Same-Sex Marriage Update

[MsTinkerbelly]

...Biological Mom Kept From Child in Lesbian Legal Case (ABC News)

....Tina's biological daughter turned 8 this week, but she has not seen the girl since Dec. 22, 2008, because of a custody fight with her former lesbian partner. The partner is unrelated to the child, but gave birth to her.

"I thought I'd have her back on her birthday," said Tina, a law enforcement officer, whose name was never on the birth certificate and who has been denied parenting rights under Florida state law.

For 11 years, the Brevard County couple forged a committed relationship, living together, sharing their finances and raising a daughter. Tina's egg was fertilized with donor sperm and implanted in her partner's womb.

But when their romance fell apart when the child was 2, the Florida courts had to decide, who is the legal parent, the biological mother or the birth mother who carried the unrelated child for nine months in her womb?

A trial court summarily sided with Tina's ex-partner, citing Florida statute. "The judge said, 'It breaks my heart, but this is the law,'" according to the birth mother's lawyer, Robert J. Wheelock of Orlando.

But on Dec. 23, a state appeals court rejected the law as antiquated and recognized both women as legal parents.

Citing the case as "unique," the 5th District Court of Appeal ruled that both the U.S. and Florida constitutions trump Florida's law, according to the Orlando Sentinel, which first reported the story.

"I am elated and I am thankful," said Tina, now 41. "I am hoping things will run smoothly from this [point] forward, but it may not be the case. She is appealing and trying to keep me away from my daughter."

Court papers identify both women only by their initials. ABCNews.com is withholding Tina's last name to protect her privacy.

Wheeler has asked for a stay of Tina's rights and said the case will surely go to the Florida Supreme Court and, he hopes, all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"I made a decision to have a child and raise her, not so someone else could keep her away from me," said Tina. "I want to see her grow and be a part of her life. The longer time passes the more I am missing out."

Wheelock would give no personal details about the birth mother, including where she is living with the child. He said she could not be available to talk to ABCNews.com on "such short notice."

The case, he said, is an important one.

"Anything to do with gay rights is a big deal," said Wheelock. "It will probably raise the level of conversation significantly for the next few years."

But he said the case, which has lingered for two years, will take time. "Nothing is that quick or easy," he said.

"The real person who is being affected is the kid, who has had a very stable life for a long time and now it's thrown in the mix here, a pawn in some grander scheme," said Wheelock. "There is a human side to this."

The plight of both women and their young daughter highlights the murky laws that surround same-sex families, particularly in states like Florida that do not recognize gay marriage. The state only legalized second-parent adoption last year, too late for Tina.

"I was told to see a counselor and I should have gone to a lawyer to get surrogacy paperwork so that didn't give her all the rights when she shares no biology with her," she said.

The Brevard County couple, who worked on the same police force, lived as a married couple, according to Tina's lawyer, Robert A. Segal of Melbourne.

"They couldn't solemnize the relationship, but they had been living together, owned property together, shared bank accounts and income," he said. "They held themselves up to the world as a committed couple."

"It's a moral, ethical and legal issue," said Segal. "The court sees it as a clear intent on the part of these parties to very deliberately bring a child into the world and to raise her together."

Gay advocacy groups hailed the appellate decision giving both mothers parenting rights, but warned that because many states do not recognize same-sex relationships, children are often the victims.

"Certainly a mother, like most parents, would go to the ends of the earth not to lose her relationship with the child," said Beth Littrell, an attorney in the southern regional office of LAMBDA Legal.

The law provides no distinction between biological and birth mother and has "not caught up with science or the state of same-sex marriages," ruled the appellate court.

"It's heartbreaking when they have no recourse," Littrell said. "And all kinds of harm can be created for the child with these ambiguous laws."

When Tina and her partner decided to have a child, the birth mother was 39 and infertile. Her egg was harvested and fertilized with by sperm from an anonymous donor, who relinquished his rights to the child.

When the child was born in 2004, the women hyphenated their names as the child's last name.

"They did everything that a very happy family does, but the relationship broke down," said Segal.


