The question at the heart of one of the biggest Supreme Court cases this year is simple: What constitutional rights should corporations have? To us, as well as many legal scholars, former justices and, indeed, drafters of the Constitution, the answer is that their rights should be quite limited — far less than those of people.

This is, of course, utter nonsense.

While it is true that corporations are "mere creatures of law," as John Marshall put it, it is also true that they are, at their core, nothing more than voluntary associations of free individuals (unlike, e.g., labor unions, which are also creatures of government — but unlike corporations are granted coercive powers over unwilling parties).

It is absurd in the extreme to suggest that two free individuals acting jointly can somehow have "less rights" than those two same free individuals would have acting individually.

Any voluntary association of free individuals must, by definition, have all the same rights as the free individuals comprising that association. To suggest otherwise is, of course, to trample the rights of the individuals — something the Times of course advocates practically every day of the week.

More:

The law also gives corporations special legal status: limited liability, special rules for the accumulation of assets and the ability to live forever. These rules put corporations in a privileged position in producing profits and aggregating wealth.

First, a correction: corporations do not have "limited liability" — shareholders have limited liability, in exchange for limited power over the corporation (another bugaboo that keeps Times editors awake at night — see generally, "executive pay"). But what does this voluntary arrangement among shareholders have to do with their joint rights as free individuals? The limited liability canard is a total non sequitur.

And note the simplistic "Gilded Age robber baron" paranoia of "corporation as leviathan." Remember, these are same supposedly evil, profits-now-and-forever monstrosities that are almost completely owned by pension funds (including government- and union-managed pension funds), university and other non-profit endowments, and various other civic entities that must be deemed, according to the Times' kindergarten logic, greedy capitalist bastards.

Finally, recall that no matter how "privileged a position" a corporation may have, people always (or at least when government stays out of it) have an even more privileged position: the position of not having to do business with it. No matter how gargatuan General Electric, Microsoft, Wal-Mart, Kraft or Altria become, you can always (or at least when government stays out of it) say, "No thanks."

—

A post script to my minarchist comrades who, like our common liberal opponents, are leery of corporations and their supposed power: Never forget that the problem with corporate rent-seeking is the rent-seeking, not the corporation. Keep the focus on where it should be: on limiting the power of government to favor some groups over others. If politicians have nothing to offer, then nobody — including corporations — would try to buy them.

The "Baker v. Nelson" that Senator Chuck Grassley referred to, twice over two days, during the Sotomayor confirmation hearings was not the Minnesota decision itself: 291 Minn. 310, 191 N.W.2d 185 (1971). It was the subsequent one-paragraph dismissal of a pending federal appeal by the Supreme Court, 409 U.S. 810 (1972), "for want of a substantial federal question."

The precedential value of such a dismissal (a very rare move) can be, and is, debated in and of itself. The objective (i.e., non-bigot) consensus is that a "federal question dismissal" is only binding in regards to subject matter jurisdiction. And if federal courts lack jurisdiction over a state court case, then of course the underlying merits of that state court ruling remain binding. All that federal Baker v. Nelson says is that state Baker v. Nelson could not be appealed in federal courts given the specific facts of the case and the status of federal Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence, as it stood in 1972. Nothing more.

But some legal analysts, and all anti-gay bigots, try to bootstrap that flowchart into a claim that federal Baker v. Nelson was then, or is now, somehow a sweeping, all-encompassing "decision on the merits" (i.e., of whether any gay marriage ban can ever be challenged in any federal court). It is not.

All federal Baker v. Nelson says is that, in 1972, same-sex marriage was not a "substantial federal question."

But of course, this is not 1972.

Any constitutional law scholar (or at least those not appearing before a Senate confirmation panel) who researches the issue (Sotomayor testified that she was unfamiliar with it) will tell you that Zablocki v. Redhail (1978), Romer v. Evans (1996) and Lawrence v. Texas (2003) — not to mention DOMA (1996) — have clearly and unambiguously rendered federal Baker v. Nelson a nullity. (State Baker v. Nelson is still perfectly good law — for now.)

Precedent is only precedent until it isn't anymore. Anti-gay discrimination generally, and same-sex marriage specifically, are now obviously "substantial federal questions," period. To suggest otherwise is self-abasing constitutional insolence.

