Tag: US Supreme Court

Categories
News News Blog

Federal Judge Sides With Tennessee in Water Rights Case

Corey Owens/Greater Memphis Chamber

A diagram shows the layer of aquifers underneath Memphis.

Tennessee has not been stealing billions of gallons of Mississippi’s waters for years, according to an opinion issued Thursday in a legal battle over water rights here that began in 2006.

The original suit claimed wells drilled in Memphis siphoned off water that belonged, exclusively, to Mississippi. Mississippi officials wanted the U.S. Supreme Court to recognize the state’s right to the water and wanted Tennessee to pay $615 million for the water Tennessee had already consumed.

But a federal judge working on the case opined against Mississippi’s claim Thursday. Judge Eugene Siler, appointed as Special Master on the water suit, recommended that the suit be dismissed and for the states to share the water.

The core of Siler’s ruling was that the disputed waters flow between many states. Thus, they become an “interstate resource,” meaning rights to the water are held by many states. Mississippi officials claimed the water is stored under their state boundaries and belongs only to them, making the water an “intrastate resource.”

“Mississippi’s claims are simple: Tennessee has, by pumping in Shelby County, Tennessee, taken groundwater that would have remained in Mississippi for centuries,” reads Siler’s ruling. “Over more than a decade of litigation, at every level in the federal court system, the core of Mississippi’s claims has not wavered. Mississippi thinks Tennessee has stolen and continues to steal its water. Easy enough.”

But Siler says surface boundaries and rights are easier when compared to the the “various rock formation and complex hydrology” found underground.

“And Mississippi claims those subsurface differences require distinguishing its water from the water that sits below other states,” Siler said. “Tennessee, on the other hand, thinks any of those geological differences are much ado about nothing. The Special Master agrees with Tennessee.”

Officials in Mississippi claim waters in the Sparta Sand Aquifer are stored only under the Magnolia State, making it an intrastate resource, only available for one state. Mississippi argued that “it owns a fixed portion of the aquifer because it controls the resources within its state boundaries.”

Officials in Tennessee claimed the Sparta and the Memphis Sand Aquifer were connected, making waters there an interstate resource, available for many states.

Siler said both aquifers are part of a much larger aquifer — the Middle Claiborne Aquifer. This massive aquifer lies beneath Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, and Tennessee.
U.S. Supreme Court

The Memphis Sand comprises much of this aquifer’s northern portion. The Sparta Sand takes up much of the southern portion, according to the suit.

But Mississippi’s suit seeks to separate the two. With that, officials there believe Memphis — specifically Memphis Light, Gas & Water (MLGW) — has “’forcibly siphoned’ off its water to the tune of billions of gallons. And that without modern pumping technology, none of that water would be available to Tennessee.”
[pullquote-1-center] The water and the water pressure in the Sparta Sand are both down because of MLGW’s pumping, according to the suit. Tennessee’s “heist” of groundwater is so fast and so great, Mississippi now has to drill deeper wells. That has increased the cost on Mississippians who rely on the aquifer for their groundwater.

Siler said Mississippi’s claim of a water drawdown proves that the aquifers are connected and, thus, should be a resource shared by the states. Mississippi officials claim, though, that Tennessee can only get the water if they pump it out.

Siler recommends Mississippi and Tennessee simply share the water. However, Mississippi “specifically rejects the application of equitable apportionment to this case.”

U.S. Supreme Court

“While Mississippi acknowledges that the aquifer extends underneath both states, it alleges that the groundwater is stored only underneath Mississippi,” reads the ruling. “In fact, its position is Tennessee can only access the water underneath Mississippi by pumping it out. As a result, Mississippi believes that the groundwater ‘is neither interstate water nor a naturally shared resource.’ Therefore, it claims that Tennessee has no right to the water. Thus, equitable apportionment cannot apply.”

But Siler sided with Tennessee in the case and will recommend to the U.S. Supreme Court that the state should share the water.

“Water is finite,” Siler wrote. “Especially the usable kind. And the Middle Claiborne Aquifer holds lots of it. Unsurprisingly, both Mississippi and Tennessee want it. Luckily, instead of war, the law requires they share it.”