Lesbian Couple Were at First Amicable
Tina's lawyer said that the birth mother had turned "mean" after an amicable separation. "It happens a lot in divorcing couples," said Segal.

He said his client had been painted as a "donor mother," which was far from the truth.

"That is not a term that has legal sense to it," Segal said. "She was not giving [her eggs] with no strings attached and relinquishing rights. That wasn't happening here. She intended to be part of the child's life."

At first, the biological mother paid child support to her ex-partner and the couple worked out a time-share arrangement with their daughter, who had moved with her birth mother back with family in North Carolina.

But at some point, the birth mother decided to go to Australia for an educational law enforcement program, taking the child with her and not telling her ex-partner.

"Letters were returned by the birth mother's mother and she got tight-lipped," said Segal. "We started piecing things together and bringing in an investigator from Australia."

Tina and her lawyer filed a petition at the trial level asking to be declared a legal mother with parental rights. She also challenged the constitutionality of Florida law.

"The bottom line was, we wanted her to be a legal parent and given enforceable legal rights," said Segal.

The appeals court sent the case back to circuit court to determine visitation, custody and child support arrangement with an emphasis on the well-being of their daughter.

Two other similar court cases in New York City and California are also raising national attention.

"It does appear to be a trend where courts are looking at the intention of the parties to decide who the legal parents are, and that has applications for [couples] who plan to have a child and create that child through artificial insemination and to raise that child, even if the relationship goes awry," said LAMBDA Legal's Littrell.

"It was a great decision for this family and for each of the parents with the child at the center of the controversy," she said. "The language and the reasoning the court employed bode well for same-sex couples across the board."

As for Tina, she is now living with a new partner and has another child and one on the way. She said her legal fight has been expensive, but "all worth it if I can get her back."

"Shame on me," said Tina that she didn't understand the legal complexities that would be involved. "I did not know that I would not be on the birth certificate, that I would not have any legal right to my biological child."

[MsTinkerbelly]

Marriage equality repeal expected in New Hampshire before the end of the month
By Jacob Combs

New Hampshire features prominently in the news these days because of its first-in-the-nation primary, to be held Jan. 10, but as the Nashua Telegraph reports, there will be another very newsworthy happening in the state soon after those contests. A vote in the legislature to repeal the state’s marriage equality law will most likely be held before the end of the month, although no firm date for the vote has been scheduled.

If the bill were to pass, it would mark the first time that a state legislature passed and then later repealed the legalization of gay marriage, although California and Maine both took away previously existing marriage rights through their respective initiative processes. The New Hampshire bill, which would repeal the earlier gay marriage law and replace it with a civil union provision, passed the state’s House Judiciary Committee in October on an 11-6 vote.

There are a lot of things wrong with the decision by the New Hampshire GOP to move ahead with this legislation, not least of which is the fact that rights which have been duly relegated to a segment of the population should not be withdrawn simply because of a change in the political winds. Furthermore, many critics of the law argue that it contains conflicting provisions that would create a legal nightmare regarding whether or not pre-existing marriages remain valid (although supporters say they will.)

Most importantly, though, as Scott Wooledge writes persuasively in the Huffington Post, the repeal bill is being pushed through the New Hampshire legislature against overwhelming public opinion in the state in support of its existing marriage equality laws. The most recent poll by the New Hampshire television station WMUR and the University of New Hampshire Survey Center demonstrates that only 27 percent of the state’s adults support repealing the law, while a full 50 percent strongly oppose doing so.

New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch (a Democrat) has said he will veto any repeal attempts by the Republican-controlled legislature. Although the GOP has the bodies in both chambers to override that veto, it’s still unclear as to whether they have the votes to do so, particularly among their caucuses more libertarian members.

If the repeal bill fails when it comes up (most likely on January 11 or 18), it will be a non-issue, and no doubt will be mostly ignored after the media swarm of the caucuses. If it succeeds, though, it will be a dramatic step backward for the state in a manner completely inconsistent with the will of its citizens

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by MsTinkerbelly

Marriage equality repeal expected in New Hampshire before the end of the month
By Jacob Combs

New Hampshire features prominently in the news these days because of its first-in-the-nation primary, to be held Jan. 10, but as the Nashua Telegraph reports, there will be another very newsworthy happening in the state soon after those contests. A vote in the legislature to repeal the state’s marriage equality law will most likely be held before the end of the month, although no firm date for the vote has been scheduled.

