JOIN THE DISCUSSION AT OUR NEW LOCATION

NOW BLOGGING TO YOU FROM:

http:\\glbtlaw.wordpress.com

CHECK OUT THE NEW FEATURES, ARTICLES, HELPFUL LINKS, AND MORE!

Maine Governor Signs Legislature's Bill Approving Same-Sex Marriage Equality

As reported by NBC's reported Domenico Montanaro, Maine Governor Maine's Governor John Baldacci on Wednesday signed a bill, which only days earlier had been passed by the Maine Senate and House, into law affirming the right of same-sex couples to marry. Maine becomes the fifth state to recognize same-sex marriage, and only the second state to do so by legislative action.

The other four states that presently allow same-sex marriage are Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts and Vermont. "In the past, I opposed gay marriage while supporting the idea of civil unions," Baldacci said in a statement. "I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law, and that a civil union is not equal to civil marriage."

The following is an Maine Governor Baldacci's full statement:

I have followed closely the debate on this issue. I have listened to both sides, as they have presented their arguments during the public hearing and on the floor of the Maine Senate and the House of Representatives. I have read many of the notes and letters sent to my office, and I have weighed my decision carefully. I did not come to this decision lightly or in haste.

I appreciate the tone brought to this debate by both sides of the issue. This is an emotional issue that touches deeply many of our most important ideals and traditions. There are good, earnest and honest people on both sides of the question.

In the past, I opposed gay marriage while supporting the idea of civil unions. I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law, and that a civil union is not equal to a civil marriage.

Article I in the Maine Constitution states that 'no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor be denied the equal protection of the laws, nor be denied the enjoyment of that person's civil rights or be discriminated against.'

This new law does not force any religion to recognize a marriage that falls outside of its beliefs. It does not require the church to perform any ceremony with which it disagrees. Instead, it reaffirms the separation of Church and State," Governor Baldacci said. It guarantees that Maine citizens will be treated equally under Maine's civil marriage laws, and that is the responsibility of government. Even as I sign this important legislation into law, I recognize that this may not be the final word. Just as the Maine Constitution demands that all people are treated equally under the law, it also guarantees that the ultimate political power in the State belongs to the people.

While the good and just people of Maine may determine this issue, my responsibility is to uphold the Constitution and do, as best as possible, what is right. I believe that signing this legislation is the right thing to do.

Maine Senate Passes Same-Sex Marriage Bill; House of Reps to Vote Next Week

On Thursday, April 30, 2009, Reuters reported that Maine's Senate has passed a bill that would make it the fifth in the country to allow gay marriage. The legislation, which will go to a vote in the state House of Representatives next week, seeks to redefine marriage as the legal union of two people rather than between a man and a women. The bill passed in the Senate on Thursday by a 20-15 margin.

The Gay-Marriage Roundup:

In November, Connecticut became the second state to allow legal same-sex weddings after neighboring Massachusetts' top court ruled in 2003 that a ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional, paving the way for the first same-sex marriages in the United States the following year.

In a single week in April, Iowa and Vermont also legalized same sex marriage. And on Wednesday, New Hampshire's state Senate approved a gay marriage bill, about a month after its House approved it. The bill needs New Hampshire Governor John Lynch's signature to become law.

Gay marriage legislation has yet to advance in Rhode Island.

Why Adoption Is Absolutely Necessary for Same-Sex Couples (Yes, Even in Massachusetts!)

As tens of thousands of same-sex couples take advantage of various equal marriage laws and civil union statutes throughout the country, it is important to remember that the patchwork quilt of laws regarding same-sex families is largely unfinished.

So while there is much cause for celebration, we should remember that the federal government refuses to recognize any kind of same-sex relationship; that the nation's largest single employer (the military) will not tolerate homosexuals (much less recognize same-sex relationships); that same-sex couples are not treated equally in the application of immigration laws; and that throughout the country there are laws that ban adoption by homosexuals, that permit discrimination in employment and housing on the basis of sexual orientation, and prohibit any recognition of same-sex relationships. In response to the aforementioned laws and prohibitions, same-sex couples are forced to spend time and money on domestic partnership agreements, estate and health care planning to obtain even the most basic protections for family and loved ones. Failure to plan can have truly devastating and unintended consequences for same-sex couples and their families.

When it comes to child-rearing and parenting for same-sex couples, this national patchwork of rights, prohibitions, and outright discrimination can be catastrophic and downright terrifying. I advise my clients (and the various LGBT legal advocacy groups agree) that the only way to guarantee the recognition of their legal parent-child relationship is by petitioning the Court to grant a Co-Parent Adoption.

Your State-Sanctioned Same-Sex Marriage/Civil Union/Domestic Partnership Does Not Guarentee A Legally Enforceable Parent-Child Relationship. A recent New York case - Debra H. v. Janice R. - highlights this fact particularly well.

