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

Vaughn-Martel Law Has Moved!

Vaughn-Martel Law has moved its offices to a new address in the heart of Boston's South End neighborhood:

530 Tremont Street
Boston, MA 02116
617-357-4898 Tel.
617-357-4899 Fax.
866-606-4188 Toll-free
E-mail attyvm@vaughnmartel.com
Web www.vaughnmartel.com

Vaughn-Martel Law was founded as the Law Office of Christopher Vaughn-Martel in 2006, and continues to serve individuals, families, and small businesses throughout Massachusetts.

For contact information, maps, and directions, click HERE.

California Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Proposition 8 Challenge

On Wednesday, the California Supreme Court agreed to hear three legal challenges to Proposition 8, according to the AP.

Proposition 8, the ballot initiative which amended the California Constitution to limit civil marriage to opposite-sex couples, passed on election day with the support of 52% of California voters amended the California Constitution.

All three cases argue that Proposition 8 violated the fundamental civil rights of a vulnerable minority group.

A copy of the order granting review of petitioners' cases can be viewed here: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/S168047_S168066_S168078-11-19-08_ORDER.pdf

California Voters Approve Proposition 8: Same-Sex Marriage Rights Revoked

Election Day, November 5, 2008: Proposition 8, which limits marriage in California to heterosexual couples, passed Tuesday with 52 per cent support, only 5 months after the California Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage last earlier this year.

Since the Supreme Court recognized same-sex marriage in June, it is estimated that more than 18,000 same-sex couples obtained marriage licenses. Although the California Attorney General will recognize those marriages which tool place between June and November, their legal status is far from settled. What is clear is that same-sex couples will no longer be able to obtain a marriage license in the state of California.

Many commentators have suggested that the California Amendment is singularly unique, in that it strips away the fundamental civil rights of a minority group by a vote of the majority electorate.

Three lawsuits have already been filed in the state of California to challenge the Amendment on procedural grounds. Any challenge to the substance of the Amendment is likely to fail before the California Supreme Court, which is bound to interpret the Constitution as written. However, there is a chance that one or more lawsuits on the issue of same-sex marriage rights will make it's way before the United State Supreme Court.

It's likely that same-sex marriages which were granted in California between the months of June and November, when the Amendment was approved, will be recognized in other states that either grant or honor same-sex marriages, like Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New York.

Changing Your Legal Documents to Match Your Sex: Part 3 of 5

Part 3 of 5: Name Change in the Massachusetts Probate Courts.

Changing one's legal name in Massachusetts is designed to be a fairly easy and straightforward process. Under Massachusetts law, a name change "shall be freely granted unless such change is inconsistent with public interest". Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 210 Sec. 12. All paperwork and fees should be submitted in the Probate Court in the county where you currently reside.

1. Obtain, prepare and submit a Change of Name Petition (CJP-27). This form can be downloaded and printed directly from the Probate Court website, or by requesting one from a clerk of the Probate Court;

2. Submit a copy of birth certificate or naturalization papers;

3. Pay a court filing fee of $165.00;

4. Publish a notice of name change in the local newspaper.

Each county probate court maintains its own specific procedures, so it is important to check with the court clerk before sending in any paperwork.

The Court is under no obligation to investigate or inquire into the motive or reasons that prompts one to change his or her name, so long as the name change is not for an unlawful, fraudulent or dishonest purpose. Assuming that no person files an objection to your petition and the court finds no reason to refuse it, the name change will be approved without a court hearing.

Once approved by the court, it is important to request at least four (4) certified copies. You will need certified copies in order to amend your birth certificate, obtain a new license, etc. Generally, an ordinary copy will suffice for things like checking and savings accounts, shopping clubs, and credit card accounts.

A list of the probate courts in Massachusetts, together with contact and other helpful information, can be found here.

Connecticut Recognizes Right of Same-Sex Marriage

On Friday, October 10, 2008, the Connecticut Supreme Court held in the case of Kerrigan & Mock v. Dep't of Public Health, that same-sex couples have the right under Connecticut state law to enter into marriage.

