I actually enjoy reading the legal briefs that are filed in same-sex marriage cases. Something about how the attorneys present the case in a logical orderly fashion with supporting case law appeals to me. At the end of this post I'll provide links to some of the briefs filed in recent cases in Massachusetts and New Jersey. Sometimes it's easy to forget, though, how these cases greatly affect the lives of the people involved. People who are trying hard to protect their families. So today I went back and read about the families in Massachusetts who fought long and hard for marriage rights, and the families in New Jersey still struggling for this protection. The complaint in today's case of Andersen v. Sims filed in Washington tells us a few things about each of the six plaintiff-couples and their respective families continuing the fight in that state. And thousands of couples have been able to marry recently in San Francisco. One family that took advantage of this wonderful opportunity was the Lathe-Berryessa family. You can read about their wedding day as well the rest of their everyday joys and struggles in parenting at their journal, Daddy, Papa & Me.
There are those that say these families must somehow earn this protection that others take for granted by convincing state legislatures to amend the laws. (And then they must convince the legislature of every other state to which they may someday travel or with which they may have some legal contact.) It's important to realize that even the limited protections families have been able to win in a few legislatures would not have been possible without the lead of the courts. Such was the case in the civil rights struggle of the 1940's-1960's as well. Judges are required to read, in detail, both sides of the case. They take seriously their allegiances to past precedents and their constitutions. These judges are not the tyrants some have made them out to be. State legislatures, on the other hand, will often simply avoid the issue because of political expediency.
Below are a few of the briefs from recent cases Massachusetts and New Jersey (to simplify things I have labeled the briefs as either pro or anti SSM instead of plaintiff, appelant, etc.):
Comments