Two months prior to the birth of their child, Debra and Janice registered a domestic partnership in their home state of New York. A month later, the pair also entered into a civil union in Vermont. But two and a half years after the birth, the two women split up. Debra petitioned the court for custodial and visitation rights over the objections of her partner Janice, the child's birth mother. On October 9, 2008, the New York trial court found in favor of Debra, finding that she stood in loco parentis (what we would call De Facto Parental Status in Massachusetts) to the child. This means that although Debra was neither the child's biological mother nor an adoptive parent, the court was convinced that she acted sufficiently like a parent and deserved legal recognition.

However, on April 9, 2009, a New York appellate court reversed this decision and refused Debra any parental rights to the child she helped raise for two and a half years. The Court's reasoning is clear and unambiguous:

"Although the record indicates that petitioner served as a loving and caring parental figure during the first 2½ years of the child's life, she never legally adopted the child. ... This matter is governed by the Court of Appeals decision in Matter of Alison D. v Virginia M. (77 NY2d 651 [1991]), which provides that a party who is neither the biological nor the adoptive parent of a child lacks standing to seek custody or visitation rights under Domestic Relations Law § 70..."

The New York Court denied parental status to Debra even though it recognized that the child had been "born approximately one month after the parties entered into a civil union in the State of Vermont, and more than two months after they registered as domestic partners in New York City".

The Constitution Requires That States Give Full Faith And Credit To The Judgments Of Another State. In a recent Federal Court decision, the State of Louisiana refused to issue a new birth certificate for a child born in that state and then adopted jointly in New York by two men. The state's position was that joint adoption by an unmarried couple was against Louisiana's public policy, and that it could refuse to issue an amended birth certificate.

Rejecting the state's argument, the District Court Judge Jay Zainey explained that the well-settled meaning of the federal constitution's "Full Faith and Credit Clause" requires states to recognize the "judicial proceedings" of other states. "Judicial proceedings" are matters that are resolved in courts, and the final resolution of a court proceeding is called a judgment. Importantly, the judge said that "the full faith and credit clause does not require a state to substitute the statutes of another state for its own..." On Summary Judgment, Judge Jay Zainey ordered the State Registrar to honor the valid New York adoption judgment and issue an amended birth certificate to the adoptive same-sex parents.

This case reminds us that although a state is constitutionally required to recognize the judgment of a foreign jurisdiction, it will not be equally compelled to recognize foreign statutory schemes or regulations (see: same-sex marriage or civil union) that violate its laws or public policy.

But Will My Spouse And Children Be Protected By Our Valid Same-Sex Massachusetts Marriage?

Yes! But only in Massachusetts.

In the case of heterosexual married couples, it has always been the case in Massachusetts that a child born during the marriage is legally presumed to be the biological child of both the husband and wife. With full legal recognition of same-sex marriage in 2004, married same-sex couples should receive the same presumption of parenthood here Massachusetts, although I am not aware of any cases that have tested this right.

Same-sex couples should not rely on the Massachusetts presumption of parenthood alone to establish a legal parent-child relationship between a non-biological parent and child. Put another way, if your only legal connection to a child is through your same-sex marriage, your parent-child relationship is only as valid as your same-sex marriage. Because only four states currently recognize same-sex marriage, the chances of ending up in a state that treats you as a legal stranger to your same-sex spouse and your same-sex spouse's child is great.

Regardless of whether your same-sex marriage is valid at the time of the birth of your children, or whether you wish to parent your same-sex partner's biological children, only a final and binding Adoption Decree will guarantee the creation of a universally recognized and legally valid parent-child relationship.

Given the uncertainty caused by a patchwork of new and untested state laws recognizing and banning same-sex relationships, same-sex couples should consult with an attorney to ensure that all of their exceptions and assumptions surrounding their rights are correct, especially if there is a child involved. Adoption is the only guaranteed method of creating a legal parent-child that will be recognized by other states. Uncertainty in this area may never result in a problem, but discovering your lack of legal standing during a stressful or tremulous time can make an unpleasant situation terrifying and even dangerous.

Japan Offers Recognition of Same-Sex Marriages Abroad

As reported by the AP, Japan's Justice Ministry announced on March 27, 2009 that it has begun issuing marriage-eligibility certificates to Japanese citizens who plan to marry someone of the same sex in a foreign country where same-sex marriage is legal.

For Japanese nationals, whether they are gay or not, to marry foreigners in foreign countries, they must obtain certificates from the ministry by submitting documents including their name, birth data, sex and nationality, and similar information about their marriage partner.

