same time as hearing argument in the parties’ motion for summary judgment.
"This is an important first step in bringing the freedom to marry to Nevada," said Lambda Legal Staff Attorney Tara Borelli. "These loving couples, burdened by the stigma of Nevada's marriage ban, will have the chance to demonstrate in court that their relationships and their families are worthy of equal dignity and respect."
Also today, the Court granted a motion by the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage to intervene as a defendant in the lawsuit. The group was the proponent of the ballot initiative banning same-sex couples from marriage.
From the notice, it sounds as thought the judge gave a ruling on the motions from the bench. A written order will likely follow.
18.
Walter | August 10, 2012 at 10:52 am
The Prop. 8 decision may have effectively "effectively granted homosexuals in California, and only California, a right to marry their same-sex partner" but the Reinhardt decision is not based upon doing that. Rather, it argued that the method in which the right was taken away was unconstitutional. That implies that the right may be taken away if it is done properly.
19.
Kathleen | August 10, 2012 at 11:05 am
The press release is now online:
http://lambdalegal.org/news/nv_20120810_federal-c…
20.
Jeff Schmidt | August 10, 2012 at 11:13 am
I’m sorry for being “slow” to absorb this, but is it accurate that if the SCOTUS denies certiori in Perry v Brown this fall that the 9th Circuit Court’s decision will stand and will the result be immediate reversal of restriction of same sex marriage in California? What happens immediately in CA if the SCOTUS just postpones it?
21.
Walter | August 10, 2012 at 11:14 am
The Reinhardt decision goes on to say that the issue of whether same-sex marriage is a right is a decision that must be decided another day by another court as this decision does not address that issue.
22.
Walter | August 10, 2012 at 11:20 am
Senator Reid from Nevada is an exception I guess.
23. Prop 8 Trial Tracker &raq&hellip | August 10, 2012 at 11:22 am
[...] Nevada’s marriage equality lawsuit: could it be bigger than the Prop 8 trial? [...]
24.
Steve | August 10, 2012 at 11:42 am
Having a degree from BYU should be an automatic disqualification from most jobs
25.
davep | August 10, 2012 at 12:28 pm
If you have been following the trial at all, and I suspect you have, you would know that your statements are not true. They are red herrings that have nothing to do with the actual basis for the Perry decision. We notice a pattern from you of making this type of statement. What's up with that? Are you intending to troll, or trying to stir up confusion with statements that are not true? Discussion on the topic is welcome here, but trolling and spreading misinformation is not.
26.
Mormon Mother | August 10, 2012 at 3:00 pm
There are Mormons who graduated from BYU who believe in marriage equality. I am one and know others. Discrimination comes in all forms, and believing that a person should be denied a job based on from what university they graduated from is discrimination. People who do not want to be discriminated against should not discriminate.
27.
mtnbill | August 10, 2012 at 3:03 pm
I"m surprised he made those comments in public, and on the record, and especially complaining about a fellow (former) judge's opinion. But then stranger things happen to judges once appointed.
Although I would think after the Perry v. Brown trial, no judge wants to hear based on expert testimony, since even BYU faculty could not likely come up with a credible defense.
Reliance on the interpretation of the law allows the judge much more flexibility to decide how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
28.
wes228 | August 10, 2012 at 3:10 pm
Highly disagree. Some universities are held in higher esteem than others: an applicant with high marks from an Ivy League college is going to — and should have — a better chance of getting hired than someone from a degree with an obscure liberal arts college in the middle of nowhere who will admit anybody.
If I am an employer I would be suspect of any degree granting institution affiliated with religion, as that person's education risks being tainted with fairy-tale nonsense like disappearing magic plates.
29.
mtnbill | August 10, 2012 at 3:19 pm
adding:
or did you mean the attorney for the Idaho interveners made those comments? I can't see the NV AG making those comments.
In any case, I would love to see Jeanine Hansen Triggs (or current last name) called as a marriage expert. After all she's done it 7 times. She was one of the sponsors of the amendment–Mormon, but even many Mormons would think she is just too extreme. She comes from a family that thinks Republicans are too liberal–they often run in Nevada elections for the American Independent Party.
30.
Steve | August 10, 2012 at 8:07 pm
There are religiously affiliated universities that provide a proper education. But then there are ones like BYU, Liberty University or Bob Jones University whose sole goal is religious indoctrination and who sacrifice teaching the truth to accomplish that. They are also marked by ridiculous behavioral codes and restrictions.
31.
JayJonson | August 11, 2012 at 5:57 am
Well, BYU certainly doesn't admit anyone. They don't admit anyone who thinks for him or herself or who refuses to abide by their absurd prohibitions against homosexual conduct. (They used to not admit homosexuals, period, but I think they have become liberal since then.)
32.
JayJonson | August 11, 2012 at 6:03 am
Gregory in SLC. Please clarify or confirm. Did the Judge actually call Judge Walker's ruling absurd and celebrate the Hawaii ruling? If so, that seems very unprofessional.
33.
Nickey J | August 11, 2012 at 12:54 pm
<img src="http://www.goldstoressite.com/shop/listz/ud.jpg">Actually, after reading this article, i don't have a good feeling about the suit. <img src="http://www.goldstoressite.com/shop/listz/ho.jpg">
34.
Steve | August 11, 2012 at 1:36 pm
They'll lose the first trial and then appeal, which will result in better judges
35.
Stefan | August 11, 2012 at 4:28 pm
I predict the same thing will happen with the Hawaii case too.
36.
Gregory in SLC | August 11, 2012 at 9:42 pm
Been away from a computer. YES, the judge laughed mockingly at Walker's ruling and was skeptical of allowing any expert witness from plaintiffs, stating there is no sociologist or statistic that could measure the hundreds and hundreds of years of traditional marriage…
37.
Steve | August 12, 2012 at 3:30 am
I guess asking him to recuse himself would look too petty, especially after they tried the same with Walker…
38.
JayJonson | August 12, 2012 at 7:01 am
Wow, he sounds like a real yahoo. He probably thinks the same thing about evolution.
39.
Mike in Baltimore | August 13, 2012 at 2:00 am
Davep?
Notice the arrival of SHOES THROWER coincides with the disappearance of a former regular poster? One I questioned as to whether they actually supported marriage equality or not, and asked them (which was never responded to in any fashion) if they were on the staff of BLAG? Always seemingly supportive, but always with a "this won't work" attitude about any and all arguments and cases about DOMA?
40. Prop 8 Trial Tracker &raq&hellip | September 11, 2012 at 2:06 pm
[...] for summary judgment in Sevcik v. Sandoval, a federal case in Nevada (similar in a lot of ways to the Prop 8 case) challenging the state’s constitutional ban of marriage equality on equal protection grounds. [...]
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.