U.S. Supreme Court

Read the Special Master’s report here:

[pdf-1]

Categories
News News Blog

Petitioning U.S. Supreme Court, State Continues Challenge of Refugee Resettlement

CREDIT: World Relief

World Relief

Refugee family reunites at airport

As a global pandemic spreads through the country and Tennessee towns and cities, the state of Tennessee looks to rekindle a lawsuit challenging refugee resettlement in the state by taking it to the Supreme Court on appeal.

On behalf of the state, attorneys with the Michigan-based Thomas More Law Center (TMLC) filed a petition in the U.S. Supreme Court last week, asking the court to review the state’s lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the federal refugee program in Tennessee.

The lawsuit was originally filed in March 2017 against the United States Department of State on the grounds that refugee settlement in Tennessee violates the U.S. Constitution by requiring the state to pay for a program it did not consent to.

The lawsuit alleged that though Tennessee had withdrawn from the federal Refugee Resettlement Program, the federal government forced Tennessee to continue funding the program by “threatening the state with the loss of federal Medicaid funding.” The state said it had to “expend a substantial amount of state taxpayer money” to fund the program.

The lawsuit was dismissed in March 2018 by a federal judge who ruled there was a lack of standing by the legislature to sue on its own behalf and that the state failed to show that refugee resettlement in Tennessee violates the Constitution.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision in August, also stating that the General Assembly had not established its standing.

In September, attorneys with TMLC filed a petition asking the appellate court to rehear the case, on the grounds that the court’s decision was “painfully at odds” with Supreme Court precedent. The court denied that request.

[pullquote-1]

Now, attorneys representing the state are asking that the U.S. Supreme Court rule that the Tennessee General Assembly has standing to challenge the constitutionality of the “federal government’s force state funding of the federal resettlement program.”

“If the state legislature cannot vindicate its rights in court when the federal government picks the state’s pocket and threatens the state if it dares stop providing funds, then federalism is a dead letter,” the petition reads in part.

Specifically, the petition is asking that the court overturn the Sixth Court of Appeals ruling that the General Assembly has no standing to challenge the constitutionality of the resettlement program. The petition cites this ruling as an error.

“The General Assembly is an institutional plaintiff asserting an institutional injury; the federal government had co-opted the General Assembly’s appropriation power and impaired its obligation to enact a balanced state budget,” the petition reads. “This is because the federal government can siphon funds to help pay for a federal program from which Tennessee has withdrawn.”

Judith Clerjeune, policy and legislative affairs manager for the Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition, said the move is a divisive, untimely one.


“Instead of focusing on solutions to protect Tennesseans during this time of crisis, our legislature continues to try and divide us,” Clerjeune said. “This lawsuit which has already been dismissed multiple times, has always sought to put communities against each other by scapegoating refugees, and its baseless claims are even more apparent now.

“By continuing their xenophobic crusade against he refugee resettlement program in the midst of a growing pandemic, these lawmaker are failing to meet the moment and are putting Tennesseans in jeopardy.”

Clerjeune said now more than ever, it’s important to “make sure that the most vulnerable are protected.”

Categories
Memphis Gaydar News

LGBTQ+ Group Urges Blackburn: ‘Represent All of Us’

CREDIT: U.S. Senator Marsha Blackburn/Facebook

U.S. Senator Marsha Blackburn/Facebook

Blackburn and other Congress members filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court hoping to limit future protections for LGBTQ+ people int he workplace.

U.S. Senator Marsha Blackburn does not think federal employment protections extend to the LGBTQ+ community, according to a court document, but advocates are asking her to change her mind.

Several members of Congress (including Blackburn) filed a brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, offering up their expertise on Title VII. That’s the portion of the 1964 Civil Rights Acts that prohibits employment discrimination based on “race, color, religion, sex, and national origin.”
[pdf-1]
A case now before the Supreme Court could affect employers’ rights to fire gay and transgender employees. The Congress members’ brief says changing the law should be a legislative function — left up to Congress in other words — and not one to be decided in courts. But they do tip their hands on their feelings about the law.