The ministry has so far rejected the issuance of such certificates to Japanese citizens seeking to marry same-sex partners of foreign nationality as such marriages are not approved under domestic law. Because the Justice Ministry would not issue the requisite eligibility certificate, Japanese gays and lesbians were blocked from marrying a same-sex foreigner, even if their marriage partner's country approved of same- sex marriage.

Under the latest decision, the ministry will issue a new type of certificate which will only clarify that the person has reached the legal age for marriage and that he or she is single. Under the changed policy, gays and lesbians in Japan will be able to bring a foreign same-sex spouse to live with them in Japan.

Same-sex marriage is legal in Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, and the U.S. states of Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, and Vermont.

Vermont 4th State in Nation to Recognize Same-Sex Marriage

Update: Breaking News: Vermont 4th State in Nation to Recognize Same-Sex Marriage

As reported by the AP on April 7, 2009:

Vermont has become the fourth state to legalize gay marriage — and the first to do so with a legislature's vote.

The Legislature voted Tuesday to override Gov. Jim Douglas' veto of a bill allowing gays and lesbians to marry. The vote was 23-5 to override in the state Senate and 100-49 to override in the House. Under Vermont law, two-thirds of each chamber had to vote for override.

The vote came nine years after Vermont adopted its first-in-the-nation civil unions law.

It's now the fourth state to permit same-sex marriage. Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa are the others. Their approval of gay marriage came from the courts.

As Expected, Vermont Governor Vetoes Same-Sex Marriage Bill; Legislature Prepares for Override Vote

As reported by the New York Times on April 7, 2009:

Gov. Jim Douglas vetoed a bill that would legalize same-sex marriage, setting the stage for an override vote by the legislature. Mr. Douglas, a Republican, announced in March that he would veto the bill, which the Senate passed overwhelmingly and the House of Representatives approved 96 to 52. The House needs five more votes for a successful override.

As reported by the AP on April 7, 2009:

As expected, the Vermont Senate has overridden the governor's veto of a bill that would allow same-sex marriage.

The House planned to take up the issue later Tuesday, but it's unclear whether there are enough votes to override the veto by Gov. Jim Douglas.

If there are, Vermont would become the fourth state to legalize marriages of gay and lesbian couples.

The others are Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa.

Iowa High Court Upholds Recognition of Same-Sex Marriages

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

In a unanimous decision on Friday, April 3, 2009, the Iowa Supreme Court held that the state's decade-long ban on same-sex marriages was unconstitutional and furthered no legitimate state interest. Before yesterday's ruling, only Massachusetts and Connecticut allowed same-sex marriage. New York has said it will recognize such unions performed in other states. California allowed same-sex marriage for about five months last year before the ballot initiative banned it.

The Iowa Supreme Court decision upholds a lower court's ruling which declared that a 1998 state law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution.

"We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective," the justices wrote.

The decision will take effect in 21 days unless a rehearing is requested. Attorneys for Polk County, which challenged the earlier ruling, indicated that the county will not request a review, meaning that same-sex couples will be able to apply for marriage licenses in Iowa in three weeks. The only other recourse for overturning the decision is a state constitutional amendment, which would take at least two years to be adopted.

Click here for a copy of the entire opinion of the Iowa Supreme Court.

For more information from a local Iowa news affiliate, click here.

Vermont House Passes Same-Sex Marriage Bill; Seeks Senate Approval Friday - then to Governor

As reported by the Burlington Free Press:

MONTPELIER — The Vermont House voted 95-52 on Thursday night to allow same-sex couples to marry in Vermont. The tally suggests it might be difficult for the House to override a promised gubernatorial veto of the bill that would need 100 votes, though supporters said they would push for that.

The vote came at 9 p.m. Thursday after four hours of impassioned debate on the bill in a chamber filled with supporters and opponents. Rep. Bill Lippert, D-Hinesburg, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, spoke on the House floor about gays and lesbians in his community — carpenters and nurses and maple sugarers — and of his own relationship with his male partner.

“That’s who we’re talking about here today,” he said. “These couples are living everyday lives of ordinary and extraordinary significance.” Lippert declared that the civil unions law he helped craft nine years ago could not provide complete equality. “People know what it means when you say you’re married,” he said.

Rep. Johanna Donovan, D-Burlington, agreed. “There’s only one thing truly equal to marriage and that’s marriage,” she said. “Now is the time to give civil unions a respectful burial.” Like Lippert, several legislators who are gay or who have gay family members spoke emotionally of their own circumstances.

“I didn’t choose to be gay,” Rep. Steve Howard, D-Rutland, said. “God made me gay. I begged him not to make it so,” he said. “I stand because nobody should be ashamed of how God made them.” With his voice breaking from emotion, Rep. Jason Lorber, D-Burlington, described seeing the notice about his union with his partner under the heading “civil union” in the newspaper. “Why do we have to be off to the side,” Lorber said. “Why do we have to say you are different? Why can’t we just say congratulations?”

