ACLU Sues Michigan Over Anti-Gay DP Benefits Law

Previously MadProfessah had blogged about a new discriminatory law signed into effect by Republican Governor Rick Snyder which would ban public employees (at the state, county, or city level) from receiving benefits based on domestic partner status. Now comes word that the American Civil Liberties Union is suing the Governor and the state of Michigan to strike down the law in court.

The case is known as Bassett v. Snyder:

The lawsuit charges that the new law discriminates by categorically denying domestic partners access to benefits and violates the constitutional right to equal protection by forcing gay and lesbian employees in committed relationships to carry the financial hardship and anxiety of being uninsured, while allowing heterosexual couples to marry and receive family health protections. In addition, the law only bars domestic partners from receiving health care coverage, while allowing government employers to offer benefits to all other family members, including parents, siblings, uncles and cousins.

“It’s unconstitutional for the state of Michigan to deprive a small number of workers the means to take care of their loved ones when other similarly situated workers do have access to family coverage,” said Amanda C. Goad, staff attorney for the ACLU LGBT Project. “In an economic downturn, the state should be passing laws to make it easier for families to take care of each other, not to take protections away.”

Proponents point to the “high cost” of domestic partner health care coverage as the motivating force to enact such a law. However, an analysis of programs across the state proves these numbers to be wildly inaccurate. In fact, studies show such coverage, in addition to attracting and retaining the best employees, costs well under one percent of the health care budget of public employers who voluntarily provide these benefits. In addition, unlike married couples, domestic partners must pay taxes to the state on their health insurance benefits – revenue the state would lose under the new law.

As Ari Ezra Waldman over at TowleRoad comments, this case is really about more than just domestic partnership benefits, it's about whether the state can discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation without a legitimate governmental purpose or compelling justification.

The answer is, of course, "heck no!"

133 House Members Sign Brief Challenging DOMA

133 Democratc congressmembers signed their names to a brief filed before the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Gill v Office of Personnel Management in which the central question is whether the  so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional.

The case was brought (and won) by Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders before U.S. District Court judge Joseph Tauro in July 2009. The Department of Justice appealed the decision, but then in February 2011 the United States changed sides in the case after the President determined that DOMA is inherently unconstitutional and laws that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation warrant heightened scrutiny.

DOMA is being defended in federal court by superlawyer Paul Clement for BLAG, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, on behalf of the U.S. House Republican majority.

Hat/tip to Joe.My.God

Boehner Triples Budget For DOMA Legal Defense

Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH)

This is pretty astonishing news. While Republicans are repeatedly bloviating about cutting Medicare and Social Security and reducing the size ofthe federal government, that doesn't apparently apply to defending homophobic laws in court.

Joe.My.God reports that the the "Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group" (which is controlled by the Republican House majority) has authorized a new contract with super-lawyer Paul Clement which triples the potential cost of defending the so-called Defense of Marriage Act in federal court.

Talking Points Memo has the details:

House Republican leaders have tripled theamount allocated for a legal team arguing in support of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) from $500,000 to $1.5 million of taxpayer money.

A modified contract between the General Counsel to the House of Representatives and former Solicitor General Paul Clement of Bancroft PLLC sets a cap of $750,000 which can be raised up to $1.5 million.

"It is absolutely unconscionable that Speaker Boehner is tripling the cost for his legal boondoggle to defend the indefensible Defense of Marriage Act," Drew Hammill, a spokesman for Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, said in a statement.

"At a time when Americans are hurting and job creation should be the top priority, it just shows how out of touch House Republicans have become that they would spend up to $1.5 million dollars to defend discrimination in our country," Hammill continued.

It should be noted that the Obama administration has concluded that DOMA is unconstitutional and is no longer defending it in court. DOMA has been declared unconstitutional by at least three federal judges this  year, in cases which are still under appeal.

LA County Settles Police Brutality Case For $650K

The 5-member Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved a settlement of $650,000 to Erick Hoxey and his girlfriend Shatwan Smith in response to a civil lawsuit which charged outrageous behavior by Los Angeles County Sherriff officials during an April 2008 incident in Compton.