If the bill were to pass, it would mark the first time that a state legislature passed and then later repealed the legalization of gay marriage, although California and Maine both took away previously existing marriage rights through their respective initiative processes. The New Hampshire bill, which would repeal the earlier gay marriage law and replace it with a civil union provision, passed the state’s House Judiciary Committee in October on an 11-6 vote.

There are a lot of things wrong with the decision by the New Hampshire GOP to move ahead with this legislation, not least of which is the fact that rights which have been duly relegated to a segment of the population should not be withdrawn simply because of a change in the political winds. Furthermore, many critics of the law argue that it contains conflicting provisions that would create a legal nightmare regarding whether or not pre-existing marriages remain valid (although supporters say they will.)

Most importantly, though, as Scott Wooledge writes persuasively in the Huffington Post, the repeal bill is being pushed through the New Hampshire legislature against overwhelming public opinion in the state in support of its existing marriage equality laws. The most recent poll by the New Hampshire television station WMUR and the University of New Hampshire Survey Center demonstrates that only 27 percent of the state’s adults support repealing the law, while a full 50 percent strongly oppose doing so.

New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch (a Democrat) has said he will veto any repeal attempts by the Republican-controlled legislature. Although the GOP has the bodies in both chambers to override that veto, it’s still unclear as to whether they have the votes to do so, particularly among their caucuses more libertarian members.

If the repeal bill fails when it comes up (most likely on January 11 or 18), it will be a non-issue, and no doubt will be mostly ignored after the media swarm of the caucuses. If it succeeds, though, it will be a dramatic step backward for the state in a manner completely inconsistent with the will of its citizens

As we get into the general election cycle, I always fear these kinds of things- especially with same-sex marriage states. This year, because of a Democrat president running for re-election and all the Pea Party religious right wingers out there trying to put social conservative issues back on top, it is game on.

Frankly, this worries me with the upcoming Prop 8 SC decision- the right wing justices are going to be feeling their conservative juices even more than usual. No, I don't believe the SC really rules objectively.

It is really important to be active in this election cycle- get out there and volunteer!

[MsTinkerbelly]

North Carolina’s Director of Elections resigns over anti-marriage equality ballot initiative
By Jacob Combs

Until very recently, Sherre Toler had been the Director of Elections for North Carolina’s Harnett County for over 11 years. Just a week ago, she resigned from her position over an anti-gay marriage amendment that has been placed on the state’s ballot in 2012. The website BlueNC received this incredible statement from her via email:

On January 3, 2012 I resigned my position as Director of Elections for Harnett County, NC. I am extremely proud of the progress and accomplishments made to the voting procedures and polling places in Harnett County over the last eleven and a half years. I am especially proud that the Board of Election’s Office has always been operated in a fair, efficient and non-partisan manner during my tenure.

Unfortunately, recent actions of the North Carolina General Assembly made it impossible for me to continue as Director of Elections as speaking publicly about candidates or issues appearing on the ballot is prohibited. In September, the legislature passed a bill requiring a referendum be placed on the May, 2012 primary ballot defining marriage as a “union between a man and a woman”. I cannot and will not be a party to such actions.

If “marriage” were simply a religious institution, this would not be an issue. Different faiths are free to impose whatever moral restrictions they choose on their congregations and they in turn are free to accept or reject those restrictions. From a psychological and emotional perspective, marriage provides the individuals an opportunity to demonstrate their love for each other by committing themselves to this “special” relationship. In addition, marriage provides the participants in the relationship with a myriad of legal rights and special status, including inheritance and property rights as well as insurance and tax benefits. Marriage provides over 1000 legal rights and protections. The so-called “Defense of Marriage” Act seeks to ensure that anyone wishing to marry their partner of the same gender will be DENIED those legal rights. The broad language of the referendum could also impact private contracts between individuals, powers of attorney, and domestic partnerships, including heterosexual ones.

