Ten LGBT Court Cases that Changed the Gay Rights Movement

by Michael A. Jones

Published October 06, 2008 @ 04:43AM PT

So it may not have been as much fun as an episode of Boston Legal, L.A. Law or, God forbid, Cop Rock, but the fight for LGBT rights could not exist without litigation. Battles in the courtroom have often (although not always) translated into victories for the LGBT rights movement. Below are ten cases that changed the playing field for LGBT rights in the U.S.

And here is a link to an L.A. Law theme song ring tone. Cue saxophone.

Romer v. Evans

This case stemmed from a 1992 statewide ballot initiative in Colorado known as Amendment 2, pushed for by Colorado for Family Values. Amendment 2 banned all cities, towns, municipalities, and school boards (and why not throw in Medieval guilds and bridge clubs!) from enacting anti-discrimination measures regarding sexual orientation, or setting in place fair hiring practices in regards to sexual orientation. Civil rights and LGBT rights groups sued, and the case, Romer v. Evans, went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The ironic twist with this case is that Roy Romer, then Governor of Colorado, actually opposed Amendment 2, but found his name on the case in support of Amendment 2 simply by way of being the state’s chief executive. In 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that Amendment 2 was unconstitutional, asserting that the ban on enacting anti-discrimination or fair hiring practices regarding sexual orientation actually placed a special disability on LGBT people. And in the ultimate instance of schadenfreude, the Colorado legislature eleven years later (in 2007) passed an anti-discrimination bill including sexual orientation and gender identity. The bill was signed by Governor Bill Ritter, making Colorado the 20^th state to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Baehr v. Miike

There are two court cases that one might argue put the issue of gay marriage into the political marketplace of ideas. The first is Baehr v. Miike, where in 1996 the Hawaiian Supreme Court ruled that excluding same-sex couples from marriage was unconstitutional. Unfortunately, the ruling was met with a barrage of opposition from conservative groups (many from outside Hawaii), who flooded the state with calls for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. In 1998, Hawaiian voters approved the amendment, rendering the Court’s ruling moot. Baehr v. Miike is also significant because the backlash it wrought from conservative groups led to the successful passage of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996.

Baker v. Vermont

In a better twist of fate for LGBT rights, the Supreme Court of Vermont unanimously ruled in 1999 in Baker v. Vermont that prohibiting same-sex marriage was against the state’s Constitution. As a result, the Court mandated that the state legislature institute laws recognizing same-sex marriage, or implement a policy affording similar rights. To comply, the legislature created a system of civil unions, whereby same-sex couples could receive many of the same civil benefits afforded heterosexual couples. To read the historic decision in Baker v. Vermont, which led to the first state law officially recognizing same-sex relationships, click here.

Fricke v. Lynch

In one of the earliest court cases (at least on this list) addressing LGBT rights, Fricke v. Lynch was decided in 1980 by a court in Rhode Island. The case was brought forward by Aaron Fricke, then an eighteen-year-old high school student in Cumberland, RI. Fricke’s school had prevented him from bringing a same-sex date to his high school prom, leading him to sue the principal (Richard Lynch) and Cumberland High School for the right to attend the prom with a same-sex date. The Judge in the case ruled that the school must allow students to bring dates of the same-sex, and that the school must provide enough security and oversight so that LGBT students are not harassed. The case was one of the first successful victories in the courtroom for an LGBT issue involving young people, and is routinely cited each year in numerous cases surrounding the rights of students to bring same-sex dates to school functions.

Benitez v. North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group

From the earliest case on this list to the most recent case on this list, Benitez v. North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group was decided by a California court in August 2008. This case centered on Guadalupe “Lupita” Benitez, a lesbian Californian resident who sought infertility treatment from her doctors. Her doctors, conservative Christians, denied giving Benitez the treatment and argued that their individual religious beliefs could not support LGBT people serving as parents, despite the fact that California has a statewide anti-discrimination policy that encompasses sexual orientation. Benitez sued, and the court unanimously ruled in her favor, sending a message that individual religious beliefs cannot supercede statewide anti-discrimination policies.