”Title VII does not expressly include sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes,” reads the brief. “The text and legislative history do not support the view that Title VII was intended to protect them.”

The case was brought by three people — a skydiving instructor, a funeral home employee, and a state-government child welfare services coordinator — who all claimed they were discriminated against because they were gay or transgender.

The “sex” part of Title VII was meant to protect women, the Congress members said in the brief. They explain “sex” in the brief by saying “sex” — in quotes — a bunch of times.
[pullquote-1] “Sexual orientation and gender identity, despite their connection to sex, are not ’sex,’ per se,”reads the brief. “Title VII does not prohibit discrimination based upon ‘things that cannot be defined or understood without reference to sex’ or ‘things that are directly connected to sex.’ Moreover, sex stereotyping is not a separate protected class, but rather a means of proving sex discrimination.”

Any way you describe it, amending the law could have real-world effects, the Congress members say, including ”collateral impacts on businesses and imposition on matters of conscience.” Oh, and the Affordable Care Act.

The brief was signed by eight U.S. Senators (Blackburn being one) and 40 U.S. Representatives.

On Tuesday, members of the Tennessee Equality Project (TEP) delivered petitions to Blackburn’s Memphis and Nashville offices urging her to remove her name from the brief. The group said 724 people signed the petitions at events in Memphis, Murfreesboro, and Nashville in the last month.
[pullquote-2] The petitions read, in part, “sex stereotyping is at the heart of discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Your constituents in Tennessee need these protections and we ask you to speak for them.”
Tennessee Equality Project

TEP Shelby County chair Shahin Samiei delivers petitions to Sen. Blackburn’s office.

TEP Shelby County Committee Chair Shahin Samiei delivered the petitions to Blackburn’s office in Memphis Tuesday.

“Having spoken with scores of Tennesseans, a consensus resonates that being fired for who we love or who we are is inconsistent with our values,” Samiei said in a statement. “Fire me for being bad at my job — don’t fire me for being LGBTQ.”

TEP executive director Chris Sanders said the organization is contacted “every month” by LGBTQ+ people who have been discriminated against on the job.

“We need legal protections and we need Senator Blackburn to represent all of us,” Sanders said. “There is wide agreement across the political spectrum that everyone deserves the chance to earn a living.”

Categories
News News Blog

Supreme Court Strikes Down Tennessee Liquor Law

CREDIT: Institute for Justice

Institute for Justice

The Ketchums outside Kimbrough Towers Fine Wine

The U.S. Supreme Court struck down Tennessee’s two-year residency requirement to get a liquor store license Wednesday morning.

Doug and Mary Ketchum, owners of Kimbrough Wine and Spirits, brought the suit late last year. They bought the store in 2017 but the Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Association threatened to sue the state Alcohol Beverage Commission if the Ketchums were approved for a license, citing residency requirements in state law. (See our full story here.)

Supreme Court Justices issued their opinion Wednesday morning in a 7-2 decision. Justice Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas cast the dissenting votes.

“The provision expressly discriminates against nonresidents and has at best a highly attenuated relationship to public health or safety,” reads the prevailing opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito.

Read the entire opinion here.

The case was filed by the Ketchums and Total Wine, a national liquor retailer. Their case was handled by the Institute for Justice.

Here’s what Michael Bindas, one of the Institue’s attorneys on the case, had to say:

“Today’s ruling makes plain that all Americans have a right to earn an honest living and that government cannot deny someone that right simply because of where they live or used to live. No state may discriminate against out-of-staters or newcomers to protect established, in-state interests from competition.

“As the Court recognized, the 21st Amendment is not a blank check, and the states’ power to regulate alcohol is not unlimited. Although states can impose reasonable regulations on alcohol to protect public health and safety, they cannot discriminate in order to protect favored economic interests.”

Categories
News The Fly-By

Q&A with First Same-Sex Couple to Get Marriage License in Shelby County

Chris and Bradley Brower made local history on Friday by becoming the first same-sex couple in Shelby County to receive a marriage license.