Rep. Tim Jerman, D-Essex Junction, said he hopes his daughter, a lesbian, will be able to come home to marry when the time comes.

There were a few surprises from legislators. Rep. Kurt Wright, R-Burlington, said he was undecided going into the debate. Quoting a letter from former Sen. Peter Brownell, who lost his seat over civil unions but didn’t regret his support, Wright said he would support the bill.

Other legislators spoke about why they could not support the bill. “It’s not easy to speak against this bill,” said Rep. Thomas Koch, R-Barre. “Marriage in my understanding has for the ages been one man and one woman. Now we take it upon ourselves to change that definition.” Rep. Albert “Sonny” Audette, D-South Burlington, apologized for voting no. As a Catholic, he said, he could not vote to change marriage.

Efforts to derail the bill failed. Rep. Robert Helm, R-Castleton, argued for putting the issue to an advisory public referendum next March, asserting that the public has not had sufficient time to debate the issue. The measured failed by a vote of 96-52.

Rep. Anne Donahue, R-Northfield, succeeded in amending the bill to clarify the distinction between civil and religious marriage. She was among five Republicans who voted for the bill. She was joined by Wright and Reps. Rick Hube, R-South Londonderry, Patti Komline, R-Dorset and Heidi Scheuermann, R-Stowe.

It was unclear Thursday night whether supporters of the bill could muster the 100 votes that would be needed to override a veto that Gov. Jim Douglas has said is coming. Some of the 11 Democrats who voted against the bill have said they would change course and vote for an override.

The House holds a final vote on the bill today. It then goes to the Senate, which passed the bill 26-4 last week, but would need to either concur with changes the House made or work the differences out in conference committee to send the bill to the governor.

Douglas would have five days from receipt of the bill to act on it, but has said he plans to veto it quickly. Beth Robinson, who led the push for the bill with the Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force, counseled supporters after the vote that they need to keep calling people and knocking on doors to persuade lawmakers to vote for an override.

Sweden's Parliament Affirms Same-Sex Marriage

The Swedish Parliament voted overwhelmingly on Wednesday to recognize same-sex marriage, becoming the seventh country worldwide to do so.

The new law passed on Wednesday by a vote of 226 to 22, and will become effective beginning May 1, 2009. Sweden will join the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and Norway, Canada, and South Africa, and the US states of Massachusetts and Connecticut, in recognizing same-sex marriage.

Sweden was one of the first countries to give gay couples legal "partnership" rights, in the mid-1990s, and allowed them to adopt children from 2002.

As reported by BBC News:

"The decision means that gender no longer has an impact on the ability to marry and that the law on registered partnership is repealed," the government said on its website.

Six of the seven parties in parliament backed the bill, while the Christian Democrats, one of four parties in the governing coalition, refused.

The Lutheran Church, the largest church in Sweden, has offered to bless gay partnerships since January 2007, but has still not given formal backing to the term "marriage", and will allow individual pastors to refuse to carry out gay weddings.

Today is Transgender Visibility Day!

March 31, 2009, marks the first annual International Transgender Visibility Day, with various events scheduled to take place around the globe.

According to Rachel Crandall, the creator of created Transgender Visibility Day, and head of Transgender Michigan explains the need for a day of celebration:

Unlike Transgender Day of Remembrance, Crandall said, the day of visibility aims to focus on all the good things in the trans community, instead of just remembering those who were lost. "The day of remembrance is exactly what it is. It remembers people who died," she said. "This focuses on the living. People have told me they love Remembrance Day but it really focuses on the negative aspect of it. Isn't there anything that could focus on the positive aspect of being trans?"

An article first appearing on March 26 in Issue 1713 of Between the Line News explains:

Though the event was borne out of Michigan, events all over the country and even world have popped up since Crandall put the word out on Facebook. Maryland Equality is holding an event. Members of a high school Gay Straight Alliance in Washington, D.C. are painting the transgender symbol on each other's faces. A group in Minnesota is holding a whole weekend of workshops and discussions surrounding the topic.

And in Michigan, the Ruth Ellis Center and youth trans group GenderSpark also have plans in the works to be involved with the day.

To Crandall, the enormous and viral growth of the events proves that people in the community were waiting for something just like the Transgender Day of Visibility. "I think sometimes people are thirsty for something and we may not even know it until we take the first step," she speculated. "I took the first step and people are just hungry for it."

One big change from usual events, Crandall was proud to report, is that the Transgender Day of Visibility was done all on a grassroots level, without backing from any large organizations. So more than just big events that raise money, Crandall hopes that the day will allow people to get involved as individuals - from coming out to their friends, family or coworkers, to just wearing a ribbon to show support.