On timely motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene who … claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant's ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest.
–Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24

Some very misinformed gay bloggers are completely misunderstanding, and misreporting, the news that Lambda Legal, the ACLU and other major gay advocacy groups are petitioning to intervene in the controversial "Olson/Boies" lawsuit challenging Proposition 8 (Perry v. Schwarzenegger).

Box Turtle Bulletin:

But now all of the sudden they want to become parties of the lawsuit itself, even though they wanted nothing to do with the move in the beginning. Olsen [sic] and Boise [sic] oppose their petition, saying that involving more groups would delay and unnecessarily complicate the proceedings. I agree. It worries me that one of the more important LGBT cases making its way in the federal courts could wind up having four different captains trying to pilot the ship. That alone should worry us.

Towleroad:

The argument for the Johnny-come-lately LGBT groups butting out is more persuasive than just a me-first, knee-jerk reaction[.]
…
It would appear Lambda Legal, National Center for Lesbian Rights and the ACLU LGBT Project are either realizing the case might actually be successful and therefore want to ride its coattails for credit and relevancy, or — depending on your capacity for cynicism — are intentionally dragging down a suit from a rival group working for the same cause.

The Box Turtle Bulletin clip, besides misspelling both Olson's and Boies' names, is especially frustrating in its obliviousness. Are we really dealing with "four captains trying to pilot the ship" — or "two captains trying to take back the cockpit from a pair of drunken stewardesses"? I don't know.

What I do know is that if my interests are being represented, against my will and against my reasoned judgment, by parties I conclude are not well suited to do so, then I am surely entitled to act on my own behalf. Rule 24, and Lambda's actions, are deeply routed not only in law, but simple ethics and common sense.

But so what, right? Burn her anyway!

The following is the comment I left at Towleroad:

Anyone who thinks that Lambda Legal and the ACLU are "johnny come lately" groups is too hopelessly uninformed on the history of gay rights litigation to be taken seriously.

Meanwhile, intervention is a matter of right. If the potential intervenor (and the judge) believe that the litigation affects the intervenor and that the litigants are not likely to adequately represent the intervenor's interests or legal arguments, then it is wholly appropriate to allow the intervenors to represent their own interests. It's called "due process" — maybe you've heard of it?

Or are we suddenly opposed to allowing people to sue for their rights?

One more point: The term is "amicus curiae" — friend of the COURT. It says nothing about being a "friend of the plaintiff."

Maybe Olson & Boies will prevail. Maybe Lambda Legal is reaching the wrong conclusion and taking the wrong action. Entirely possible.

But any gay who questions Lambda's motives, their superior ability to strategize on gay rights litigation, or their proven track record, is just being insolent for the sake of insolence and is humiliating himself before the entire gay blogosphere.

—

Yes, I intend to blog about the Massachusetts DOMA lawsuit. For now, here's a tweet I posted:

I see one interesting point in the Mass DOMA complaint. The rest is gobbledygook that will likely be dismissed for lack of standing.

Stay tuned.

[I]f you're on that no-fly list, your access to the right to bear arms is cancelled, because you're not part of the American family; you don't deserve that right. There is no right for you if you're on that terrorist list[.]

That was Rahm Emanuel back in 2007. You can watch the video here.

That stupid, un-American and downright evil statement had been (quite properly) dismissed and forgotten, along with most of Emanuel's hyper-partisan, Rovian blather.

Unfortunately, there are plenty of other hyper-partisan, Rovian blatherers:

Citing a "terror gap," Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) … introduced legislation yesterday to give the U.S. attorney general authority to stop the sale of guns or explosives to terrorists.

Just one problem: Lautenberg's proposal does not concern "terrorists," but people on the no-fly list.

Some are quick to point out that the no-fly list (now over one million names and rising) is teeming with false positives — including children, generals and several members of Congress.

True that. But one must go further and ask why there are so many false positives on the list. As I noted elsewhere:

False positives aren't even the issue — true positives are just as problematic.

Suppose for the sake of argument that the no-fly list is constitutional, reasonable and inoffensive to libertarian sensibilities (big assumption, I know).

