(New York, August 8, 2005)— Today, Lambda Legal filed papers in the Appellate Division, First Department (the state’s middle court) to defend a lower court ruling that said same-sex couples should be allowed to marry in New York. The City filed an appeal seeking to overturn the ruling earlier this spring.
(New York, August 4, 2005)-– Lambda Legal’s Executive Director, Kevin Cathcart responds to news reports regarding John Roberts’ involvement while an attorney at the law firm Hogan & Hartson in Romer v. Evans.
(San Francisco, August 1, 2005)—In a ruling issued today in a case argued by Lambda Legal, the California Supreme Court said that if businesses in California provide benefits to married couples they must also extend them on equal terms to same-sex couples who are registered domestic partners.
(New York, July 26, 2005) — In court papers made public today in state court in Nassau County, Lambda Legal named the New York State Department of Civil Service as a defendant in its case against Uniondale Union Free School District for refusing to extend spousal medical benefits to a retired gay couple who were legally married in Canada last year.
(Los Angeles, July 25, 2005) Lambda Legal Western Regional Office Director, Katherine Gabel, made the following statement concerning the proposed amendment to the California Constitution made public today by Attorney General Lockyer:
(Jackson, MS, July 20, 2005) — Lambda Legal today filed a brief in the Chancery Court of Jackson County on behalf of a Mississippi mother who has been barred from allowing her children to have contact with their aunt because she has HIV.
Lambda Legal represents Keri Rowell, who was granted an extension of the temporary custody of her three children contingent upon their being denied physical contact with their aunt, Tanya Wilkins, because she has HIV. Rowell wishes to live with her sister but is unable to do so as a result of the restriction.
(New York, July 20, 2005) — Lambda Legal Executive Director Kevin Cathcart made the following statement concerning the nomination of Judge John G. Roberts.
“In nominating Judge John G. Roberts to replace Justice O’Connor on the Supreme Court President Bush has just about guaranteed that divisiveness will continue to reign in the judicial nomination process. Some have suggested that Judge Roberts is well-liked, but with all due respect, we need to know if he will stand up for the rights of all Americans not whether some people think he’s a nice guy.”