Chris, a nurse, and Bradley, a teacher, have been together for two years, and they had held a commitment ceremony at Holy Trinity Community Church just two weeks prior to the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision making same-sex marriage legal in all 50 states. On Friday, they made their marriage official with a visit to the Shelby County Clerk’s Office.

The news of the high court’s 5-4 ruling came down Friday morning, just after 9 a.m. The ruling overturned a November Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decision to uphold gay marriage bans in Tennessee, Ohio, Kentucky, and Michigan. That court was the first federal appeals court to rule in favor of a marriage ban.

The split in decisions by appeals courts led the Supreme Court to take on the marriage issue in January, and their ruling finally came down last week.

The Flyer caught up with the Browers on Sunday afternoon at Tobey Park, where they’d just wrapped up their weekly softball game for the Bluff City Sports Association. — Bianca Phillips

Chris and Bradley Brower

Flyer: So you two had a formal wedding ceremony earlier this month?

Bradley: Our commitment ceremony was June 13th. We had a rustic theme. We had Ole Miss stuff [for decoration] at the reception, and our wedding [décor] was burlap.

Chris: We wrote our vows. I had eight groomsmen. He had eight bridesmaids.

Did you plan a June wedding because you were hoping for a favorable Supreme Court decision?

Chris: We’d heard [the decision would come down] sometime in June, so we thought, well, maybe it’ll come by June 13th. It didn’t happen, but we still had the wedding and went on a honeymoon. We went on a cruise, and we were hoping they’d have a decision by the time we got back.

How did you learn of Friday’s decision?

Chris: One of [Bradley’s] friends called and woke him up out of bed. I was out seeing patients. He called me, and he said, “It passed! We can get our license now.” So I went home.

I assumed you two were waiting outside the clerk’s office for the decision since you were the first couple to get your license.

Chris: We didn’t even try to be the first ones. I had a 9-o’clock patient, and I saw that patient. And then I was driving home when he called and said [the ruling had come down], so we went to the courthouse. They told us it’d be 2-o’clock before a decision would be made [on how the clerk’s office would be handling it], so they weren’t issuing licenses. So we ended up leaving.

And then somebody from Channel 24 [who was at the clerk’s office] called us and said they’d started issuing licenses. So we came back, and we were still number one in line at about 10:30. There were two couples coming in after us.

Bradley: If it wasn’t for Channel 24, we would have waited until Monday.

Were the clerks supportive?

Chris: They were awesome, very friendly. They made it easy for us.

Bradley: They were very respectful and willing to help.

Did they have gender-neutral forms?

Bradley: It was the same forms they use for straight couples. They said “groom” and “bride.”

Chris: He had to sign where it said “bride.” I figure they’ll correct that.

What marriage benefits are you most excited about?

Bradley: Taxes.

Chris: I’m just glad it’s legal now. We should have the same rights as any other couple. Being married should be our right.

How surprised were you by the ruling?

Chris: I did not expect this in my lifetime.

Bradley: I knew it would happen. Love is infallible. But we never worried about the marriage part, because [whether or not we could get legally married] it wouldn’t change anything between us.

Chris: But we are all one and equal now.

Categories
Memphis Gaydar News

Couples Tie the Knot at Tennessee Equality Project Marriage Celebration

“It’s my pleasure to introduce you to Mrs. and Mrs. Wallheimer,” said attorney (and former Shelby County Commissioner) Steve Mulroy, as a couple hundred people gathered on the lawn of the Memphis Gay & Lesbian Community Center (MGLCC) Friday afternoon cheered and clapped. Mulroy was referring to Jennifer and Alisha Wallheimer (formerly Jennifer Ballheimer and Alisha Wall), who married today on the front porch of the MGLCC.

Steve Mulroy performs a marriage for Jennifer and Alisha Wallheimer.

Mulroy was one of several volunteers with marriage-ordaining powers at the MGLCC’s celebration of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in favor of same-sex marriage in all 50 states. He and others married two other couples on-site in front of the gathered crowd. Before the ceremony, ministers roamed the crowd looking for anyone ready to marry.