What Emanuel proposes here is that the (hypothetically appropriate) denial of a privilege (i.e., non-right), without traditional notions of due process (notice and a hearing before a neutral magistrate), be used to bootstrap to the denial of a full-fledged constitutional right (the Second Amendment right to bear arms).

This the Fifth Amendment simply does not allow. Not even close.

Keep this important point in mind as the hyper-partisan Rovian blather continues: This is not a Second Amendment issue — it is a Fifth Amendment issue. Anyone who supports the Lautenberg bill opposes the Fifth Amendment. The Second Amendment is entirely ancillary.

(Lautenberg, fully aware that his proposal is unconstitutional, nevertheless pretends that his plan comports with due process because anyone on the no-fly list can challenge the denial of her Second Amendment rights after the fact. This would be akin to saying that a couple convicted for violating an unconstitutional sodomy statute aren't denied their rights, because they are still entitled to appeal to have the conviction overturned after the fact. That's absurd, of course: Being forced to sue for rights wrongly denied you under an obviously unconstitutional law is still a due process violation. There is, in essence, a right not to have to sue for your rights.)

So I ask again: what happened to that new civil libertarian paradise that Obama and the hyper-liberal Congress were going to usher in?

It's probably in that same alternate reality where DOMA and DADT have already been repealed.

Previously:
–Think Twice Before Ordering a Special Meal
–"Secure Flight" Revisited
–CAPPS II Successor Unveiled
–CAPPS Capsized

The court concluded that the challenged provision, infringes the right to privacy guaranteed by Section 21 of India's Constitution as well as Section 14 (equality before the law) and 15 (discrimination on the basis of sex) of the Indian Constitution.

So this is clearly an "end of the beginning" situation rather than a "beginning of the end" (not even the U.S. can claim that status).

Meanwhile, let's not lose sight of how this landmark (if local) decision is serving to unite and inspire the entire nation of India — in religiously commanded hatred and bigotry:

"This Western culture cannot be permitted in our country," said Maulana Khalid Rashid Farangi Mahali, a leading Muslim cleric in the northern city of Lucknow.
…
Religious leaders in the capital and in other parts of India argued that gay sex should remain illegal and that open homosexuality is out of step with India's deeply held traditions.

"We are totally against such a practice as it is not our tradition or culture," said Puroshattam Narain Singh, an official of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, or World Hindu Council.

In New Delhi, Rev. Babu Joseph, a spokesman of the Roman Catholic Church, told New Delhi Television that while homosexuals should not be treated as criminals, "at the same time we cannot afford to endorse homosexual behavior as normal and socially acceptable."

Progress? That's a relative concept.

"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ."
–Mohandas Gandhi

The case is Naz Foundation v. Government of NCT of Delhi (PDF – 105 pages).

Previously:
–Global Christians Race to the Bottom on Gay Bigotry
–Naked Bigotry Update: Pope Urges Anglicans to Reject Gays

Contrast the commendable ruling in Safford with the outrageous decision in Morse v. Frederick, in which the Court held that an adult student, not enrolled in school that day and not on school grounds, essentially has no First Amendment rights, because — "OMG drugs!"

What I found disappointing in the decision, however, was the total failure to critically review the claim that there was any legal basis to search the 13-year old girl at all — let alone by strip search.

The only basis for school officials to suspect Redding was because a fellow student — already caught with contraband "OMG drugs" (i.e., ibuprofen), therefore already in trouble, and with a prior disciplinary record that surely negates any credibility she might have, fingers a classmate ("they must be hers").

How is that "probable cause" to conduct any search, let alone a strip search? How does a busted delinquent trying to dig herself out of a disciplinary hole satisfy the "totality of the circumstances" test of Illinois v. Gates?

(Recall also that Gates lays down the criminal standard for basing probable cause on an unreliable witness. Safford was not a criminal case, but only a "school policy" case. If the police could not have strip-searched Redding based only on a non-credible fellow student's account, then how could school officials possibly do so?)

The Court got it exactly right in its recognition that "strip searches ought to be different." What it got wrong is its refusal to recognize that "school searches ought not be different."

Finally, another tweet of mine:

Thomas, whom the stupid wing of the libertarian movement adore for some reason, again opines that children have no rights in school. kthxbye

In loco parentis might — might — not be an insane educational policy if — if — school were voluntary.