The Supreme Court decision overturns the ruling of a lower court which had held that state-sanctioned civil unions offered the same rights and benefits to same-sex couples. The decision of the Supreme Court, Connecticut's highest court, cannot be appealed, and will go into effect on October 28, 2008.

By way of history, the Connecticut legislature enacted a statute in 2005 creating civil unions similar to those created in Vermont, New Hampshire and New Jersey. In 2007, when a similar bill came before the legislature which would provide full marriage equality, the legislature tabled it. Meanwhile, eight same-sex couples had brought a lawsuit against the State of Connecticut after each had attempted to apply for a marriage license in the town of Madison, and was denied. The plaintiffs argued that civil unions were constitutionally inadequate, and provided for the unequal treatment of gay and lesbian citizens.

Justice Richard Palmer, who wrote the majority opinion for the court, wrote that the "segregation of heterosexual and homosexual couples into separate institutions constitutes a cognizable harm," in light of "the history of pernicious discrimination faced by gay men and lesbians, and because the institution of marriage carries with it a status and significance that the newly created classification of civil unions does not embody."

Connecticut is now the third state in the nation to recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry, following Massachusetts in 2004 and California in May of 2008. Just like the states of Massachusetts and California, the Connecticut decision only allows gay couples the state benefits of marriage. The Defense of Marriage Act, which was passed in 1996, continues to deny gay couples federal recognition of their marriages, including rights and benefits in connection with Social Security, taxation, immigration and others.

To read the opinion of the justices of the Connecticut Supreme Court in Kerrigan & Mock v. Dep't of Public Health, click here.

To view an interactive map of states that permit civil unions and same-sex marriage, click here.

The above photograph is credited to Shana Sureck for The New York Times.

Changing Your Legal Documents to Match Your Sex: Part 2 of 5

A passport is an essential legal document for every citizen. Without it, an individual will be unable to travel outside of the United States, including to Canada and Mexico.

Part 2 of 5: Passports. Because passports are issued by the federal government, the procedure to obtain a new United States passport that accurately reflects one's name and sex designation is uniform regardless of your state of residence.

To obtain a passport for the first time, an individual must go in person to one of the more than 9,000 passport acceptance facilities located throughout the United States. In order to locate a passport acceptance facility nearest to you, click here. You will need two photographs of yourself, proof of U.S. citizenship, and a valid form of photo identification such as a driver’s license.

In order to effectuate a change of name and sex designation on a passport, a person must obtain and fill out the appropriate form from the United States Department of State website. If it has been less than one year since a current passport was issued, a person can request a new passport free-of-charge by filling out Form DS-5504. If it has been over a year since a current passport was issued, a person must fill out Form DS-82 and pay a $67.00 fee.

In order to obtain a change of name on a passport, an applicant must enclose a certified copy of the court decree granting the name change. For a change of sex designation on your passport, an applicant must enclose a certified copy of his or her new birth certificate, reflecting the change of sex. Certified birth records can be obtained by filling out a Request Form and sending it to the Registry of Vital Records and Statistics.

For further information, visit http://travel.state.gov or visit the National Passport Information Center.

Changing Your Legal Documents to Match Your Sex: A Five-Part How-To Series

INTRODUCTION. For better or worse, our legal IDs and documentation define who we are. Whether it is a social security card, a passport, a driver's license, or employee security badge, our legal documentation provides us with rights, privileges and access to society, travel, emergency assistance, health care, education, and other important social and governmental institutions. It tells the world who we are and affirms who we know ourselves to be.

The following five-part series is meant to provide a basic framework for transgender persons whose legal documentation no longer reflects their actual sex/gender identity.

PART 1 OF 5: SOCIAL SECURITY CARDS. Because Social Security cards are issued by the federal government, the procedure for obtaining a new Social Security card is the same in every state. To apply for a Corrected Card, you must obtain and fill out Form SS-5 by calling 1-800-772-1213, visiting www.ssa.gov, or by visiting your local Social Security office.

In order to effectuate a change of name, you will need to provide at least one document that shows your old name and at least one document that shows your new name. If possible, it is best to provide either photographic documentation or documentation which contains sufficient information (name, age, date of birth, parents' names, etc.) to identify you.

