Teaching Diversity in the Schools – Dispute Continues

The dispute over the notion of teaching about family diversity in the public schools continued December 5 before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Parents David and Tonia Parker and Robert and Robin Wirthlin have appealed the earlier dismissal of their suit against the Town of Lexington and the Lexington school system over the inclusion of three books – Who’s in a Family, Molly’s Family, and King and King – in a Lexington elementary school’s diversity curriculum. The books, which the town of Lexington states were a part of its policy of teaching about diversity, include representations of families headed by same-sex couples. (See our earlier post on this case).

GLAD’s position - argued in an amicus brief submitted in support of the town and school system - is that Lexington was correct in including age-appropriate material depicting the growing diversity of American families. Because public schools are responsible for teaching values essential to a democratic society, the use of materials depicting diverse families – including gay and lesbian-headed families - is entirely proper.

Not surprisingly, interest in this case is high, as evidenced by the spectators who packed the courtroom and the very active and engaged judges, who requested that both sides provide further information on key issues raised. GLAD is watching the case closely, and will be assisting counsel for Lexington in replying to the additional questions raised by the Court.

We commend the town and school system of Lexington for remaining committed to a diversity curriculum throughout this challenge, and hope that the First Circuit will ultimately affirm Judge Wolf’s thoughtful decision in his initial dismissal of the parents’ suit.

Further Reflections on ENDA

After the House passed ENDA last week, a New York Times editorial called the vote “a significant, if long overdue, breakthrough for equality and fairness.” There’s no question that it was good to see such a high level of support in the House. And there’s no question that it is outrageous for gay men and lesbians to lose their jobs because of their sexual orientation. I am reminded that many gay men and lesbians across the country are much more vulnerable than I am in my employment. They may live with greater economic insecurity, in a social environment more openly hostile than mine, or in a state that provides them no legal protections on the state level.

Yet it’s also frustrating that we will have no vote to measure the House’s support for similarly protecting transgender people – and we are left with the sense that we could have done more. Since the president will not sign this bill into law (if it makes it through the Senate) what was accomplished by leaving transgender people outside the circle of its protection?

Lee Swislow

Incrementalism and Progress

There has been much talk in the recent debate on ENDA about the reality of political compromise and the need to accept incremental progress.

Incrementalism is a fact of political life, it’s true. It is not, however, something we need hold up as ideal, or even the best we can do. In the midst of political maneuvering and discussions of the need for compromise, it is critically important that we remain strong in voicing our vision of full equality, lest we cease to aspire to more than a compromised version of it.

GLAD’s work is primarily in the realm of impact litigation, where we have an opportunity to make dramatic progress on civil rights; attempting dramatic change through incremental, compromise-based legislation nearly inevitably results in some level of disappointment.

But the legislative process, imperfect as it may be, is also key to advancing civil rights. And it is therefore critical that those of us who have a vision of what equality truly means not be complacently satisfied with incremental change, but continue to raise our voices and work together to ensure that that uncompromised vision remains a part of the political conversation.

Lee Swislow

Finally - and Forever - a Family

It was an historic day in Maine.

So said Cumberland County Judge of Probate Joseph Mazziotti, who yesterday signed and certified documents naming Ann Courtney and Marilyn Kirby the legal parents of the two siblings they have been raising for the past six years.

Packed with friends, family, and supporters, the courtroom erupted in applause when Mazziotti announced that six-year-old Ryan and 10-year-old Michelle after years of struggle finally had two legal parents—parents he described as some of the best-qualified, most caring he’d met in his time on the bench.

“It’s a wonderful day for our family,” Marilyn said later at a celebration at the family’s home in Portland. “It’s been a long time coming.”

Read about the recent ruling by the Maine Law Court that led to this historic day.

See the Press Coverage on this Story:

WMTW.com – Channel 8, Portland (Video)

WCSH6.com – Channel 6, Portland

Portland Press Herald

Why ENDA Must Cover Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity

Posted by Jennifer Levi, GLAD Senior Staff Attorney

Ever since attending a meeting last Friday with staffers from members of Congress who have said that they are going forward with a non-inclusive ENDA, I have been thinking about 2 questions I heard from those who disagree with the nearly 300 organizations who have pushed exclusively for an inclusive ENDA. They are: (1) why can't you continue to do the educational work you started on the gender identity portion of the bill after a sexual orientation-only bill goes forward; and (2) what is the harm of the so-called incremental approach that splits off the gender identity provision and moves forward with only sexual orientation protections. My answers to these questions are related and I answer them here.