But to compel government-run, or at least government-regulated, education (i.e., to negate parental control), and then turn around and suggest, as Thomas does, that schools should be allowed to exercise full parental control, is so overtly self-contradictory that it is hardly surprising that no other Justice even bothers to respond to it.

The case is Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding, No. 08–479 (June 25, 2009) (PDF – 44 pages).

Previously:
–Linkfest: Two "School as Prison" Anecdotes
–Linkfest: Supreme Court Roundup

—

Regarding Ricci v. DeStefano, yet another tweet:

It's a funky day indeed when I agree wholeheartedly with Justice Scalia. Not since Kyllo perhaps.

The Court resolved the reverse discrimination case under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, rather than under the Equal Protection Clause. Which is to say that the Court ignored the pesky fact that Title VII, as invoked in this case at least, is patently unconstitutional.

As Justice Scalia put it:

The Court's resolution of these cases makes it unnecessary to resolve these matters today. But the war between disparate impact and equal protection will be waged sooner or later, and it behooves us to begin thinking about how — and on what terms — to make peace between them.

The best "peace" would of course be to acknowledge the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment and concede that overt reverse racial discrimination in the name of eliminating (real or imagined) covert racial discrimination is — ahem — racial discrimination and therefore proscribed under the Equal Protection Clause. Disparate impact can never be the justification for disparate treatment — it's downright Kafkaesque. Two statutory wrongs do not make a constitutional right.

Finally, this was too long for me to tweet, so I had to post it to my Facebook instead:

Ginsburg's claim that there was no discrimination, because "everybody's score was equally discarded" is as disgraceful and disgusting as saying that there is no anti-gay marriage discrimination, since gays can equally marry someone of the opposite gender. Absolutely outrageous. Shame on her.

More on that today from George Will.

The case is Ricci v. DeStefano, No. 07–1428 (June 29, 2009) (PDF – 93 pages)

Previously:
–No Gender Left Behind

1. Because it is an affront to our longstanding aversion toward double jeopardy, "punishes thought" and further erodes what little federalism-style checks and balances still exist in American governmental policy today.

2. Because it includes sexual orientation.

So as "you #1" (i.e., my fellow libertarians) sally forth into the blogosphere to argue against ENDA, be careful to remember that the "enemy of your enemy" may well be a James Dobson or Pat Robertson, and does not really share your libertarian views on — well, anything other than opposing ENDA.

And as "you #2" (i.e., my fellow gay activists) sally forth into the blogosphere to argue for ENDA, be careful to remember that the "friend of your enemy" may well not be a James Dobson or Pat Robertson and does not really share their bigoted views on — well, anything other than opposing ENDA.

I, meanwhile, already split that baby in the posts below.

Previously:
–A Gay-On-Gay Hate Crime?
–On the ENDA-T Conundrum
–On Religious Bigots' New-Found (Faux) Libertarianism

—

On a somewhat related note, let's also recall that the correct reason to oppose the Obama administration's plan to try to have the Census Bureau count same-sex marriages is not because gay marriages shouldn't be counted, but because no marriages should be counted.

The sole legitimate function of the Census is to enumerate people (i.e., who lives where) for two and only two purposes: the allocation of House seats and presidential Electors. There is nothing in Article I, Section 2 about counting marriages — or occupations, incomes, refrigerators or anything else. Such privacy-eroding inquiries by the Census are extra-constitutional at best and downright unconstitutional at worst.

Previously:
–Big Census is Watching (and Betraying) You

–It is a request by President Obama. Literally: "I hereby request the following…" File that under "bold new leadership…"

–It is not "change." The memorandum is thoroughly infested with weasel term such as "currently available," "consistent with," etc. At best, the memorandum is the equivalent of policy proofreading: Let's go back and make sure we didn't miss anything that we were supposed to do in the first place.

–It is expressly worded not to give gays any real tools to work with:

This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

That's boilerplate that always appears in such memorandums — when they're meant not to mean anything.

–It is not a "law" by any denotation of the word. It goes into neither the United States Code nor the Code of Federal Regulations. Only the (voluminous but worthless) Federal Register, which is the functional equivalent of the federal government's scrapbook.