“We actually had more ministers come out to perform weddings than we had people looking to get married,” said Tennessee Equality Project (TEP) Shelby County Committee Chair Justin Smith.

Shelby County Commissioner Reginald Milton spoke at the event. He told a story about having to go to a segregated medical clinic when he was a kid followed by the words “An injustice to anyone is an injustice to all.”

“I was too young to know the Civil Rights Movement, but I am honored to be here today as we stand for justice for every human being in this country,” Milton said.

While the event was celebratory, TEP President and Chair Ginger Leonard cautioned that, once the celebrations were over, the community still had lots of work ahead.

“Just because we can get married doesn’t mean we are no longer going to be discriminated against in housing, jobs, getting loans from banks, or in other areas,” Leonard said.

She said TEP will begin to shift its focus on non-discrimination ordinances with specific language addressing sexual orientation and gender identity, anti-bullying legislation, housing for LGBT homeless youth, and LGBT senior care.

[slideshow-1]

Categories
Memphis Gaydar News

Tennessee Attorney General Statement on Supreme Court Ruling

Tennessee Attorney General Herbert H. Slatery

Tennessee Attorney General Herbert H. Slatery III is not in favor of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in favor of legal same-sex marriage across the country.

Slatery issued the following statement today: “Today’s United States Supreme Court decision not only changes the definition of marriage, but takes from the states and their citizens the longstanding authority to vote and decide what marriage means. To the Tennessee citizen who asks ‘Don’t we get a chance to vote on this in some way?’ the answer from the Supreme Court is a resounding, ‘No, you do not.’ For the Court to tell all Tennesseans that they have no voice, no right to vote, on these issues is disappointing. The Court, nevertheless, has spoken and we respect its decision. Our office is prepared to work with the Governor and the General Assembly, as needed, to take the necessary steps to implement the decision.”

Categories
Memphis Gaydar News

Q&A with Memphis Couple in Supreme Court Same-Sex Marriage Case

Maureen Holland, Ijpe DeKoe, Thom Kostura

When they married in New York in 2011, Ijpe DeKoe and Thom Kostura probably never imagined their marriage would make U.S. history. But after returning from a tour of duty in Afghanistan in May 2012, DeKoe, full-time sergeant in the Army Reserves, was transferred to the base in Millington. And suddenly, the couple found that their marriage wasn’t recognized by the state of Tennessee.

Fast forward to 2013, when DeKoe and Kostura signed on as one of three Tennessee couples challenging the state’s same-sex marriage ban. That lawsuit made its way to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, along with similar suits from Kentucky, Ohio, and Michigan. But the Sixth Circuit ruled to uphold marriage bans in those states, a split from other appellate courts’ rulings on same-sex marriage. That ruling was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and today, justices heard oral arguments in the case. Marriage equality advocates believe the Supreme Court’s decision in this case will decide the fate of marriage in the country once and for all. A decision is expected by June.

DeKoe, Kostura, and Holland were in the courtroom today, and they took a few minutes to share their experiences with the Flyer.

Give us a rundown of your morning at the Supreme Court.
DeKoe: We were up by 6 a.m. And we met down in the [hotel] lobby as a group. We were at the Supreme Court by about 7 a.m. They parked us in the back and had us walk around the building, which was pretty amazing. There were about 200 to 300 people lined up on the sidewalk, supporters. We did some interviews, and then the six plaintiffs from Tennessee walked into the Supreme Court at about 8:30 a.m., where we got to wait for about three hours. Sixteen of the plaintiffs went in for Question One, and then we swapped out for Question Two with us. We were in the courtroom for about an hour.

Did any of you speak before the court?
Holland: No. We had two oralists, Doug Hallward-Driemeier and Mary Bonauto. Mary went first, and she addressed Question One, as to whether or not the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution requires states to marry same-sex couples. And Doug did Question Two, which was if a same-sex couple is married someplace else, in a state like New York that recognizes their marriage, and they move to Tennessee, is Tennessee required under the Constitution to recognize that marriage? 

During the last few minutes of Doug’s argument, during his rebuttal, he mentioned Thom and Ijpe and their situation as a personal explanation to the court about how this actually affects the lives of individuals and how it’s not just a philosophy. He mentioned all of the plaintiffs, including Thom and Ijpe.