The Los Angeles Times covers the story:

On trial for allegedly assaulting two Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies, Erick Hoxey took the witness stand in his own defense and told jurors it was the other way around.

He said he was waiting in his car outside a Compton apartment building where his girlfriend was making an appointment to braid a little girl's hair, when deputies pulled up. After asking him a few questions, Hoxey said they inexplicably yanked him out of the car, punched him and struck him with a flashlight before pepper-spraying his eyes and inside his mouth.


Then, he said, one grabbed him by the hair and slammed his head twice against the pavement.

The prosecutor, troubled by the young man's testimony, cut him off suddenly and asked the judge for a recess. When he returned an hour and a half later, the prosecutor announced that all charges were being dropped.

On Tuesday, two years after the criminal case fizzled, the county agreed to pay Hoxey, now 24, and his girlfriend $650,000.

The payout comes despite the Sheriff's Department defending the deputies' conduct in arresting Hoxey, his girlfriend, Shatwan Smith, and a bystander who came to their aid during the April 2008 altercation.

According to Deputies Samuel Orozco and Scott Giles, they were on patrol when they spotted Hoxey driving with his seatbelt off. The deputies said Hoxey was immediately aggressive, cursing at them, before reaching under his leg for what they believed was a handgun. The deputies unlocked the car door and pulled Hoxey out of the vehicle. The young man then spun around and took a swing at them, according to the deputies' account. Hoxey continued to fight back, the deputies said, while his girlfriend ran out from the apartment building and began hitting them too.

Although the deputies said they believed Hoxey was armed with a gun, no weapon was recovered. Deputy Orozco testified that a woman at the scene, who did not identify herself because she feared retribution, told him that she saw a man run and grab something from the car, presumably the weapon.

The couple, and the bystander who interceded and pleaded with the deputies to stop, denied the deputies were assaulted.

After hearing the conflicting testimony about the incident, the L.A. County district attorney's office abandoned its prosecution of Hoxey and Smith.

Deputy Dist. Atty. Eric Siddall said in a deposition that Hoxey's testimony "made me think that there was reasonable doubt in the case."

The couple's civil attorney, Glen Jonas, accused the deputies of framing Hoxey on charges of resisting arrest and drug possession and Smith of resisting arrest and assault. Giles said he found a cocaine rock in Hoxey's car, while he and other deputies were searching the vehicle.

"It ruined their lives," Jonas said of the ordeal. He said Smith, who was a student at UC San Diego at the time, "was so distraught over being falsely prosecuted that she couldn't concentrate in school…her grades fell and ultimately she wasn't able to stay in school."

During the trial, Orozco's past on-duty behavior was also scrutinized in testimony from residents in the area who said they had run-ins with him. One woman said he used the N-word against her. Another testified that she'd also been roughed up by Orozco, booked and was eventually acquitted.

Sheriff's spokesman Steve Whitmore declined to comment on specific allegations but said the department maintains the couple was resisting arrest. "This settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing," he said. "Deputies don't make stuff up, the hope is, and we contend they did not fabricate anything."

I don't usually include such an extensive excerpt from a newspaper story but one really needs to see all the paragraphs that I have included in order to draw your own conclusions about what really happened*. Two Sheriff deputies see a Black guy sitting in a car and decide to rough him up for some bizarre reason only known to themselves. They start beating the crap out of him, then his girlfriend and a bystander come to the guy's defense.  Then the deputies have the gall to claim that the person that they assaulted was "resisting arrest" AND they claim the existence of a gun which is not found AND attempt to plant drugs in the vehicle. It reads like something out of FX's The Shield!
(That was a show starring Michael Chiklis as a rogue cop who basically takes the law into his own hands.)

The real hero of the piece is the Deputy District Attorney Eric Siddall who refused to condone the cops lying and when he realized what was going on, declined to perpetrate a fraud upon the court. I'm not convinced that $650,000 is enough money for the two people who were attacked by the very same people their own taxes pay to protect them and keep them safe. What is a reasonable price for violation of the public trust?