–It is unconstitutional (or would be, if it were an actual law or order rather than a bottom-of-the-cereal-box plastic toy with no real value). More on that below.

–It is not applicable to health care benefits. With the putrid mucus of socialized medicine proposals gushing out of every Obama administration orifice, there's a definite bit of "fierce advocate" irony there.

—

Let's go back to why the memorandum, were it at all substantive, would be unconstitutional.

–First, "domestic partner" is not a federal term of art, in either the statutory or regulatory senses, and is therefore unconstitutionally vague. What exactly is a "domestic partnership," who gets to decide, what kind of notice is given, and is there an appeal process? Again, such questions are mere academic cocktail hour topics, since the memorandum isn't really a government action in the first place.

–Second, there are equal protection questions. Let's say you have three similarly situated same-sex couples "covered" (loosely speaking) by the faux initiative:

1. One in Massachusetts, where gays can get married.
2. One in New Jersey, where gays cannot get married but can get "civil unioned."
3. One in Wisconsin, which has a "no nothing never" bigot amendment.

The one thing that the three couples have in common is that none of them have a "domestic partnership." If the intent is to extend (already existing) benefits to the couples in Massachusetts and New Jersey, then where does that leave the Wisconsin couple?

Or perhaps the plan is to have an honor code: The federal employee need only fill out an affidavit declaring her loved one to be her "domestic partner." But that poses equal protection issues too: Why shouldn't unmarried heterosexual couples be afforded the same option?

Because in, e.g., Wisconsin, straights can get married but gays can't? Okay — but now suppose you have a gay couple in Massachusetts who choose not to marry but opt instead to declare themselves an (unmarried) "domestic partnership" in order to glom on to the (not) new policy. Are we going to require them to get married to get the benefits? And so on…

Oh, and DOMA is still on the books. If the memorandum actually meant anything, and if anyone actually had standing to sue over it, then it's fairly obvious that the more potently the memorandum were used, the more likely it would violate DOMA (which, recall, Obama is defending vigorously in court. Ahem…)

Again, this is all angels dancing on the head of our cowardly president. I expect no law review articles, intense blog debates or other elaborate evaluations of these (strictly hypothetical) issues to emerge. But they help illustrate just how pointless the memorandum is. One would normally be tempted to call it "insulting," but this president has so callously insulted gays so many times already that this latest gesture barely warrants a footnote.

The memorandum does not insult the gay rights movement per se (leave that for the ever-lengthening trail of gay-hostile wreckage — from Rick Warren to the DOMA brief scandal, and likely beyond). Instead, this absurd piece of worthless paper insults our intelligence. This obnoxious, Rube Goldberg inspired non-policy, in which Obama actually finds a way to call nothing "something," is like two parents letting their kids vote on toppings for the pizza and pretending that the family is a democracy. It's cute — and strictly fantasy.

Gay apologists for Obama will either fall for it (again), or they won't. While there have been some "green shoots" (rainbow shoots?) on that front, for now I'll settle for a well-directed "I told you so…"

We all knew the likely outcome after oral arguments. We all knew the absurdity of such a monumental question being decided on downright silly parlor debates about "amendments" versus "revisions."

We all knew what wasn't at stake: The all-important finding that sexual orientation is a suspect class entitled to heightened scrutiny still stands in California (and now in Iowa as well). And the "separate but equal" domestic partnership option will remain available to future same-sex couples in California.

We all knew that the activists would come charging out of the gate with their plans to get a repeal initiative on the ballot.

So are there any bangs to be crafted out of this field of whimpers? Perhaps:

–The very-oft-repeated refrain from the majority that "only" the word marriage was at stake, and that the "separate but equal" domestic partnership regime endures, seems to me obviously intended, with disdain and even hostility, for the bigots. One can almost see, emerging from the margins in faint font, "Okay, you win — for all the good it will do you…"

(Someone had a deliciously snarky suggestion yesterday: The California legislature could, consistent with Prop 8 and the decision, limit the words "marriage" and "married" to heterosexual couples but still enact a new status called "wedding" and "wedded" to gays. I'm sure Maggie Gallagher would have a conniption over that.)