We had 16 tickets to allot to plaintiffs for Question One, and we were allowed, in a very nice concession by the court, to swap out individuals, so we could allow a different set of 16 individuals into Question Two. So all of the plaintiffs could hear some of the arguments. All three couples on the Tennessee team were able to hear all of the presentation from both sides regarding Question Two. 

From the analysis I’ve read today, I was a little surprised at some of the questions from the more conservative justices, like when Chief Justice Antonin Scalia asked why there was no gay marriage in ancient Greece. Did any of their questions catch you off-guard or strike you as weird?
Holland: We certainly prepare as best we can for a series of questions that might come to mind. Ancient Greece, I don’t know if that was exactly on our radar, but the arguments by respondents that same-sex marriage has been between a man and a woman throughout history is the same type of concept that we were prepared to address. 

What were your impressions of how the case went today? Do you think the justices will rule in your favor?
Kostura: Ijpe and I do not have law backgrounds, and our oralist [Doug Hallward-Driemeier] went first for Question Two, the one that we actually witnessed. And [when we heard] the questions that were coming back from the justices, we were like, “Oh no, they’re going to go really conservative on this.” But then, the other side went, and it went from us thinking it was going to go unanimously against us to thinking it would go unanimously for us. So I think that my impression is that the justices were really rigorous to both sides. Ijpe and I walked away from it optimistically. We don’t know enough law to weigh in, but we know we have a very strong team. And that they argued the strongest case for us that they could.

DeKoe: It was very clear that the justices were asking the peoples’ questions, whatever side they took. The other part of it that struck me was that Doug got the opportunity to close [in Question Two], which was incredibly powerful, and it completely changed the tone of the room. He was able to incorporate each of the three stories of the Tennessee plaintiffs into his closing arguments, so it took this big theoretical problem down to a really human level. It was remarkable how that happened, and it was chilling to be mentioned in front of the justices.

Many seem to think Justices Anthony Kennedy and John Roberts will be the deciding factor. Is that the impression you got?
Holland: There was a feeling that the numbers might be better [than expected]. Obviously, you’re hoping for a 5-4, but you start to get the feeling that it could be more. But you’re not sure. There was a very positive feeling after Question Two. The Question One questions were harder to read, and there were definitely more questions on both sides. And it does feel like a narrower sense, from our perspective, that we would prevail. But I can tell you that the lawyers are hopeful that it’s at least 5-4, but we can see that some of the questions might tip some of the justices slightly up. But that wasn’t clear from Question One as much as from Question Two.

Much has been made of the anti-marriage equality protester who was ejected from the courtroom after he yelled something homophobic. Did any of you get to see that go down?
Holland: I did. That happened in Question One, just as the solicitor general is about to walk to the podium. The screaming and yelling begins with a protest or an outburst about God. And there was continual yelling while they got this person out of the courtroom. And it was quite loud. The justices asked the solicitor general if he’d like to take a moment because it was so disruptive. He started to walk away from the podium, and then he just turned right around and said, “Well, you know actually, I’m ready to go.” And he launched right in to his advocacy, which was wonderful to see and hear.

Kostura: From our perspective, because we were not in the courtroom at the time … as you can imagine, at the Supreme Court, there are a lot of logistics, and you get put into a lot of very specific places. Ijpe and I were in the lower level, and as [the protester] was being brought into the main gallery in front of the courtroom, the screaming was echoing down to our level. We weren’t allowed up to the gallery to see what happened. And of course, Ijpe and I, since it was such a controversial thing, when we hear all this screaming, we don’t want to run toward it. But that’s when Ijpe and I realized that there is this strong opposition, and there are these people who will try to break into the courtroom in order to protest.

Speaking of protesters, did you see many outside the courthouse? And did you feel like supporters of marriage equality outnumbered protesters?
DeKoe: There were definitely a lot more people for us. But I will give the protesters [against us] credit. They were very well organized. They came walking in and set up and had their PA going, and they got their message out. But they were a vocal minority and a very loud minority.