The problem with the approach is that formally dividing a bill that is intended to cover the entire lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community does not reflect the experience of many of us in the community. I would argue that to be the case for most of us but certainly nothing in my answer hinges on that empirical assessment. Perhaps more importantly, what separating out the provisions does is to artificially impose a classification structure upon the community that serves to divide us in ways that we do not naturally divide ourselves.

What do I mean by this? Well, from a very personal perspective, I identify as both lesbian and transgender. How could that be? The answer is that to much of the world I appear to be a man. When I go to restaurants, servers refer to me as "sir." When I board an airplane, the people at check-in often ask why I have someone named Jennifer's identification? And, although I look like a man, my body parts are more typically associated with someone who is female. I have the name of Jennifer because it is the one my parents gave me.

Sometimes it is hard to move through the world with a masculine expression in the body of someone female. But for me, it would be harder to move through the world with a gender identity, one that is more easily read as feminine, that does not match my inner, lived sense of who I am. The difficulties I encounter stem, I believe, from having to face others' discomfort. At least I do not have to live with my own.

Certainly, there were times when I did. There were years when I tried to change the outward expression of who I am in order to get along and not have to face others' discomfort. I wore more feminine clothing, shaved my legs and removed my beard. The psychic pain of this choice was mostly unbearable. Rather than sacrifice myself, I risk and face society's discomfort with the mismatch between my gender identity/expression and my sex.

As to why I identify as lesbian, well, I nearly always have. I came out as lesbian earlier in my developmental process than I identified as transgender. My intimate relationships have mostly been with women. As someone with a mostly female physical body, identifying as lesbian has assuredly made it easier to get dates.

So, for me, and I venture to guess many in our community (pretty much all of the butch lesbians and feminine men), the characteristics of gender identity and sexual orientation are inextricably intertwined. It is nearly impossible for me to understand my identity through one lens and not the other.

The reason, I believe, there has been such an overwhelming outpouring of community support in response to Congressional efforts to strip ENDA of gender identity protections is because it is so painful, maybe indeed impossible, for the LGBT community to even understand the distinction that would be imposed upon us by a bill that advances with one and not the other.

Laws are supposed to advance protections and do no harm. Stripping ENDA of gender identity does serious harm. It forces our community to accept, and worse, advertises to the rest of society, a distinction that is artificial - one that undermines for many of us our self-identity and lived experience. Because of the inaccurate definition of community we are left with, it also makes it nearly impossible to educate because the bifurcation reflects a fundamentally flawed description of who we are.

To be sure, there was a time when the community wrestled with whether we should forge political community across the LGB and T divides. Those were hard years for many of us, personally and politically. But we as a community are completely in a different place. That different place does not reflect compromise or political correctness. Rather, I believe strongly, that it reflects growth and a development of awareness that we cannot separate sexual orientation and gender identity.

Asking us to move forward with a bill that only includes sexual orientation does a grave disservice to each of us for whom that is not a real distinction. Moreover, it does so for partisan political purposes. In the end, a "historic vote in the House" that will assuredly face a presidential veto gets us no legal protections. And, if taken on a bill that strips gender identity and leaves only sexual orientation, the vote would come at a very high cost indeed.

A Weakened ENDA makes no sense

GLAD supports a fully inclusive Employment Non Discrimination Act (“ENDA”). ENDA would make it illegal in all 50 states for employers to discriminate against employees on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation.

In 1964, when Congress passed the Civil Rights Act protecting a number of groups from discrimination on the basis of a number of characteristics, no consideration was given to protecting gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people. Politically, we were simply not on the radar.

But the political climate changed significantly as awareness of gay and lesbian issues rose and, in 1994, congressional leaders advanced a bill focused narrowly on prohibiting sexual orientation-based discrimination in employment. It was thought that the narrow focus would help it pass quickly.

Of course the political weather changed yet again, becoming unfriendly to LGBT people, and ENDA languished for 13 years and with no hope of any advancement. Nearly five years ago, GLAD, Lambda, the ACLU and the National Center for Lesbian Rights joined to reexamine that very narrowly focused 1994 bill to see if it still made sense legally, strategically, politically and ethically.