Another question is why do Samuel Orozco and Scott Giles still have jobs with Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department and why hasn't the Los Angeles County District Attorney charged them with perjury?
Even the Sheriff's Department spokesperson says "Deputies don't make stuff up, the hope is." Really? Do you think this is some kind of joke?

 It is incredibly damaging to how all police officers are viewed and public safety overall if it appears that some officers of the court are getting away with activities that if they were just regular people would result in jail time. Police officers and sheriff's deputies (and elected officials) who are presumed to have the public trust should be held to a higher ethical standard than the general public. Even the appearance of hypocrisy is unacceptable.

*DISCLAIMER: Nothing in this blog posting should be construed as claiming any individual of having committed any criminal or civil offense.

CA Sup Ct Sets Prop 8 Case Oral Arguments Date: 9/6/2011

Good news! The California Supreme Court has finally set a date of September 6 at 10:00am for the oral arguments in the Perry v. Brown lawsuit (informally known as "The Proposition 8 case") in which the question at hand is a very limited one. Namely,

Whether under Article II, Section 8 of the California Constitution, or otherwise under California law, the official proponents of an initiative measure possess either a particularized interest in the initiative's validity or the authority to assert the State's interest in the initiative's validity, which would enable them to defend the constitutionality of the initiative upon its adoption or appeal a judgment invalidating the initiative, when the public officials charged with that duty refuse to do so.

Although the question is limited, the stakes are not. If the state Supreme Court rules, most likely within 90 days of oral arguments, that the heterosexual supremacists who drafted and promulgated Proposition 8 now have no legal standing to defend its constitutionality, it is very likely a 3-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will follow that decision and rule that the Proposition 8 proponents have no standing to defend the measure in federal court, either.

In that case, the lower court's decision would go into effect and federal Judge Vaughn Walker's brilliant ruling determining that Proposition 8 violates the United States Constitution would go into effect. Of course the bad guys would probably appeal to the Suprem Court but since the case would only be about California (and California law) it is unlikely that SCOTUS would take the case. There is a possibility that SCOTUS would take the appeal to try to clarify once and for all whether proponents of state ballot measures who are not named plaintiffs in lawsuits have a right to continue appeals when the named plaintiffs fail to appeal but there's already a decision called Arizona for Official English vs Arizona in which SCOTUS basically says you need a particularized interest under state law in order to pursue a federal appeal. And it is precisely that question of whether a particularized interest exists under California law that the California Supreme Court will decided, by the end of 2011.

Another wrinkle is that the 7-member Supreme Court has recently lost its most pro-gay member, Carlos Moreno, and Governor Brown only announced his replacement, Goodwin Liu, who is probably as similarly pro-equality as Moreno, this week. If Liu is not on the court by September 6th, the court will probably name a state appellate judge to hear oral arguments and participate in the decision.

Hang on to your hats, folks, it's gonna be a bumpy ride!

GLAD Files For Summary Judgment In DOMA Case

GLAD Files Motion for Summary Judgment in 2nd Circuit DOMA Challenge, Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management

Plaintiffs Ask Court for Heightened Scrutiny

Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) filed a motion for summary judgment in Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management, its 2^nd Circuit challenge to the federal so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

GLAD argues that the equal protection claims of the plaintiffs, six married couples and one widower fromConnecticut, Vermont, and New Hampshire, require heightened scrutiny from the court. The brief shows how DOMA fails heightened scrutiny, or even a rational basis review.

“No interest advanced to defend DOMA can in fact withstand any level of scrutiny,” the brief reads.  “The reasons offered by Congress at the time of DOMA’s passage are either nonsensical or just another way of saying that Congress wanted to denounce and harm those gay men and lesbians who form long-term relationships and seek to have those relationships recognized and respected through civil marriage.”

GLAD also filed supporting affidavits from experts Michael Lamb, Ph.D, Gary Segura, Ph.D, Lititia Anne Peplau, Ph.D, George Chauncey, Ph.D, and Nancy F. Cott, Ph.D.

The next step is for Congress to respond to GLAD’s motion for summary judgment on or by August 15, 2011.