Goodridge v. Department of Public Health

The case that launched it all. The decision in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health in November 2003 paved the way for Massachusetts to become the first state in the country to recognize same-sex marriage. In a close 4-3 ruling, the Massachusetts State Supreme Court said that the state may not “deny the protections, benefits and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry.” The court, much like the court in Baker v. Vermont, gave the legislature 180 days the change the law, and on May 17, 2004, Cambridge, Massachusetts issued the first marriage licenses for gay and lesbian couples. Sadly, the couple that the case was named after, Hillary and Julie Goodridge, separated in 2006. But gay marriage in Massachusetts has become almost universally accepted law in the state, with the state legislature affirming the right of same-sex couples to marry as recently as 2007. Gay marriage continues to be legal in Massachusetts as a result of the Goodridge case.

Lawrence v. Texas

Sodomy laws had become a legal relic in most areas of the Untied States by the time Lawrence v. Texas was decided in 2003 by the U.S. Supreme Court, though fourteen states – including Texas, which was named in the lawsuit – still had laws on the books that could prosecute same-sex couples for sodomy. In this 6-3 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down sodomy laws throughout the United States, and abruptly overturned a precedent that the Court itself set in a 1986 case, Bowers v. Hardwick, which affirmed state-by-state laws on sodomy. In deciding Lawrence, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority and said, “Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today. It ought not to remain binding precedent. Bowers v. Hardwick should be and now is overruled.” The Lawrence v. Texas case has been cited as the Brown v. Board of Education case for LGBT America, given its implications for sexual equality rights.

Cammermeyer v. Perry

Those of us old enough to remember the early 1990s may remember Glenn Close’s Emmy-winning portrayal of Margarethe Cammermeyer in “Serving in Silence,” a made-for-TV movie about Cammermeyer’s discharge from the U.S. military because of her sexual orientation. The case that this movie was based on was Cammermeyer v. Perry. Cammermeyer was a 28-year Army veteran, receiving a Bronze Star for her service in Vietnam, and a nurse with the Washington State National Guard. She became the highest ranking member of the military to be discharged due to her sexual orientation, and her discharge led to this lawsuit which challenged the military’s policy on allowing gays and lesbians to serve in the armed services. Cammermeyer was victorious, and the U.S. Army was ordered to reinstate her. But since this case only addressed the U.S. military’s policies before the enactment of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the case did not have larger implications for allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the U.S. military. To date, as a direct result of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” more than 12,000 service members have been discharged from military service due to their sexual orientation.

Taylor v. Rice

Before 2008, the U.S. Foreign Service would not hire anyone who is HIV-positive, despite a federal regulation known as the Rehabilitation Act which prohibits the government from discriminating against people with disabilities, including HIV. In this case, Lorenzo Taylor sought employment from the U.S. Foreign Service, but was denied employment based on his HIV-positive status. The case, Taylor v. Rice, was scheduled to go to trial in early 2008. But in February, under pressure from organizations including Lambda Legal, the U.S. State Department adopted new hiring guidelines and lifted its ban on hiring people who were HIV-positive. The case was subsequently dropped.

Colin v. Orange Unified School District

Gay Straight Alliances (GSAs) in high schools have increased over the past ten years, in large part because of the victory in Colin v. Orange Unified School District. In this case, a GSA at El Modena High School in Orange, California was prevented from forming by the Orange Unified School District. Anthony Colin, the GSA’s founder, sued the school district, and in 2000 a U.S. District Court ruled that the school district must allow the club to meet. Later that year, in September, the El Modena GSA and the Orange Unified School District reached an agreement where the GSA would become an officially recognized club, afforded all of the benefits given to other clubs within the school.

As these ten cases, and the hundreds more lawsuits filed over the past several decades show, litigation is an essential strategy in the fight for LGBT rights. Whether they were addressing the rights of all people to marry, the rights of students to take a same-sex date to the prom, or the rights of municipalities to enact anti-discrimination measures, the courts have been an active part of achieving equality for LGBT citizens.

For a thorough list of other LGBT-related cases, check out Lambda Legal or the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD).