Same-Sex Marriage Update

[MsTinkerbelly]

Michigan Bans Partner Benefits

Michigan's GOP Gov. Rick Snyder has signed a bill that bans all state agencies from offering domestic partner benefits.
"The decision to take healthcare benefits away from families just in time for the holidays is mean-spirited and cruel. Governor Snyder had an opportunity to show real leadership and put an end to the political games; instead he approved an extreme policy that sets our state back, jeopardizes our economy and puts our families at risk," said Kary Moss, executive director of the Michigan ACLU. "The bill serves no other purpose than to single out a small minority of people and deprive them of critical protections as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. We are prepared to challenge this law on behalf of Michigan families in the coming weeks."
Michigan now faces a mass exodus at its state universities, where educators and administrators had threatened to resign if the bill became law. Analysts are divided as to whether the new law applies to the education system

[MsTinkerbelly]

Socarides: Obama will endorse marriage equality before 2012 election
By Jacob Combs

Writing in this week’s New Yorker, Richard Socarides, who served as an advisor on LGBT issues in the Clinton administration and founded the marriage equality group Equality Matters earlier this year, predicts that President Obama will declare his support for marriage equality before the 2012 election. In doing so, he cites both Perry v. Brown and Gill v. OPM, predicting that those cases will be decided in favor of marriage equality activists in the Ninth and First Circuits, respectively. Both of those decisions are expected to be handed down in the next few months. Writes Socarides:

The remarkable new reality for Obama in this election is that supporting marriage equality is smart politics. A majority of independents and young voters already favor equal marriage rights. These are important voting blocks, and a key part of the President’s reëlection strategy. Support for gay rights will also help him energize liberals in the Party and others who think he has not acted boldly around core progressive issues such as immigration and the environment and on other civil-rights issues. Hard-right conservatives who strongly oppose marriage rights, meanwhile, will never support Obama anyway.

For most in the LGBT community, it’s not a question of if Obama will declare his support for the cause, it’s a matter of when. I will admit that when the president made his now infamous statement earlier this year that his views on gay marriage were “evolving,” I, like many others, took that as a coded message saying, ‘I’ll support it in my second term.’ (Evolution in that context meaning survival of the elected, I guess.) But Socarides’s point is well made. An Obama announcement would be great news for the cause, and either way, 2012 looks like it could shape up to be a watershed year for marriage equality in the United States.

[blackboot]

Judge rejects last minute lawsuit to stop Civil Unions in Hawaii January 1st



"Come the New Year couples can officially enter into Civil Unions in Hawaii.

"We have countless couples ready to enter into Civil Unions on January 1st and January 2nd," says Alan Spector, Equality Hawaii.

But, a lawsuit filed this week, tried to stop it from happening.

Emmanuel Temple, the House of Praise in Wahiawa and Lighthouse Outreach Assembly of God in Waipahu filed for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to block the implementation of the Civil Union law, saying the law violates their civil rights and constitutional protections for religious freedom.

"The law hasn't even gone into effect yet and they're suing, claiming they will be forced to host Civil Union ceremonies in their churches when that hasn't happened," says Spector.

Supporters of Civil Unions say the motion for a TRO is frivolous.

"It's an attempt to make couples who are anticipating possibly the happiest moment in their lives, feel unsettled and unsure," says Valerie Smith, Equality Hawaii.

The state's response: "It is certainly cruel for Plaintiffs to wait until this late date to bring this action, knowing full well that many, many people have been looking forward to civil unions since the Governor signed it into law more than 10 months ago."

The church's attorney Shawn Luiz replied: "The state's position is absurd. The Church cannot be forced to allow its property to be used for a same-sex ceremony anymore than the Plaintiffs could be ordered to allow a civil union between a man and a woman on Church property."

After several hours going over the arguments, Federal Court Judge Michael Seabright denied the church's request for a TRO, but allowed the case to proceed.

"The meat of the case is still that Act 1 does not comply with the First Amendment as far as my clients are concerned," says Luiz. "We are still going to move ahead and do what we came here to do, make sure the state complies with the First Amendment."

"I'm glad that it's over. I thought of it as an unnecessary distraction and now we can forge ahead and follow-through with our plans and look forward to January 1st at midnight," says Smith.

A state web site that allows couples to register online for Civil Unions is scheduled to go live at midnight January 1st."

To apply online for a civil union go to: civilunion.ehawaii.gov

To apply online for marriage go to: marriage.ehawaii.gov/

[MsTinkerbelly]

Civil unions come to Hawaii and Delaware with the new year
By Jacob Combs

Happy New Year, P8TT! Not only does today mark the beginning of what’s bound to be a thrilling and possibly wild year for marriage equality, it’s also an important milestone for LGBT couples in Hawaii and Delaware, where civil union laws passed in 2011 have finally gone into effect.

Government offices in both states are closed for the holiday, but in Delaware, New Castle County Clerk of the Peace Ken Boulden opened his office today by appointment to issue licenses. Earlier today, Equality Delaware President Lisa Goodman and her partner became the first couple to obtain a civil union in the state. In Hawaii, a district court judge denied a request by two churches for a restraining order barring the new law from going into effect. The churches are suing to have the civil union law declared unconstitutional.

In 1993, the state of Hawaii set off the marriage equality debate with a court decision ruling that the state’s law banning same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. In the 19 intervening years, much has changed, and the arrival of legal equality in the Aloha State (and Delaware too!) is something to celebrate.

Along with many in the community, I find myself somewhat conflicted when it comes to civil unions. Of course, our ultimate goal is and must be full federal marriage rights: having marriages for heterosexual couples and civil unions for gay and lesbian couples smacks of “separate but equal” discrimination. Nevertheless, civil unions are an important stepping stone to full equality. Their impact is undeniable, and they bring real rights and protections that gay and lesbian couples deserve. (Of course, that’s only when the civil union law is well-designed–yes, I’m looking at you, Rhode Island.)

Furthermore, civil unions set the stage for judicial decisions like In re marriage cases, the California Supreme Court ruling that held in part that it was unconstitutional to prohibit gay couples’ relationships from being recognized as marriages, even though the state’s domestic partnership law granted these couples the same rights as opposite-sex couples. Civil unions could be the first step in other states to judicial decisions (or, of course, legislative action) affirming full marriage equality.

Here’s to a great 2012

[MsTinkerbelly]

WA Gov. Chris Gregoire: I Will Introduce Bill To Make Gay Marriage Happen

"It is now time for our gay and lesbian citizens to be treated equally and that means marriage." - Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire. Story developing, update here in minutes.

UPDATE: The Seattle Times has more.
Gov. Chris Gregoire on Wednesday said she'll put forward legislation to legalize marriage for gay and lesbian couples. The proposal will be introduced during the legislative session that starts Monday. If it's approved, Washington would become the seventh state to legalize gay marriage. "It's time, it's the right thing to do, and I will introduce a bill to do it," Gregoire said in a statement. "Our gay and lesbian families face the same hurdles as heterosexual families -- making ends meet, choosing what school to send their kids to, finding someone to grow old with, standing in front of friends and family and making a lifetime commitment," Gregoire said. "For all couples, a state marriage license is very important. It gives them the right to enter into a marriage contract in which their legal interests, and those of their children if any, are protected by well-established civil law."
Washington state currently has an "everything but the name" domestic partners law that was upheld in the bitterly contested Referendum 71 battle.

[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