In light of what we have learned and how our movement has evolved since 1994, it did not. First, our movement has increasingly become inclusive of transgender people, recognizing our shared experience and history. GLAD in fact added “gender identity and expression” to its core anti-discrimination mission on this basis. This is not only a matter of justice but a recognition that discrimination against sexual minorities comes from related sources.

As GLAD knows from the calls we get on our InfoLine, the discrimination experienced by many gay men, lesbians and bisexuals is based not directly on their sexual orientation, but on their presentation — their gender identity or expression. They are “too feminine” or “too masculine” and they make employers uncomfortable — and they’re fired.

And from a series of unprincipled court decisions dating back to the 1970s and 1980s, we learned that existing federal sex discrimination laws would not prevent employers from firing trans people unfairly.

Consequently, we felt it was critical to add language explicitly prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity or expression to proposed federal and state laws. It would protect all of us, and it was the right thing to do. Our legal groups, alongside the political groups, worked intensively with congressional leaders to a place of unity and support for the fully inclusive ENDA that became HR 2015.

Two final practical points support our position. First, our experiences in state legislatures, and most recently in Congress, involving work on hate crimes, show that legislators know how to ensure that laws protect the full community. Second, in other contexts we have learned the lessons associated with asking for less than we want and deserve. Our efforts on marriage equality prove that there is no point in our community selling itself short.

Having come to this position, it makes no sense for GLAD to support a weakened ENDA, and we would urge others to take that position as well – as nearly 300 groups across the country have. The time is right to stand together as one community supporting one bill.

Who's in a Family?

In an ongoing legal dispute, a Lexington, MA, elementary school has become the focus of a battle waged by two families – and their conservative backers – against the notion of teaching about family diversity in the school.

The school included the books Who's in a Family and King and King in its curriculum, which teaches students about many different kinds of families. Both books present non-judgmental depictions of same-sex couples and their families.

The parents of two students - David and Tonia Parker and Robert and Robin Wirthlin - filed a lawsuit in federal court claiming the school violated their constitutional rights by exposing their children to this information. They assert that their religion considers homosexuality immoral, and that by including materials depicting same-sex families, the school violated their rights under the U.S. Constitution to control the upbringing of their children and to the free exercise of their religion.

The suit was initially dismissed in U.S District Court by Judge Mark L. Wolf, who said in his decision: “under the Constitution public schools are entitled to teach anything that is reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens in our democracy. Diversity is a hallmark of our nation. It is increasingly evident that our diversity includes differences in sexual orientation."

Judge Wolf went on to say: "The constitutional right of parents to raise their children does not include the right to restrict what a public school may teach their children and that teachings which contradict a parent’s religious beliefs do not violate their First Amendment right to exercise their religion.”

The dispute continues, however, as the Parkers and Wirthlin's have appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

GLAD views this suit as an attempt to intimidate schools away from an inclusive curriculum. Public schools should feel confident about teaching this material. The most recent census data demonstrates that lesbian and gay families live in virtually every U.S. county. To the extent that a public school includes a curriculum about families and teaches about what makes a family, that curriculum ought to reflect the demographic reality that same-sex families exist.

Students learning about different kinds of families have a right to learn that a family can have two moms or two dads and still be a loving family.

Victory for Same-Sex Parents and Children in Maine

At last, Ann Courtney and Marilyn Kirby of Portland will be able to form a permanent, legal parental relationship with the two children they have raised as foster parents for the past six years. In a unanimous decision yesterday, Maine's Law Court stated clearly that unmarried couples are allowed to jointly petition to adopt under Maine law.

The children, 10-year-old "M" and her brother, six-year-old "R", were removed from their original home in 2001, when their biological parents were no longer able to care for them. They were placed with Ann, an attorney, and Marilyn, a counselor, who quickly re-organized their lives to address the children’s multiple emotional, learning, and developmental difficulties. The children have flourished under Ann and Marilyn’s care.

Read more at www.glad.org

More on O'Donnabhain Trial

Mark Pratt filed this article for the Associated Press.

Bay Windows has this article.

Dignity, Respect, and Equal Treatment (O'Donnabhain Trial Concludes)

Trial ended today in Rhiannon O'Donnabhain's challenge of the IRS over their refusal to allow her a tax deduction for the costs of her treatment for Gender Identity Disorder. The IRS presented testimony from a final expert witness and both sides made their closing arguments.