"I've heard people say that if it wasn't for this, they wouldn't be doing anything out," she said. "...I think a lot of trans people are just looking for an opportunity to actually do something, not only to write a check. They want to actually do something and I think this day is giving them something to actually do."

In a March 27 article by author, professor, and lecturer John Corvino discusses the need for a Transgender Day of Visibility, on his perspective as a gay man.

Some gay people wonder why we get lumped with the transgender community at all. Sexual orientation is one thing, they say, and gender identity is another.

That’s true as far as it goes, and perhaps it’s better to talk about our overlapping communities than about a single GLBT community.

Still, the alliance makes sense insofar as both (overlapping) groups suffer from rigid social expectations about sex and gender. Compare “If you’re born biologically male, you should grow up to be a man” with “If you’re born biologically male, you should grow up to love a woman.” The similarities between the two inferences seem to outweigh the differences.

Then there are those who question whether linking GLB to T might slow down GLB political progress, insofar as society has a harder time with trans issues than sexual- orientation issues.

Even if you find those who raise such questions insensitive, it’s hard to argue that they’re being irrational. In general, society does have a harder time with trans people than gay, lesbian, or bisexual people, which is one reason why the trans community needs and deserves our support.

The bottom line is that there are a lot of us who could benefit from frank and open dialogue about all of these issues. Transgender Day of Visibility is an important step in that direction, and gays—and everyone else—should support it.

Contact your local LGBT Community Center to learn more or if there is no events planned, why not start one!

For more information, including events, about International Transgender Visibility Day, check out the facebook page of Rachel Crandall, one of the founders of the day.

Same-Sex Marriage Bills Gain Ground in New England, to Become "Marriage Equality Zone"

The states of Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine each moved closer this week to becoming the next New England state to recognize same-sex marriages after Massachusetts and Connecticut.

NEW HAMPSHIRE - The AP reported on Thursday March 26 that the New Hampshire House has voted 186-179 in favor of recognizing the right of same-sex couples to marry. The bill now moves to the New Hampshire Senate, where its future is uncertain.

Democratic Gov. John Lynch has said he opposes gay marriage, but hasn't said whether he would veto the legislation if it made it to his desk. Two years ago, New Hampshire gave gay couples the right to enter into civil unions.

According to the AP, the first attempt to pass the gay marriage bill in New Hampshire fell one vote short in the House, but opponents were unable to kill it. The House then reconsidered and passed the measure Thursday.

VERMONT - Vermont, the first state in the Nation to succesfully (cf. Hawaii) introduce civil-union legislation back in the 1990s, voted Monday March 23 on a bill to recognize same-sex marriage equality in the state. The marriage bill, which passed the Vermont Senate by an overwhelming majority vote of 26-4, now heads to the Vermont House for a vote in the coming days.

Republican Governor Jim Douglas has said he disagrees with the bill, and has expressed his intention to veto the bill if given the chance. The bill would require a 2/3 majority vote in both the Senate and the House in order to survive the Governor's veto.

If the bill becomes law, Vermont will become the first state to legalize same-sex marriage without being forced to do so by the courts.

MAINE & RHODE ISLAND - Next month Maine lawmakers plan to hold a legislative panel for the purposes of hearing a bill to recognize same-sex marriage, just as Rhode Island did back in February.

Nationwide, only the states of Connecticut and Massachusetts allow gay couples to marry.

Beware the Generic Health Care Proxy: Potential Problems and Unforseen Consequences

Attorney Todd Ratner of the Western Massachusetts law firm of Bacon\Wilson recently wrote an article about the possible dangers of filling out a generic Health Care Proxy at a hospital or clinic. The message to clients: not all health care proxies are equal.

Potential Problems. Hospitals often encourage or direct patients to complete a generic Health Care Proxy upon arrival to an emergency room or in advance of an operation. While the boilerplate form supplied by a hospital is legally sufficient and simple to complete, it does not necessarily cater to your specific circumstances and needs.

Furthermore, your admission to a hospital is not necessarily the best time to consider and make decisions regarding a possible terminal illness or to consider and select your health care decision-maker. It is obviously better, if given the opportunity, to contemplate and make important health care decisions in a less stressful situation and prior to the occurrence of a stressful or emergency medical event.

It can also be a problem if you have already executed a Health Care Proxy as part of your overall estate plan, and you then hastily fill-out and sign the hospital form. Execution of the new form revokes your prior Health Care Proxy, thereby stripping you of the carefully thought-out intentions provided for in the prior, now revoked document.

