As the nationwide fight for recognizing same-sex marriage continues, a story lies behind each couple seeking the dignity that a  legalized union  brings.   While some of the unions are full of what  new found love brings, most often the stories are of  long term partners looking forward to a next chapter, one of which they have never before had the opportunity to enjoy.

Veronica Romero and Mayra Yvette Rivera have been in a committed relationship for over 27 years, have two children, and reside in Indiana, a state that currently has a stay pending until a supreme court decision is made in recognition of same-sex marriage.   As described in this article, the two women were legally married in March of this year in Illinois and returned to their established lives in Indiana.   Romero and Rivera filed suit in U.S. District Court this week seeking the state’s recognition of their marriage.

The couple’s suit is one of  urgency due to Rivera’s advanced stage of ovarian cancer.    As debates continue as to whether or not same-sex marriage is morally acceptable or will lead to perversity throughout the nation, there are facts that are difficult for a reasonable person to ignore.   Without the option of  a legalized union, same-sex couples are not afforded legal rights  that a vast majority of American’s enjoy.     Such issues as care for a terminal spouse, custody of children, burial decisions and the like, are full of red tape and hoops for same-sex couples.

A joint stipulation between the parties has been filed in which Indiana has agreed to recognize the couple’s marriage, and in the event of death, will issue a death certificate recognizing Romero as the surviving spouse. U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Van Bokkelen has acknowledged the agreement and placed a stay on the case until such time the appeals court rules whether or not to overturn the state’s ban on gay marriage.

The couple’s suit states, “Through its marriage ban, the state sends a purposeful message that the state views lesbian and gay men and their children as second-class members of society who are undeserving of the legal sanction, respect and support that different-sex spouses and their families enjoy.”

If you or someone you know believe that their civil rights have been violated, the team at Radford & Keebaugh can help.   Contact us by phone at (678) 369-3609 or use our contact form.

In 2005, three individuals filed suit against Nestle USA, Nestle SA of Switzerland, Archer Daniels Midland Co. of Chicago and Cargill Inc.of Minnesota alleging the companies contributed in child slavery.    The three Plaintiffs in this action worked on cocoa plantations in Ivory Coast during the 1990’s.

As detailed in this article, the lawsuit alleges that by giving money and providing training and equipment to Ivorian farmers that allegedly subjected  young workers to an inhumane work environment, the companies are aided and abetted  in a continued practice of child slavery.    According to the suit, the Plaintiffs  were taken to the plantation between the ages of 12 and 14  and once there were forced to work fourteen hour days six days a week, given little to eat and beaten if their work did not satisfy the overseer.

Bought under the Alien Tort Statute of 1789 and dismissed by a federal judge in 2010, the case has been reopened by the 9th U.S. Circuit of Appeals.    The panel’s issued Opinion stating, “We conclude that the prohibition against slavery is universal and may be asserted against the corporate defendants in this case… There are no rules exempting acts of enslavement carried out on behalf of a corporation.”

Circuit Judge Dorothy Nelson, “The allegations suggest that a myopic focus on profit over human welfare drove the defendants to act with the purpose of obtaining the cheapest cocoa possible, even it meant facilitating child slavery.”

Attorney for the Plaintiffs, Catherine Sweetser, “The court has reestablished that corporations can be held accountable for making decisions in the United States that affect human rights in foreign countries.”

According to the Nestle website, Nestle became a founding participant in the International Cocoa Initiative, which is “dedicated to ending child and forced labor in cocoa growing, and eliminating child trafficking and abusive labor practices.”

If you or someone you know thinks they have been subjected to unlawful employment practices, the team at Radford & Keebaugh can help.   Contact us by phone at (678) 369-3609 or use our contact form.

An Arizona District Court recently issued an emergency ruling that the state must recognize the marriage between Fred McQuire and George Martinez.   Before Martinez’s death, the partners of forty five years were married in California.   As described in this article, when Martinez was diagnosed with Prostate cancer, the two Arizona residents were married in California and filed an emergency request immediately upon their return home to have their marriage recognized by the state.

As Federal law does not award spousal social security benefits, nor veteran benefits, to surviving spouses that have been married less than nine months to a year, respectively, McQuire will not be able to stay in the couple’s home due to financial restrictions.   McQuire believes that his suit is not just about his relationship, stating, “People are being denied their rights of survivorship, their dignity, their right to live the rest of their lives in the way their spouse would want them to live.”

In his emergency motion, Judge John Sedwick states, “The court has not yet decided whether there is conflict between Arizona law and the Constitution, but the court has decided that it is probable that there is such a conflict so that Arizona will be required to permit same-sex marriages.”   In response to the state’s argument that Arizona’s current laws that define marriage do not discriminate, Judge Sedwick “The reason why couples such as McQuire and Martinez may not marry is precisely because of their sexual orientation.”

Because he is the judge that will decide both of Arizona’s current suits that challenge the state’s current definition of marriage, Judge Sedwick’s motion to recognize McQuire and Martinez’s marriage is an important step in the fight for marriage equality.

If you or someone you know believe their civil rights have been violated,  the team at Radford & Keebaugh can help.   Contact us by phone at (678) 369-3609 or use our contact form.

Wisconsin and Indiana are the latest states to join the nation’s  movement for the  recognition of marriage equality.   Recently,  the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously to strike down the states’ ban on same-sex marriage.

In his recently issued Opinion Judge for the 7th Circuit,  Richard Posner, “The argument that the states press hardest in defense of their prohibition of same-sex marriage is that the only reason government encourages marriage is to induce heterosexuals to marry so that there will be fewer ‘accidental births,’ which when they occur outside of marriage often lead to abandonment of the child to the the mother (unaided by the father) or to foster care.   Overlooked by this argument is that many of those abandoned children are adopted by homosexual couples, and those children would be better off both emotionally and economically if their adoptive parents were married.”

Judge Posner, “Many people disapproved of interracial marriage, and, more to the point, many people strongly disapproved (and still strongly disapprove) of homosexual sex, yet Loving v. Virginia invalidated state laws banning interracial marriage, and Lawrence v. Texas invalidated state laws banning homosexual acts.”

In response to Wisconsin’s argument that marriage should be dictated by what has been traditionally accepted, Judge Posner states,” Laws forbidding  black-white marriage dated back to colonial times and were found in northern as well as southern colonies and states.    Tradition per se has no positive or negative significance.   There are good traditions, bad traditions pilloried in such famous literary stories as Franz Kafka’s ‘In the Penal Colony,’ and Shirley Jackson’s ‘The Lottery,’ bad traditions that are historical realities such as cannibalism, foot-binding, and suttee, and traditions that form a public-policy standpoint that are neither good nor bad (such as trick-or-treating on Halloween).   Tradition per se therefore cannot be a lawful ground for discrimination -regardless of the age of the tradition.”

As this nation heads into unknown territory concerning the consequences of recognizing same-sex marriage, Loving v. Virginia gives us insight into how our  legal system has evolved and continues to do so to protect the basic freedoms of this nation’s people.    Thoughts from the past, how ever archaic and prejudiced they may have been,  should not be forgotten.    In his argument that marriage should be kept between people of the same race, a trial judge stated, “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents.   And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage.   The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”