However, the friendly group far outweighed them. When we were inside the courtroom, we didn’t have any communications with the outside because we’d already turned off our cell phones. So we had no idea the crowd [outside] was growing. So it went from 200 to 300 people when we walked in to more than 1,000 when we left. As we walked through the main gallery and we stepped through those doors, we realized that the roar [of support] we could hear inside was even louder outside on the steps. It was a wall of sound in support. I could see the signs [from protestors], but I couldn’t hear anything negative because everyone was championing and yelling so loudly in our favor. These are people who took time out of their day and work week to come out and say “Your marriage has value. And we respect your marriage, and we want to be there for you while you’re inside fighting that fight.”

Categories
Memphis Gaydar News

U.S. Supreme Court Takes Tennessee Same-Sex Marriage Case

CREDIT: Thom Kostura and Ijpe DeKoe

Thom Kostura and Ijpe DeKoe

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to take on same-sex marriages cases from Tennessee, Kentucky, Michigan, and Ohio, and what they decide may resolve the same-sex marriage debate for good.

The four cases are on appeal after the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld marriage bans in the four states last year. The Sixth Circuit’s decision was a split from other appellate courts, the rest of which have ruled to overturn marriage bans. The U.S. Supreme Court has been expected to consider the cases, and now that the high court has agreed to do so, marriage equality advocates believe this move will decide the fate of marriage in the country once and for all.

The court will hear two-and-a-half hours of oral arguments in April. They justices are expected to issue a ruling by June of 2015. With regard to the Tennessee case, the court will consider whether the Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and if the Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state.

The Tennessee case is Tanco Vs. Haslam, which seeks to recognize the same-sex marriages of three couples from Tennessee. One of those couples — Ijpe DeKoe and Thom Kostura — is from Memphis (read more about their story here).

Categories
Letter From The Editor Opinion

Behind the Curve

On Monday, the Supreme Court of the United States basically threw in its chips on the issue of gay marriage. By choosing not to hear arguments from plaintiffs contesting Appeals Courts’ rulings that threw out several state gay-marriage bans, it effectively legalized gay marriage in 30 states. Tennessee’s gay-marriage case, now before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, has not yet been officially decided, but the writing is on the wall, and it’s easy to read. Eventually, Tennessee will be dragged, kicking and screaming into the 21st century. Get the rice ready, Gary.

Similarly, 23 states have now moved to allow the sale of medical marijuana, and several more are considering it. Those states that have legalized pot and are regulating its sale and distribution are now reaping large tax and tourism revenues, a financial boon for cash-strapped state budgets. Tennessee is still just saying no, dudes.

And as of August 2014, 23 states have instituted a minimum-wage higher than the $7.25-an-hour rate mandated by federal law. Almost without exception, the economies of those states have benefitted, as their working-class citizens spend more on goods and services. The price of a fast-food cheeseburger has not gone through the roof. People are not getting laid off. The sky hasn’t fallen. In Tennessee? Well, apparently, we’re just going to keep raising sales taxes, the most-regressive possible approach to “fixing” the economy.

In fact, Tennessee is going backward as fast as our in-bred legislators can take us. The state constitutional amendments on the November ballot are a perfect example. Amendment 1 basically gives carte blanche to the General Assembly to craft any anti-abortion measures it wants to, even extending to cases where the mother’s life is being endangered. If passed, Amendment 1 will put a medical and moral decision that should be made by a woman and her doctor under the purview of the backwoods hillbillies in Nashville. Dr. Bubba, will see you now, ma’am.

Amendment 2 gives that same bunch of loons the power to approve the appointment of our state’s judges. Another great idea.

Amendment 3 permanently bans any state income or payroll tax. Which means continued higher sales taxes — and more folks driving to Mississippi and Arkansas to shop. More smart thinking.

It’s clear that our intrepid legislators are working hard to ensure that as the rest of the country passes progressive economic and social legislation that benefits the working class and appeals to young people — and the businesses that want to employ them — Tennessee stays firmly in the closet — and in the dark.

We’re not just behind the curve. We’re behind the eight ball.