Both parties will next file briefs with the court on November 6. Following that, each side will have seventy-five days to file a response brief (due January 21, 2008), after which the judge will issue a decision.

At the conclusion of today's trial proceedings, Rhiannon O'Donnabhain issued the following statement:

"I'm glad to have had the opportunity to tell my story and it was important for me personally, as a citizen and tax-payer, to have my day in court.

It also was important for the transgender community, my community, to speak in an official forum about what it means to be a transgender person living in this country.

I hope that this case sends a clear message that transgender people deserve dignity, respect, and equal treatment not just for our medical care, but in all aspects of our lives - just as every human being deserves dignity, respect and equal treatment.

I also hope that this case addresses some of the misunderstanding, bias, and prejudice transgender people face in our lives every day. Because what's really at the heart of this case - and my story - is a basic misunderstanding about the critical importance of being able to express my gender identity. It's something everyone should be able to do."

O'Donnabhain Tax Trial Resumes Thursday

The potentially precedent-setting trial, O’Donnabhain v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, resumes this Thursday, August 23, in Boston.

Rhiannon O'Donnabhain, represented by GLAD, is challenging the IRS over their refusal to allow her a tax deduction for sex reassignment surgery related to her treatment for Gender Identity Disorder.

The trial began on July 23 and recessed on July 27. On Thursday, the IRS will present their final expert witness, and both sides will make closing statements.

Check back here later this week for a post-trial wrap-up.

Mary Bonauto for U.S. Supreme Court?

41% of Bay Windows readers think so. (scroll down to bottom left to see the poll result).

Responding to an announcement from hit TV show 24 that its next fictional U.S. President will be played by out actress Cherry Jones, last week's Bay Windows readers' poll asked what the first act of a real-life lesbian president should be.

The winning vote? Appoint Mary Bonauto to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Sounds like a good idea to us.

Vermont: Are Civil Unions Enough?

An op-ed in today's Burlington Free Press gives voice to some of the reasons why civil unions do not provide full equality for lesbian and gay couples.

The Vermont legislature created civil unions in 2000, after the state Supreme Court recognized in Baker v State that same-sex couples are entitled to have their relationships afforded the same legal benefits, protections, and obligations as heterosexual marriage under Vermont law. Vermont was the first state in the U.S. to create the separate-but-equal institution of civil unions (now joined by Connecticut, New Jersey and, beginning in 2008, New Hampshire).

Now after more than seven years of living with civil unions, Vermonters are asking whether they offer true equality. Vermont House Speaker Gaye Symington and State Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin have formed a commission to study the issue, and will hold hearings around the state to evaluate public opinion on providing lesbian and gay couples access to full equality through civil marriage.

Visit Vermont Freedom to Marry for updates on the commission and dates of the public hearings.

More on Trans Medical Deduction Case

While the O'Donnabhain trial is temporarily in recess, the case, Rhiannon, and the GLAD attorneys representing her continue to receive supportive press (read this editorial from David Yas of Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly) and feedback. Thanks to all who have written such supportive and encouraging emails and comments.

Clearly this case is affecting many people. Here is a sampling of the comments we've received:

"Thank you for representing Rhiannon in this US Tax Court Case. It will affect me as well. I have an almost parallel journey to hers, was navy though 24 years."

"I am a bisexual cisgendered female resident of Massachusetts currently dating a hopeful Male-to-Female transgendered bisexual woman who I love very much and support strongly in her pursuit of aligning her sex with her gender. As such, I am so pleased that GLAD is supporting the transgender community in such a strong way. Bennett Klein as well as all of the other amazing GLAD contributors have my thanks and encouragement."

"GLAD is like a pit bull. You better look out if they decide to sink their teeth into you, even if you're the Internal Revenue Service."

Looking for help?
GLAD's Legal InfoLine offers help for individuals in the New England area dealing with legal issues related to their gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, and/or HIV status. If you have concerns or questions, visit our Legal InfoLine online for more information on the resources GLAD can provide.

Weighing in on Rhode Island Divorce Case

The Rhode Island Supreme Court will soon hear argument on whether a Family Court judge has jurisdiction to decide a divorce case for a same-sex couple – Rhode Island residents Cassandra Ormiston and Margaret Chambers – who legally married in Massachusetts.

While Rhode Island law is silent on the question of licensing marriages between same-sex couples, the Massachusetts courts ruled in 2006 that Rhode Island gay and lesbian couples could legally marry in Massachusetts, and in February, 2007, Rhode Island Attorney General Patrick Lynch issued a legal opinion saying that state law requires that those marriages be recognized in Rhode Island.