A Well-Drafted Health Care Proxy. The best Health Care Proxies are not simply forms, but are powerful legal instruments that address your unique concerns and intentions. A well-drafted Health Care Proxy should address the following:

• Living Will Language: Whether or not you wish to be kept alive by machines in the event that independent physicians concur that you are in an irreversible coma or other terminal condition with no chance of recovery
• Organ Donation: Whether or not you wish to be an organ donor
• Creation or Burial: Whether or not you wish to be cremated or buried
• Burial Instructions: Where and how you wish to be buried
• HIPPAA Sufficient Language: Authorizing another to review, request, and receive your medical documents while you are incapacitated
• Statement Regarding Same-Sex Marriage: A provision that prevents a hostile jurisdiction or change of law with regard to your same-sex marriage from revoking the entire instrument

If you already have a well-drafted Health Care Proxy. If you already have a well-prepared Health Care Proxy, be sure to ask the hospital whether they require you to fill out their generic form. If they do not, then instruct them that they should consult your existing Health Care Proxy. If you have a well-drafted Health Care Proxy sitting in your home or office file cabinet, prepare a letter to your primary care physician instructing her to place the instrument in your medical file; they are required to do so by law upon request.

If you do not have a well-drafted Health Care Proxy. An experienced estate planning attorney can provide you with the alternatives and options available to make the document suitable for your situation so that you do not have to rely on a boilerplate form filled-out under less-than-ideal circumstances.

What is a Health Care Proxy?

Live Blogging from inside California Supreme Court on Proposition 8

The California Supreme Court hears arguments today on whether Proposition 8, the anti-gay-marriage initiative, should be upheld and, if so, whether the marriages of an estimated 18,000 same-sex couples should remain valid.

Follow the LA Times streaming blog reported from inside the California Supreme Court.

Massachusetts Married Couples File Federal Suit Challenging the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)

Several married same-sex couples filed a lawsuit in Federal District Court in Boston on Tuesday, March 3, challenging the 1996 Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

Specifically, the plaintiffs in Gill, et al vs. Office of Personnel Management, et al challenge Section 3 of the Act which overrides a state’s determination that a same-sex couple is married and says that they are not married for purposes of all federal laws and programs. Under DOMA, the word ‘marriage’ means only the legal union of a man and a woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to an opposite sex husband or wife. The law suit does not seek to force states to recognize gay marriages performed in other states, but demands that the federal government treat all married couples, as defined by the states, equally under federal law.

The plaintiffs each allege they have suffered a real and tangible harm under DOMA, including: (i) the denial of a passport in married name; (ii) denial of income and other tax benefits; (iii) denial of retirement and pension benefits; (iv) denial of social security benefits, and other federal rights and protections.

According to GLAD:

The federal rights and protections denied to committed gay and lesbian married couples and surviving spouses include some of the critical legal safety nets that couples count on when they marry and that help them fulfill their responsibilities to one another as they plan their lives and futures, have children, cope with the loss of a spouse, and for which they contribute their American tax dollars. It harms them, their children and their other dependents.

According to Scott Wu, one of the lead GLAD attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

Our legal argument is that [the portions of section three targeted in the lawsuit are] a violation of our federal government’s guarantee to treat citizens equally by refusing to recognize the marriages only of same-sex couples, and that principle of equality should apply in other contexts if we’re successful," said Wu. While GLAD believes the suit stands a strong chance of reaching the Supreme Court, Wu said it was too soon to tell how long it might take to get there.

You can meet the various plaintiffs by clicking here.

Regina Spektor and the California Courage Campaign: "Please Don't Divorce Me"

The "Courage Campaign" has joined up with singer Regina Spektor and more than 18,000 married same-sex couples and their families in California to urge the California Supreme Court to strike down Proposition 8 as unconstitutional and restore marriage equality in California.

"Fidelity": Don't Divorce... from Courage Campaign on Vimeo.

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in this case on March 5, 2009, with a decision expected within the next 90 days.

To read the Courage Campaign's letter and sign the Petition to the California Supreme Court, click here.

Judge: New Jersey Recognizes Same-Sex Marriage for Purposes of Divorce

As reported by the Associated Press on February 6, 2009:

A state judge has ruled that gay marriage is recognized in New Jersey for the purpose of divorce.

The wider implications of Friday's ruling aren't immediately clear. But State Superior Court Judge Mary Jacobson says New Jersey has a long history of recognizing marriages that are valid where they were performed. New Jersey doesn't let gays marry but does allow civil unions, which extend the benefits of marriage to gay couples.

La Kia and Kinyati Hammond were married in Canada in March 2004 and lived in Maryland. La Kia Hammond says she needs a divorce recognized in Canada so she can marry another woman there.

The state has not said whether it will seek an appeal.

Barring an appeal of the ruling by the state, same-sex couples from states like Massachusetts, Connecticut, and California may also seek a divorce in the New Jersey courts.