GLAD filed Pedersen v. OPM in Hartford, CT on November 8, 2010.  GLAD’s DOMA challenge Gill v. OPM won a July 8, 2010 ruling in Massachusetts federal district court that DOMA is unconstitutional.  That case is now on appeal. 

Co-operating counsel on Pedersen are Jenner & Block LLP (Washington, DC), Horton, Shields & Knox (Hartford), and Sullivan & Worcester LLP (Boston).  Co-counsel in the Gill case are Foley Hoag LLP, Sullivan & Worcester LLP, Jenner & Block LLP, and Kator, Parks & Weiser, PLLC.

Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders is New England’s leading legal organization dedicated to ending discrimination based on sexual orientation, HIV status, and gender identity and expression.

# # #

FFRF Sues Rick Perry Over Prayer Rally

Good news! There is an organization willing to stand up to Governor Rick Perry (R-Texas) and his dangerous entanglement of his official office with religious extremist, heterosexual supremacist organizations like the American Family Association. It's called the Freedom from Religion Foundation and they are suing the governor over Perry's proposed prayer rally called "The Response" where he has invited all the nation's governors to join him in praying to Jesus to help our country.

USA Today has the details:

The Freedom from Religion Foundation argues in its lawsuit filed in Houston that Republican Gov. Rick Perry's day of prayer and fasting would violate the constitutional ban on the government endorsing a religion. The event, which is called The Response and is billed as Christian-only, is scheduled for Aug. 6 at Houston's Reliant Stadium.

The complaint alleges Perry violated the First Amendment's establishment clause by organizing, promoting and participating in the event.

"The answers for America's problems won't be found on our knees or in heaven, but by using our brains, our reason and in compassionate action," said Dan Barker, a co-director of the foundation. "Gov. Perry's distasteful use of his civil office to plan and dictate a religious course of action to 'all citizens' is deeply offensive to many citizens, as well as to our secular form of government."

There are some complicated issues here. Clearly, Rick Perry has the right to pray (or not) to who or what ever he wants to. The question is, can he, in his official capacity as Governor of a state, issue a call to prayer without overstepping the bounds of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. If he was doing so as a private citizen there would be no constitutional question. Then the question would be a political one: is it possible for a governor (or any high elected official) to act in a whole private capacity?

As an atheist/agnostic myself anything that challenges the arrogance of believers that everyone has to believe the way they do I will support. I immediately donated money to FFRF upon hearing their lawsuit, which they will inevitably lose, but their point is an important one. Not everyone believes in Rick Perry's god and it is hubris to declare that all citizens must join him on our knees to find solutions to our nation's problems.

TN Groups File Lawsuit Against Anti-Gay Law

Excellent news! A coalition of LGBT Tennesseans have joined together to file a lawsuit challenging a recently enacted anti-gay law passed by the state Legislature which would repeal all existing local LGBT civil rights ordinances and prohibit the establishment of any ordinances which protect groups which are not currently protected in state law.

From the press release:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Tennesseans Challenge Discriminatory State Law
Councilmembers, Residents, Organizations File Suit Calling HB600 Unconstitutional

(Nashville, TN, June 13, 2011)—A group of local elected officials, individuals, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights organizations filed a lawsuit today in Davidson County Chancery Court, challenging the state’s recent passage of House Bill 600, which prohibits local municipalities and counties, including local school districts, from enacting local laws or school policies that protect gay and transgender people against discrimination. The bill was passed earlier this year, just weeks after Nashville added sexual orientation and gender identity to an existing local anti-discrimination law.  The new law also prohibits localities from protecting any other group that is not already protected under state law, which would include veterans and people with disabilities, among others.  

According to the complaint filed today: “HB600 embodies an animus toward gay and transgender people so strong that the Tennessee legislature was willing to repeal policies protecting students against bullying and harassment and to make other groups suffer as well, merely to prevent gay and transgender citizens from obtaining needed protections.”   

“This law is contrary to core Tennessee values,” said Abby R. Rubenfeld, the suit’s lead attorney. “Tennessee is the volunteer state—we help each other, we don’t single out certain Tennesseans who are deemed unworthy of help. Our legislators abused their power by preventing localities from assisting their own citizens. Rather than considering what is best for our state, they passed a law based on disapproval of gay and transgender people, which the Tennessee and U.S. Constitutions do not permit.”    