Married couples are able to divorce in Rhode Island. Ormiston and Chambers have a legal marriage, so there should be no reason for the Rhode Island Family Court to deny them a divorce.

You can read the amicus brief GLAD has submitted in this case, and read more on this story in the Providence Journal.

O'Donnabhain Trial Wrap Up

What a week.

Yesterday was the final day of trial (for a while) in GLAD’s case representing Rhiannon O’Donnabhain in U.S. Tax Court. And that has meant that for the first time ever in tax court there was a rich and full discussion about transgender identities.

At the heart of the case is the question of whether one transgender woman will be guaranteed equal treatment by the Internal Revenue Service. But this case goes beyond Rhiannon as an individual. Having a court consider the experience of one trans woman has been an important opportunity to show the pervasive discrimination that transgender people face every day.

On Tuesday, the first day of the trial, we heard from three fact witnesses. Rhiannon and two of her primary health care providers testified to a courtroom packed with local and national media, students, supporters, and government officials. The focus of the day was Rhiannon’s personal story, what she’s gone through, and what it feels like to live as a trans woman in the world.

We heard expert testimony on the second and third days. Through this testimony both parties developed more fully what individuals with expertise in the area understand about what it means to be transgender.

One of the striking things about the trial was the level of discussion about trans identities, and about how trans people live in and experience the world. People in the courtroom seemed moved by the discussion. It’s hard to imagine that anyone left without a richer understanding of transgender people’s lives.

The trial will continue August 23, with testimony from the government’s second and final expert witness, followed by closing statements from both parties.

More press coverage: Bay Windows, Congressional Quarterly and In Newsweekly, including a profile of Rhiannon O'Donnabhain.

Wednesday Update in O'Donnabhain Trial

On Wednesday, expert Dr. George Brown testified. He was questioned by GLAD attorney Bennett Klein and cross-examined by IRS counsel.

Bay Windows' Ethan Jacobs filed this article on trial proceedings on Tuesday and Wednesday.

Jeremiah Coder covered Tuesday's proceedings for Tax Analysts. You can read his article here.

Press Coverage of Trial, Day One

Scott Malone filed this article for Reuters on the first day of the trial.

In Newsweekly has this story on the case.

You can also listen to an interview with GLAD Attorney Jennifer Levi on the Human Rights Campaign's radio show The Agenda (recorded Monday night).

Opening Statement in Trans Medical Deduction Denial Case

Attorney Karen Loewy delivered GLAD's opening statement this morning in O'Donnabhain v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue:

"Rhiannon O'Donnabhain is entitled to a deduction for her expenses as medical care under section 213 of the Internal Revenue code because she was diagnosed by a qualified mental health practitioner with a medical condition recognized by the medical community, and she pursued a course of treatment for that condition."

Read the full text of the opening statement here.

O’Donnabhain v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Trial Begins

GLAD Attorney Jennifer Levi (left), Rhiannon O'Donnabhain (center), and GLAD Attorney Karen Loewy prepare for court on the first day of the trial

Interview with GLAD Attorney on IRS Trans Medical Deduction Denial Case

GLAD goes to trial in U.S. Tax Court tomorrow (July 24) on behalf of Rhiannon O'Donnabhain, who is challenging the IRS' decision to deny her a tax deduction for her sex reassignment surgery. (More background on this story here).

Senior Staff Attorney Jennifer Levi (left), a member of the GLAD team representing Rhiannon, talked with us about the importance of the case.

What is this case about?

Jennifer Levi (JL): In this case, the IRS denied a tax deduction for a transsexual woman who deducted medical expenses relating to her transition.

Why did the IRS deny her deduction?

JL: The position that the IRS has taken is that the surgeries that Rhiannon had were “cosmetic.” And what that means is that they’re insignificant--they’re just about trying to look better. And these weren’t about “looking better.” They were about transition. They were about being able to, not just transform the way she looked, but the way she felt, and the way that she was able to present her gender in the world. To trivialize this kind of surgical procedure, and to compare it to something like a nose job, is demeaning. And really centrally misses the basic point of transgender identity.

So you think that the IRS’s decision shows an underlying bias against trans people?

JL: Absolutely. We think it shows bias at worst, and a gross misunderstanding at best.