Registrar of Motor Vehicles: Proof of Surgery No Longer Needed to Change Gender Marker on ID

According to a January 21, 2009 letter sent from Massachusetts Registrar of Motor Vehicles Rachel Kaprielian, individuals will no longer be required to provide proof of completed sex reassignment surgery in order to change the gender marker on driver's licenses and IDs.

Under the new policy, individuals will be allowed to specify the gender with which they identify without providing proof of sexual reassignment surgery or an amended birth certificate. In her letter, Kaprielian calls the changes "fair, reasonable and sensible".

According to the letter sent directly from Kaprielian to MassEquality's Marc Solomon:

"Under this new policy, it is no longer necessary to submit medical proof of sex reassignment surgery. The agency understands that this requirement is often very difficult, if not impossible, for many individuals to satisfy.

Under the new policy, an individual who wishes to change the gender marker will submit an updated application together with a Gender designation Change Form, signed by him or her and a medical provider attesting to the gender that the individual considers himself or herself to be.

In addition, the Registry of Motor Vehicles will no longer require an individual to provide an amended birth certificate in support of the new gender designation marker."

The RMV letter to MassEqualty announcing the new changes can be viewed here.

Columbia's Highest Court Grants Same-Sex Couples Equal Rights

As reported in the Latin American Herald Tribune January 30, 2009:

BOGOTA -- The Colombian Constitutional Court has recognized the civil, political, social and economic rights of same-sex couples.

The president of the high court, Humberto Sierra Porto, told reporters that to make possible the recognition of these rights, parts of the criminal and civil codes, as well as some parts of military regulations, will have to be modified. The ruling means that property of homosexual couples that is considered part of the family possessions, including the home, can not be embargoed or distrained.

On the other hand, if a foreigner enters into a same-sex union with a Colombian in Colombia, he or she may obtain Colombian citizenship if and when that union has been under way for more than two consecutive years. Members of same-sex couples cannot be forced to testify against their partners.

Regarding public officials, when one takes the oath of office, that person's same-sex partner - if any - will also take the office.

As reported by 365Gay.Com January 30, 2009:

(Bogota) Colombia’s Constitutional Court has upheld a lower court ruling that the government must provide same-sex partners with all of the rights that opposite-sex couples have. Last year, LGBT rights groups went to court seeking health and other government benefits. Last April, a lower court ruled that same-sex couples are implicitly covered under the constitution’s guarantee of equal rights for all citizens.

The ruling also said that to exclude same-sex partners would violate the principle of non-discrimination and human dignity as the expression of personal autonomy, protected by international law. The Constitutional Court decision means same-sex couples will have pension, survivor and property rights.

[...]

All legal progress made in the last five years in Colombia has been accomplished through decisions by the Colombian Constitutional Court.

"Until Death Do Us Part": Texas Denies Couple Gay Divorce

In a predictable move, the Texas legal system has just thrown out the case of a gay Dallas couple seeking to file for divorce. The petition, which was filed on Jan. 21 in Dallas County’s 302nd District Court, sets up a legal showdown over whether courts will grant divorces to same-sex couples who’ve married legally in another state.

Texas, which has a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union between a man and a woman, doesn’t recognize the same-sex marriages of other states. In 2003, the state Attorney General’s Office ruled that a same-sex couple from Beaumont couldn’t use a Texas court to dissolve the civil union they obtained in Vermont.

Attorney Peter Schulte represents one of the the two men, who were married in Massachusetts in 2006, "My clients want to move on with their lives," Schulte said, "but they've got to do it so there's no financial or political burden left on them with having this marriage kind of sitting out there."

If the men were to attempt to file for divorce in Massachusetts, where they were married, the Family and Probate Court would also throw out their case, but for a different reason. Under these circumstances, Massachusetts requires that one party to the marriage establish residency for a period of 1 year in order to bring the marriage (and therefore, the divorce) within the jurisdiction of the court.

The Massachusetts residency requirement presumes that if neither of the parties to the marriage has lived in the state for at least 1 year, another state is probably the more appropriate forum for the divorce action. This presumption places an undue burden on same-sex couples, who often cannot obtain divorce in the state where they reside.

The ramifications of this legal dispute go well beyond the couple's own marriage. Same-sex marriage opponents in Texas are correct to assert that by allowing same-sex divorce, the courts are impliedly recognizing same-sex marriage. After all, one of the prerequisits for filing divorce in any state is that the parties did, indeed, have a valid marriage to begin with.

Peter Schulte, who represents the plaintiff, has stated that he will appeal the case and argue that the United States Constitution dictates that states must recognize valid out-of-state same-sex marriages for the purposes of granting divorce.