Slavery, discrimination and segregation represent a tremendous blight upon the great history of this country. Not so long ago, “marriage” between those of different races, particularly black and white, was prohibited by law and this ban was supported by the “Majority”. In 2011, Public Policy Polling conducted a poll of Republican voters in Mississippi and a number of them (46%) believe that not only in their opinion is interracial marriage wrong but that it should be ILLEGAL.

Only 40% indicated they believe it should be legal. There can be little doubt that if interracial marriage were put to a majority vote, some jurisdictions would outlaw those marriages as well. It is important to a free society that civil rights not be subject to a popular vote!

As a result, I am opening Lighthouse Strategies and Consulting, LLC, a political consulting business. I plan to work tirelessly over the coming months to educate North Carolina citizens on the impact of this amendment and to defeat the effort to write discrimination into the North Carolina Constitution. I will also be working to help elect progressive candidates to local, county, state and federal offices so that these types of actions by legislatures around the country will not be repeated.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. stated, “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.” I simply could not continue in the position of Director of Elections and remain silent on this important issue.

Sherre Toler

This is true courage. It will be exciting to see what Toler does in North Carolina in the lead-up to the fall, and she will no doubt be a great ally in the fight against the state’s anti-gay initiative

[iamkeri1]

Wow. I am overwhelmed with emotion at the decision of this brave woman. One person truly can make a difference
Smooches,
Keri

[MsTinkerbelly]

Maryland Senate President will allow vote on marriage equality, but calls it “an attack on the family”By Jacob Combs

Mike Miller, the Maryland Senate President, is not an ally of marriage equality–he recently called same-sex marriage “an attack on traditional families”on the Marc Steiner Show, and has promised to vote against any bill that comes up in his chamber to legalize gay marriage. “I don’t want to sound like one of the Republican candidates for President,” Miller also said on the program, “but I am what I am.”

Nevertheless, Miller has also made clear that he will allow an open vote on the issue in the state Senate, where he expects the bill will pass, as it did last year. It subsequently failed in the House of Delegates and was withdrawn after votes that were expected in favor of the measure disappeared, and the entire debate was put on hold until the 2012 legislative season.

Miller plans to hold the vote during the early parts of the Senate’s session. The bigger hurdle, as last year, will be the House, even though the chamber has traditionally been the more socially liberal than the Senate. Current preliminary vote counts show the measure five votes short in the House. If the bill does pass the legislature and is signed into law, it will most likely face a ballot challenge in the 2012 election.

While Miller’s comments on marriage equality are divisive and extreme, it is to his credit that he will allow the measure to come up for a vote rather than simply killing it based on his own personal convictions. In Rhode Island, one of the principal roadblocks to marriage equality has been Senate President Teresa Paiva Weed, who personally opposes gay marriage and has refused to let marriage equality bills even come up for a vote in her chamber. Also, Miller’s decision to hold a vote early in the session is also good news, so that the marriage equality debate doesn’t get pushed to the end of the legislature’s business and then face the threat of being ‘not important enough’ for the end of the session, as some lawmakers claimed in New York this summer. These are good signs, but certainly not definite ones, for the success of marriage equality in Maryland this year

[MsTinkerbelly]

New Hampshire marriage equality repeal delayed until February or later
By Jacob Combs

The Eagle-Tribune, a Massachusetts-based newspaper, is reporting today that the repeal of New Hampshire’s marriage equality law, scheduled to go before the legislature by the end of January, has been pushed back by House leaders until February. Said Republican House Majority Leader D.J. Bettencourt:

“We must deal with some critical financial and economic-related legislation first, as well as legislative redistricting, prior to any discussion of gay marriage. It’s critical to keep to keep legislative priorities in their proper order.”

If GOP leaders in the New Hampshire legislature were really keeping their legislative priorities in order, the repeal bill wouldn’t be on their agenda at all. Still, it’s a small piece of good news that the leadership is postponing the vote rather than holding it at the beginning of the session