–As time passes, it will become increasingly clear that the most tragicomic character in this farce was Jerry Brown, already a laughable and pitiful politics addict long before Prop 8. The court was merciless in its impatient dismissal of Brown's asinine "the constitution is unconstitutional" argument. The lopsided vote notwithstanding, one can only wonder how the case might have played out had Brown not tried to be — well, a politician — and simply toed the "revision not amendment" line. Idiot.

—

Most of the voluminous decision addresses the otherwise uncaptivating "amendment versus revision" question and is nowhere near quoteworthy. Two exceptions deserve highlighting, however:

First:

Instead, the principal issue before us concerns the scope of the right of the people, under the provisions of the California Constitution, to change or alter the state Constitution itself through the initiative process so as to incorporate such a limitation as an explicit section of the state Constitution. [Emphasis added; internal citations omitted.]

This merely restates the California constitution itself:

All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require. [Emphasis added.]

As I noted previously, both passages confuse, horrifically, the words right and power.

It is true, as an axiom, that all political power resides in the people. It is true, as an axiom, that the mob always has the ability to behave like a mob. But these observations are mere matters of unambiguous fact. They are on a par with saying that a person with a gun has the ability to kill. That is a metaphysical statement, not an ethical one — and certainly not a political one.

But such statements, such factual observations, are totally orthogonal to the question of the legitimacy of what "the people" (nee "the mob") do.

Might does not make right. Neither does majority make right.

Second:

As we have observed in past cases, "The amendment of the California Constitution in 1911 to provide for the initiative and referendum signifies one of the outstanding achievements of the progressive movement of the early 1900's." The progressive movement, both in California and in other states, grew out of a widespread belief that "moneyed special interest groups controlled government, and that the people had no ability to break this control." … The initiative was viewed as one means of restoring the people's rightful control over their government, by providing a method that would permit the people to propose and adopt statutory provisions and constitutional amendments. [Emphasis added.]

In their quest to abridge property rights and freedom of contract, the progressives — and their modern-day liberal heirs — inadvertently enabled the abridging of marriage rights and equal protection by a new category of nefarious "moneyed special interest groups" (i.e., the Mormon and Catholic churches). Go figure.

I, qua libertarian, can't help but feel just a little bit smug over that thought (though I would gladly have traded that emotion for a different outcome here).

The case is Strauss v. Horton, No. S168047 (Supr. Ct. Cal., May 26, 2009) (PDF – 185 pages)

—

Meanwhile:

Two of the nation's top litigators who opposed each other in the Bush v. Gore election challenge in 2000 have joined forces to seek federal court intervention in California's gay marriage controversy.

Theodore B. Olson and David Boies have filed a U.S. District Court lawsuit on behalf of two gay men and two gay women, arguing that the California constitutional amendment eliminating the right of gay couples to marry violates the U.S. constitutional guarantee of equal protection and due process.

Olson said today that he hopes the case will wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The lawsuit seeks a preliminary injunction against California's Proposition 8 until the case is resolved.

The only way this becomes a federal case is by invoking Romer v. Evans — which of course is entirely on point and which, under any impartial reading, clearly requires that Prop 8 be invalidated.

But are ("activist") federal judges ready to acknowledge that Romer demands that all bigot amendments (and not just California's) be struck down? The smart money (e.g., Lambda Legal) says no. But Olson and Boies are no slouches either — or are they just hired guns, as Kenneth Starr was a hired gun for the bigots in this lawsuit?

Stay tuned…

Previously:
–On the [Original] California Gay Marriage Decision
–On the Petition to Overturn Proposition 8
–On the Brown Proposition 8 Brief
–Thoughts Going Into the California Oral Arguments

Two of the nation's top marriage equality litigators will lead a nationwide phone briefing on Tuesday, May 12th, to discuss current and upcoming developments in same sex marriage. The call is free and open to the public.

The discussion will be led by Jennifer Pizer, Senior Counsel and Director of the National Marriage Project at Lambda Legal, and Mary Bonauto, Civil Rights Project Director at Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders.

Jennifer Pizer served as co-counsel on the case that established the rights to equality for same-sex couples (In re Marriage Cases), and the subsequent challenge to Proposition 8, Strauss v. Horton. Mary Bonauto served as co-counsel in Baker v. State of Vermont, establishing that Vermont same-sex couples are entitled to all the benefits and protections of civil marriage.