Documents acceptable to the Social Security Administration include a driver's license, employer ID card, passport, adoption record, marriage/divorce record, school ID card, health insurance card, etc. Documents must be either originals or copies certified by the issuing agency. All documents will be returned to you.

There is no fee for changing the name on your Social Security card, and you should receive your new card within two weeks.

In order to change the gender designation on your Social Security card, you must be able to provide a letter from an attending physician or surgeon verifying that "sex change surgery has been completed". This requirement is not uniformly enforced, and a letter from a health care provider stating that the applicant is undergoing treatment may suffice.

Go to the next in the Series, Part 2 of 5: Change of Name in the Probate Courts.

The information contained in this article is derived largely from the Transgender Legal Issues pamphlet published by GLAD, which can be viewed in its entirety here.

DOJ Ruling Undercuts DOMA: Children of State-Recognized Same-Sex Relationships May Collect Federal Benefits

The federal Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996, prohibits the federal government from extending (or forcing states to extend) rights or benefits to same-sex couples and their children, even if those relationships enjoy marriage, domestic partner, or civil union status under state law.

However, as states across the country begin to affirm the rights of same-sex couples and their children - including access to the institutions of marriage, divorce, spousal benefits, and child support and custody - the justifications and practical workability of DOMA is being directly challenged. Notably, a recent ruling issued by the US Department of Justice (DOJ) instructed the Social Security Administration (SSA) that it must extend federal benefits to the non-biological child of a woman in a Vermont civil union.

In this ruling, the DOJ considered the case of Monique and Karen, who had obtained a civil union in Vermont in 2002. In 2003, Monique gave birth to a little boy named Elijah. Karen did not formally adopt Elijah because, under Vermont's civil union statutory scheme, he was considered a child of both Monique and Karen. The same year Karen, Elijah's non-biological parent, began receiving social security disability benefits. Then and now, DOMA prohibited general recognition of a legal parent-child relationship between Elijah and Karen.

Under existing SSA regulation, children of adults who receive benefits have traditionally been entitled to benefits in their own right. Previous SSA regulations define a "natural child" based on "the law on inheritance rights that the State courts would use to decide whether [the individual] could inherit a child's share of the insured's personal property if the insured were to die without a will". 20 CFR §404.355(b)(1)(2007). In other words, if an individual would be considered the child of a benefits recipient under his own state's inheritance laws, the individual would be considered an eligible child for federal social security benefits purposes.

In this case, the SSA was in a quandry. Although Elijah was a "natural child" of Karen under Vermont law, the parent-child relationship was derived from a same-sex civil union statute that the federal government was expressly prohibited from recognizing under DOMA. The SSA was unclear whether it could distribute federal benefits to Elijah, who was only related to Karen by way of her same-sex civil union to Monique. The DOJ decision deftly circumvented DOMA, and directed the SSA to distribute federal benefits to Elijah since Elijah was considered Karen's "natural child" under Vermont's intestacy statutes.

The Elijah ruling is signifigant because the SSA was instructed to treat Elijah as Karen's son even though he was related to Karen under Vermont's intestacy laws only by way of Karen's same-sex civil union to Monique.

The full impact of the DOJ ruling has not been adequately reported or commented on. After all, it is only a small crack in the expansive and largely untested Defense of Marriage Act, which denies thousands of federal rights and benefits to same-sex families and children. However, the ruling seems to indicate that federal benefits that are granted according to state definitions of family and parentage (including states that recognize same-sex marriages and unions) will not be denied despite the fact that DOMA specifically prohibits federal recognition of those same-sex relationships.

It is important to note that the Elijah decision will not provide benefits for non-biological children of same-sex parents in states that refuse to recognize the marriage or civil union of the parents. For example, even Elijah's benefits would terminate if Karen and Monique were to move their family to a state that did not recognized their union. Same-sex parents of children can avoid this result by speaking with an attorney and making sure that both spouses have legally adopted their children and have created a flexible estate plan to fill the gaps created by DOMA and similar discriminatory state laws.

The full text of the opinion can be found on-line at http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/2007/saadomaopinion10-16-07final.pdf.