Same-sex couples seeking marriage equality in both Florida and Idaho were in court recently to make their cases. As in California, Georgia, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, among other states, parents were among the majority of the plaintiffs. Why? Some of the plaintiffs and an organizational leader behind one of the cases offer complementary perspectives.
First, and most obviously, many same-sex couples see marriage as providing both legal protections and a sense of acceptance for their children (although, as I’ve said before, marriage rights and parental rights are not coterminous). When the Florida marriage case was filed in January, Vanessa Alenier, one of the plaintiffs, explained “Melanie and I have worked so hard to build and protect our family, but nothing can come close to matching the protections that marriage provides. Our family is in need of those protections just like other families. We want our son to understand that his family is secure and just as respected as any other family in Florida.” Vanessa and Melanie Alenier had also sued the state in 2010 in order to preserve their adoption of the boy, granted by a state circuit judge several months before the state overturned its ban on adoption by gay men or lesbians.
And last year, Prop 8 plaintiff Kris Perry told the press, “Even in addition to our own kids, we are so elated over the way in which this helps all kids in California growing up today. They don’t have to live under the tyranny of a law that tells them that they are less equal than everybody else. Sandy and I could not be happier that we have left a legacy in California for all kids to feel equal.”
It does, however, take two to tango. Plaintiffs need to want to be part of a lawsuit, but the organizations helping them need to find the right plaintiffs. On NPR’s Here and Now program last week, Arianna Prothero spoke with Florida plaintiffs and moms Catherina Pareto and Karla Arguello, as well as Equality Florida Deputy Director Stratton Pollitzer. Prothero reported that the organization chose the plaintiffs with great care: “A team of lawyers from across the country evaluated each couple to see if they had relatable, media-friendly personal stories and compelling legal cases. And to see if the candidates could handle the media spotlight.” Prothero also quoted Nova Southeastern University law professor Bob Jarvis, who explained that the goal was to win in the court of public opinion in order to win in a court of law. This strategy of choosing plaintiffs, he said, was the same tactic the NAACP used in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case Brown vs. the Board of Education.
“To advocates, there’s no better way to win the hearts and minds of the public than picking plaintiffs that sound, look and live like the general public,” Prothero concluded.
With 95 percent of adults saying they have children, are planning to have children, or wish they had had children, that means getting parents involved in equality cases.
Granted, not every same-sex couple wants kids or even marriage. I fervently hope there’s always some queer in our queer lives. As a legal strategy, though, choosing plaintiffs who resonate with mainstream America seems a good thing—as long as, moving forward, we don’t marginalize or forget those who don’t.