While this case is a first for Texas, it is not the first nationwide. Recently, a same-sex couple in Rhode Island was denied a divorce for the same reason. Another same-sex couple in Iowa was successful in obtaining a divorce from a local court there.

VT, NH & ME Consider Equal Marriage Rights Legislation

From the AP at Bay Windows on January 16, 2009.

According to a report by the Associated Press, and published by , State Sen. Dennis Damon (D-Trenton) said he is introducing a bill to rewrite Maine’s existing statute that defines marriage as between one man and one woman, instead defining it as a union between two people. In addition, it recognizes gay marriages from other states.

"Currently there is discrimination. Heterosexual couples who have decided to spend their lives together are treated differently than same-sex couples who have ... that same commitment to each other," Damon said. "I don’t see the fairness of that. I don’t see the need for that, and this bill will put an end to that."

Maine currently has a domestic partnership registry that’s open to same-sex couples. But that’s not enough for gay marriage supporters. Damon says it’s time to "fully end discrimination in Maine."

In New Hampshire, a bill has been submitted to the legislature to replace the term "civil union" with "marriage" in the state's 1-year-old civil union law. Vermont, the first state in the nation to permanently establish civil unions is now also likely to consider a gay marriage, or marriage equality, bill.

Currently, full same-sex marriage rights are recognized in only Massachusetts and Connecticut. New Jersey, California, New Hampshire, and Vermont currently have civil union statutes.

Changing Your Legal Documents to Reflect Your Sex: Part 5 of 5

Part 5 of 5: Obtaining a New Massachusetts Driver's License.

For a relatively nominal fee of $15.00, an individual can request that the Registry of Motor Vehicles issue a new driver's license which reflects their appropriate name and sex designation. It should be noted that an individual need not change his or her name in order to change their sex designation.

Name: The applicant must go in person to the local Registry of Motor Vehicles to request a change of name on their license (a list of local Registry branches can be found here). The applicant must present the clerk with (a) old license, (b) paperwork certifying your new name, and (c) the new name, as found on the individuals social security card.

Sex Designation: In order for an individual to change the sex designation on his or her license, he or she must provide the following (a) a notarized physician's statement indicating completion of sex reassignment surgery, (b) paperwork certifying your new name, and (c) an amended birth certificate.

It might be helpful to review the Massachusetts RMV's Application for Change of Information prior to going into your local branch. For additional help, information and support, visit the Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition website.

Connecticut Considers Transgender Antidiscrimination Protections

The Hartford Courant reported today that Connecticut legislators will introduce a Transgender Anti-discrimination Bill sometime during this legislative session. The proposed bill would seek to prevent discrimination on the basis of one's gender expression or identity.

As the Courant points out, Connecticut has long prohibited discrimination based on gender and sexual orientation, and was one of the first states in the Nation to outlaw bias against gays and lesbians. Still, similar bills have been proposed and failed in Connecticut over the last several years, the most recent one in 2007. According to the article:

The proposal would extend those protections to people whose appearance doesn't mesh with gender stereotypes, such as women who favor traditionally "masculine" clothing or hairstyles, or men who appear effeminate.Such individuals would be protected even if they don't view themselves as transgendered.

The term transgender covers a wide variety of people, including: transsexuals, who physically alter their gender through surgery or other means; cross-dressers; and intersex individuals who are born with ambiguous genitalia.

The organization Love Makes a Family has long been a key part of the coalition behind the gender identity bill. "This is something that's been a priority for our organization for several years now," said Carol Buckheit, associate director of Love Makes a Family. "Certainly, we're going to redouble our efforts in support of this legislation."

The article can be read in its entirety by clicking here.

Changing Your Legal Documents to Match Your Sex: Part 4 or 5

Part 4 of 5: Obtaining an Amended Birth Certificate in Massachusetts.

After an individual has completed sex reassignment surgery, and has had his or her name legally changed in the Probate Court, he or she may apply to have his or her birth record amended to reflect the newly-acquired sex and name.

Name: The applicant must submit to the appropriate clerk a certified copy of the legal name change court order.

Sex Designation: The applicant must then provide to the clerk with an original notarized statement indicating completion of sex reassignment surgery. It is important that the physician use the words "completed sex reassignment surgery" with regard to your surgery, not merely that s/he "performed" surgery.

Fee: According to Massachusetts Registry of Vital Records official website, "The fee for amending a record at the Registry is $50.00. Before you come in to the Registry offices for an amendment or correction, you must speak with a Registry representative first. That way, when you come in, you will be prepared with the necessary evidence or paperwork that will allow the correction to be made. Call: (617) 740-2603 or email: vital.regulation@state.ma.us

Registry of Vital Records
150 Mount Vernon St.
1st Floor
Dorchester, MA 02125-3105