- G
- J
- D
Gowen, Rhoades, Winograd, & Silva PLLC , a leading civil rights and general practice law firm, is seeking support to help litigate a critical, precedent-setting case that, if decided correctly, will help establish genuine equality for LGBTQ couples in the family law arena. Because the client has limited means, we are seeking contributions toward a goal of $5,000 that will help us litigate the full implications of the case successfully both for the client and for the LGBTQ community and its supporters.
Our client and his husband married each other in every meaningful and human sense of word in 2004 -- exchanging vows, celebrating with their families, buying a home, listing each other as beneficiaries on their respective wills and insurance policies, and building a life together in the District of Columbia. Of course, it took the law some time to “catch up” and recognize the full legal and moral equality of their union.
The District started marrying same-sex couples in March 2010, and on June 26, 2015, in Obergefell v. Hodges, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that same-sex couples had the same “fundamental right” to marriage choice as opposite-sex couples. Critically, the Court did not “create a new right,” as opponents tried to frame the issue. The Court emphasized that the right is the same for opposite and same-sex couples; rights are not “defined by who exercised them in the past.” The Court held only that laws banning access to the fundamental right to marry were illegitimate and unconstitutional.
But the devil is the details, as they say. As lower courts have incorporated Obergefell into existing family law, old patterns of discrimination and the legacy effects of illegitimate laws keep cropping up, even in rulings from well-meaning judges. Last year, a judge of the D.C. Superior Court decided that D.C.’s old, discriminatory marriage ban should still be given legal effect in determining our client's family law rights until March 2010, making no mention of the fact that the ban itself was illegal and in violation of fundamental rights.
Our client has endured a lot in recent years. His partner abandoned him to start a new relationship in Brazil, then used a bogus quasi-criminal complaint to force our client out of their marital home and claimed the two were never married. The court hearing the divorce is likely to recognize the obvious—that there was a “common law marriage”—but it is saying that the marriage only “started” after D.C. lifted its same-sex marriage ban in March 2010. This is breathing new life into a discriminatory old law and once again applying different (and unfair) rules to same-sex couples and their relationships. The existence of our client's “common law marriage” in 2004 should be determined on the law as it applies to everyone.
Because this is such a new issue, if the Superior Court’s decision in this case is not reversed, it will be a damaging precedent that could lead to invalid marriage bans re-appearing in same-sex family law cases across the country. Our client, a social worker and substance-abuse counselor, has already spent most of his savings fighting the abusive litigation tactics of his spouse, a wealthy business consultant. Gowen Rhoades recently entered the case on a “low bono” basis specifically to turn the case around into a precedent for marriage equality, even if a complex appeal is required. But the firm cannot bear the costs of fully litigating these “extra” issues alone. Your support will be used exclusively on this case to fight for the equal rights of all same-sex couples.
Our client and his husband married each other in every meaningful and human sense of word in 2004 -- exchanging vows, celebrating with their families, buying a home, listing each other as beneficiaries on their respective wills and insurance policies, and building a life together in the District of Columbia. Of course, it took the law some time to “catch up” and recognize the full legal and moral equality of their union.
The District started marrying same-sex couples in March 2010, and on June 26, 2015, in Obergefell v. Hodges, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that same-sex couples had the same “fundamental right” to marriage choice as opposite-sex couples. Critically, the Court did not “create a new right,” as opponents tried to frame the issue. The Court emphasized that the right is the same for opposite and same-sex couples; rights are not “defined by who exercised them in the past.” The Court held only that laws banning access to the fundamental right to marry were illegitimate and unconstitutional.
But the devil is the details, as they say. As lower courts have incorporated Obergefell into existing family law, old patterns of discrimination and the legacy effects of illegitimate laws keep cropping up, even in rulings from well-meaning judges. Last year, a judge of the D.C. Superior Court decided that D.C.’s old, discriminatory marriage ban should still be given legal effect in determining our client's family law rights until March 2010, making no mention of the fact that the ban itself was illegal and in violation of fundamental rights.
Our client has endured a lot in recent years. His partner abandoned him to start a new relationship in Brazil, then used a bogus quasi-criminal complaint to force our client out of their marital home and claimed the two were never married. The court hearing the divorce is likely to recognize the obvious—that there was a “common law marriage”—but it is saying that the marriage only “started” after D.C. lifted its same-sex marriage ban in March 2010. This is breathing new life into a discriminatory old law and once again applying different (and unfair) rules to same-sex couples and their relationships. The existence of our client's “common law marriage” in 2004 should be determined on the law as it applies to everyone.
Because this is such a new issue, if the Superior Court’s decision in this case is not reversed, it will be a damaging precedent that could lead to invalid marriage bans re-appearing in same-sex family law cases across the country. Our client, a social worker and substance-abuse counselor, has already spent most of his savings fighting the abusive litigation tactics of his spouse, a wealthy business consultant. Gowen Rhoades recently entered the case on a “low bono” basis specifically to turn the case around into a precedent for marriage equality, even if a complex appeal is required. But the firm cannot bear the costs of fully litigating these “extra” issues alone. Your support will be used exclusively on this case to fight for the equal rights of all same-sex couples.