“Fifteen years ago, in fact—in a case quite similar to this one—the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that, ‘if the constitutional conception of ‘equal protection of the laws’ means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare … desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest’,” said Rubenfeld, citing Romer v. Evans, which struck down a Colorado constitutional amendment that barred localities or the state from passing laws to prohibit discrimination against gay people.

The suit’s plaintiffs, represented by Nashville attorney Rubenfeld, the law firm of Morrison & Foerster, and the National Center for Lesbian Rights, include:

•    Lisa Howe, the extremely successful Belmont University soccer coach who made a “mutual decision” to leave her coaching position unexpectedly and despite a highly successful career, immediately after sharing with her team that she and her same-sex partner were having a baby.

•    Metro Councilmembers Erik Cole, Erica Gilmore, and Mike Jameson, representing District 7, District 19, and District 6, respectively. Councilmembers Gilmore and Jameson were co-sponsors of BL2011-838, the Metro ordinance which extended existing anti-discrimination protections to gay and transgender employees of Metro government contractors.

•    Shirit Pankowsky, a rising senior at Martin Luther King, Jr. High School (MLK) and founder and president of MLK’s Gay/Straight Alliance. By stripping Metro’s ability to protect its citizens from discrimination, HB600 also strips protections from Metro Nashville Public Schools’ LGBT students who face discrimination.

•    Dr. Marisa Richmond, president of the Tennessee Transgender Political Coalition and longtime advocate for gay and transgender equality at the federal, state and local level.

•    Wesley Roberts, a teacher at Hume-Fogg Academic Magnet School and a co-sponsor of the school’s Gay/Straight Alliance.

•    The Tennessee Equality Project, a statewide non-profit organization dedicated to promoting and sustaining the equality of gay and transgender Tennesseans.

•    The Tennessee Transgender Political Coalition, a statewide organization which advocates for transgender-related legislation at the federal, state and local levels.

“I want my daughter to grow up in a state that treats everyone equally,” said Lisa Howe. “This lawsuit is necessary because the legislation is discriminatory and unconstitutional. Unfortunately, the majority of the legislature didn’t read the bill carefully and think through its consequences. But that’s why we have the Constitution and the courts to interpret it—so that the rights of everyone can be protected.”

“The state legislation was disguised as an effort to ensure consistent business regulations across Tennessee counties. But that was a Trojan horse pretext for getting this passed. Every county has unique zoning regulations, unique employment regulations, and so forth. Why is it only now, and only on the issue of discrimination, that we suddenly need uniformity? If every county now needs to be identical, should we abolish city councils across the state?” said Metro Councilmember and suit plaintiff Mike Jameson.
 
No individual businesses went on record in support of HB600, and some of Tennessee’s largest employers, including Nissan, Alcoa, FedEx, AT&T, Whirlpool and Comcast, opposed the bill. In addition, the Tennessee Chamber of Commerce issued a public statement in opposition to the bill on the day it was signed into law by Gov. Bill Haslam.

“Under the very thin guise of protecting businesses and commerce, Tennessee passed a law specifically intended to encourage discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender members of the community,” said Shannon Minter, Legal Director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights. “This law is part of a larger, national strategy to attack cities and counties that attempt to protect their citizens from discrimination based on characteristics that bear no relationship to job performance, talent, or one’s ability to contribute to society.”

Plaintiffs’ claims are based on the equal protection guarantees of the United States and Tennessee Constitutions. The lawsuit, which will proceed in state court, seeks injunctive relief to stop the enforcement of HB600 and an order from the Court declaring the law unconstitutional.  

Media Contacts:

Erik Olvera
NCLR Communications Director 
Office: 415.392.6257 x324
Mobile: 415.994.3242
EOlvera@NCLRights.org

Abby R. Rubenfeld 
Rubenfeld Law Office 
Office: 615.386.9077 
ARubenfeld@RubenfeldLaw.com

WATCH: Olson/Boies Tribute To Loving v. Virginia

June 12 is the 44th anniversary of the unanimous Loving v. Virginia United States Supreme Court case which overturned all state-enacted bans on interracial marriages. David Boies and Ted Olson are the lead attorneys in the federal lawsuit against Proposition 8, a 2008 California ballot measure which bans same-sex marriage. They have recorded a special video tribute acknowledging the significance of the Loving decision, and its potential impacyt on the Perry v. Brown case.

