PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE
interveners or proponents of the ballot initiative did not have
standing to appeal the unconstitutionality of Proposition 8 and
upheld the District Court decision that declared Proposition
8 unconstitutional.
At the same time, the U.S. Supreme Court decided United
States v. Windsor, which held that Section 3 of the Defense of
Marriage Act (DOMA), that defined “marriage” and “spouse”
to exclude same-sex partners for purposes of federal law,
is unconstitutional as it deprives people of the equal liberty
protection provided to them by the U. S. Constitution. Windsor
and Spyer were two women who married in Canada in 2007;
their home state, New York, recognized the marriage. When
Spyer died in 2009 and left her estate to Windsor, her federal
estate tax exemption for surviving spouses claim was barred
by Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), 28
U.S.C. 1738C.
Due to the numerous requests around the country for the
Atlanta Bar to sign amicus briefs and the extraordinary
amount of time it takes to consider those requests, the Board
of Directors voted in June 2014 to modify the Amicus Brief
policy to “consider amicus requests (on any topic/issue) those
cases before either the U.S. Supreme Court, Eleventh Circuit,
or Georgia’s Appellate Courts” instead of considering briefs
from all appellate courts as originally allowed in 2007. 5
The brief of the Bay Area Lawyers argues that the U.S.
Supreme Court should hold that “The Marriage Bans Violate
The Equal Protection Clause…” because the Bans exclude
a whole class of people, which violates “the principle that
the Constitution ‘neither knows nor tolerates classes among
citizens.’” The brief further argues that this exclusion of gay
men and lesbians from access to marriage sets them and
their families apart, denying them important benefits that
are granted to heterosexual couples increasing the stigma
and discrimination due to their sexual orientation. “There is
widespread consensus among the district courts of the Sixth
Circuit as well as other Courts of Appeals that laws such as
The Official News Publication of the Atlanta Bar Association
the Marriage Bans unconstitutionally disadvantage gays and
lesbians without any legitimate justification.” To comply with
and fulfill the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause, the
court should grant the same marriage rights that are allowed
heterosexual couples.
Additionally, the amicus brief argues that “classifications that
are intended only to disadvantage a group of people fail even
rational basis review…” and that “it is uniquely the province
of the courts to decide the Equal Protection Challenge to
the Marriage Bans …” and not the province of the states.
Finally, the amicus brief also argues that “excluding same-sex
couples from the institution of marriage harms gay and lesbian
individuals, their families, and their children…” since “marriage
is a uniquely revered institution in American society…” and
“exclusion from marriage causes tangible harm…”: