On Wednesday
I posted a piece which was based on an article written by Steve Friess for Bloomberg News. The gist was that one of the legal teams that will be arguing a marriage case at the Supreme Court was having trouble amassing the funds to properly prepare for the trial. Additionally, the piece asserted that many of the large LGBT groups were not being particularly helpful in assisting that Michigan-based legal team.
Well, here’s some encouraging news: If you were worried about discord among the several legal teams that are strategizing on the marriage equality cases, you can put some of those fears to rest. I was contacted by Dana Nessel’s co-counsel on the Michigan case, Carole Stanyar, who assured me that two LGBT groups—Lambda Legal and Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD)—are indeed supporting the Michigan-based team, which is one of five pro-equality legal teams headed to the Supreme Court in April. Stanyar said the two groups have provided resources for research, helped to locate trial witnesses, and in some cases donated funds for expert witnesses. Mary Bonauto, director of GLAD’s civil rights project, is also serving as co-counsel on the case.
Stanyar called the original article by Friess “mostly accurate” but said that it also significantly understated the contributions of both GLAD and Lambda Legal. I take this to mean that the Michigan legal team is still underfunded to some extent, but that they also have a far more cohesive working relationship with some of the LGBT legal advocates than the original article suggested.
“Mary Bonauto (of GLAD) helped us the moment we asked her and has never stopped helping us,” Stanyar wrote in an email. “Throughout the case, Lambda has provided a great deal of assistance to us also.”
In addition to corresponding with Stanyar, I also spoke to Camilla Taylor, director of Lambda Legal’s Marriage Project. Taylor said that, to her knowledge, Lambda has had “a wonderful working relationship” with the lawyers working on the Michigan case. “They have done a stunning job in litigating the trial,” Taylor said, “and we tried at every turn to give them the resources and help they needed.”
Please continue below the fold for more of Taylor's comments.
Taylor was careful to note that although Lambda Legal has tried to aid the Michigan team, she did not want to take away from the success the lawyers had in overturning the state’s marriage ban.
“The one thing I wish to make very clear,” she said, “is that we’re not trying to take credit for their victory. They won this victory themselves and they did an amazing job. We provided some support and resources in the background, but this is their win and we congratulate them.”
Taylor added that Nessel and Stanyar had prevailed against the odds. “This was very very difficult case” she said, noting that their success had been celebrated “not just in Michigan, but around the country.”
The original reporting also suggested that some national groups had tried to dissuade the plaintiffs and their lawyers from filing the case in the first place. When asked if Lambda had done either of those two things, Taylor said simply, “No.” In fact, she said, Lambda Legal sent the two lawyers materials to assist them in amending their original complaint—which specifically challenged the state’s adoptions laws—to include the marriage claim after the judge requested that they add it.
Taylor’s recollection comports with Stanyar’s. “I don't recall either GLAD or Lambda ever discouraging us from filing or pursuing this lawsuit,” Stanyar said.
Most of all, Taylor stressed that the effort to win marriage equality nationwide was not being scuttled by petty turf wars (my words, not hers).
“There is no hostility between us,” Taylor explained. “I think it is very distressing for there to be a narrative out there that paints us as distrustful of each other or not helping one another at a time when all of us are really focused on doing everything that we can to secure a victory before the Supreme Court. That is the genuine motive that animates all of us right now.”