Hat/tip to TowleRoad.

Catholic Charities Sue Ill. For Right To Anti-Gay Discrimination

Today in religious hubris news, three chapters of Catholic Charities (based in Peoria, Joliet and Springfield) have decided to sue Illinois in order to gain the right to take state money (as much as $30 million) but discriminate in who they provide adoption and foster care services to. As you may recall, on June 1, Illinois' civil unions law went into effect. In response, some local Catholic Charities have announced they would suspend foster care and adoption services altogether unless they have the right to violate Illinois Human Right Law which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (and race and marital status).

Simply astonishing. The Advocate has the deets:

In the suit, Catholic Charities for the dioceses of Springfield, Joliet, and Peoria claim that their state-funded adoption services are exempt from the civil unions law under provisions of the legislation as well as existing state religious freedom protections.

"Same sex couples' and unmarried cohabiting couples' application for adoption or foster care referrals could be fully and adequately serviced and accommodated (as they are now) by [the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services] referring them to other providers which do not share [our] conscientious religious objections," attorneys for the dioceses wrote in their complaint.

"On the other hand, the harm to plaintiffs and to the poor, needy and vulnerable third parties whom they serve, should no injunctive relief issue, would be severe and ... even unconscionable," they wrote.

The suit was prompted in part by a March 8 letter from Illinois attorney general Lisa Madigan's office inquiring into Catholic Charities of Springfield's existing policies and whether they violate the law.

"Please be advised that the Illinois Human Rights Act makes it a civil rights violation for any person to 'deny or refuse to another the full and equal enjoyment of facilities, goods, or services of any public place of accommodation' on the basis of unlawful discrimination," which includes sexual orientation and marital status as protected characteristics, the letter read in part.

In a Tuesday statement, a spokeswoman for the attorney general's office said of the suit, "Organizations that receive taxpayer funding to provide public services must comply with the law. Unfortunately, instead of working with the state to ensure compliance with child protection and civil rights laws, the dioceses have opted to go to court."

Filed on behalf of the dioceses by attorneys from the Thomas More Society in Chicago, the lawsuit comes after the announcement late last month that Catholic Charities in Rockford was pulling out of adoption services entirely — a decision described by one source as a possible "trial balloon" from the church to put pressure on the state assembly and attorney general's office. But "there's nothing to indicate that the governor or the assembly is interested in providing an exemption" for religious groups contracted by the state for adoption services, the source said.

Meanwhile, Catholic Charities' claim that Illinois is undermining its religious freedom in state adoption contracts has been criticized by several national LGBT legal and advocacy groups.

"It's outrageous," said Camilla Taylor, national marriage project director for Lambda Legal. "They're asking permission to put their desire to discriminate ahead of the welfare of children in state care. And they're asking to do this at taxpayer expense. It's a tragic result for children."

Even the head of Catholic Charities in Illinois, Anthony Riordan, recognizes that the position stated in the lawsuit is nonsensical, making this statement:

That the Catholic Charities adoption contracts in question are not private but rather funded to the tune of a reported $30 million annually by the state is not ultimately what this is about, he argued. "I think it's certainly a reasonable point: If you receive state funds, you have to follow the directives and the rules of the state," Riordan said. "But our position is that faith-based charities have religious liberties and certain rights of conscience."[emphasis added]

I wonder how far Catholic Charities would like these alleged religious liberties to go? The right to be exempt from age of consent laws? Statutes of limitation on child molestation lawsuits? Why stop at the human rights law and try to get exemptions for every law that they don't agree with?

It should be noted that the notion that religious beliefs should trump the concept of "equal justice under the law" and the underlying principle of public accommodations civil rights laws has been rearing it's ugly head in other contexts, most notably the fight to legalize marriage equality in New York State.