Why should Rhiannon have been able to deduct the surgery as a medical expense?

JL: The Internal Revenue Code allows deductions for expenses relating to medical care. The entire reason Rhiannon sought psychotherapy--and eventually hormones and surgery for the feelings that she had about being female--was medical. She was diagnosed with Gender Identity Disorder (GID), as recognized in the DSM IV, in the World Health Organization’s ICD-10, and in every major textbook and medical dictionary that addresses issues relating to mental health.

There’s just no real question that for some people whose gender identity doesn’t match their sex, that experience causes very serious anxiety, distress, sadness, and depression. And people should have access to medical care.

There’s an established course of treatment Rhiannon followed that clearly meets the statutory definition for medical care. All we have to show in this case is that the procedures she underwent were medical in nature. To suggest that they’re not is really to call into question the legitimacy of that experience of dysphoria.

Why is this case important?

JL: It’s important because it addresses pervasive misunderstandings, pervasive bias, pervasive prejudice that transgender people face. There is a lot of misinformation that underlies the discrimination that transgender people face in many areas of their lives.

What we’ve found in the context of this case is that most people really do see through what the IRS has said. People understand that if you wake up every day and you look in the mirror and the person that you see is not the person you feel like you are, that’s an uncomfortable experience at best, and disorienting and disabling at worst. Fair-minded people understand that individuals should be able to take steps to change that experience and integrate their lives more fully in order to be who they are--in order to wake up every day and see the person in the mirror that they feel themselves to be. And that when somebody does that, they shouldn’t be fired from their jobs, they shouldn’t be beaten up on the streets, they shouldn’t be denied equal treatment that other Americans receive under something as basic as the tax code.

Rhiannon’s experience is one piece of the experience of transgender people. Not everybody has the same interest in transitioning medically. Not everyone can afford to, and not everyone would want to. But this is an important case for the entire community. And that’s because what’s really at the heart of this case is a central misunderstanding about the importance of being able to express one’s gender identity. Everybody should be able to do that.

New Mexico Same-Sex Couples Can Marry in MA

Because New Mexico’s laws do not prohibit marriage between parties of the same gender, there is no impediment to New Mexico same-sex couples marrying in Massachusetts (see www.glad.org for information about the 2006 MA SJC decision that led to this conclusion).

Yesterday, July 18, The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, via the Department of Public Health and Registry of Vital Records and Statistics, issued a corrective notice to all Massachusetts city and town clerks authorizing them to allow same-sex couples from New Mexico to apply for marriage licenses.

GLAD has two publications of interest to New Mexico same-sex couples considering marriage:

How to Marry in Massachusetts

and, for New Mexico couples who previously married in Massachusetts and are now wondering about the legal status of that marriage, Legal Issues for Non-Massachusetts Same-Sex Couples Who Married in Massachusetts.

Dignity, Respect, and Equal Treatment

Beginning next Tuesday, GLAD will be in U.S. Tax Court challenging the IRS' denial of sex reassignment surgery to treat Gender Identity Disorder (GID) as a deductible medical expense. GLAD is representing Rhiannon O'Donnabhain, who underwent the professionally prescribed procedure in 2001, after spending years in anguish attempting to live as a man and eventually being diagnosed with GID in 1996.

Every mainstream medical authority from the American Psychiatric Association to the National Institutes of Health recognizes GID as a medical condition. Rhiannon's health care providers say that the treatment was critical to her mental health and ability to function at all levels.

And yet the IRS has refused the medical deduction - a deduction that would be available for an appendectomy, or bypass surgery - claiming that sex reassignment surgery is "cosmetic."

The underlying principal in this case is that transgender people deserve dignity, respect and equal treatment for their medical care.

More on this story at www.glad.org

Equal Marriage is the Law in Massachusetts

You've no doubt heard about the MA bar association applicant who is suing because he claims a question on the test involving the marriage of a same-sex couple violated his right to exercise his religion. He's also claiming that his refusal to answer said question is what kept him from making a (barely) passing score on the exam.

Alot has been said already about this case (you can read more about it here, and here, and here, for instance), and we don't want to give this frivolous case much more airtime.

Other than to point out the obvious - the bar exam is a test of the applicant's knowledge of the law. And in Massachusetts, the law is equal marriage.

More Trouble with NJ Civil Unions

Marriage Equailty Rhode Island writes today about another instance of a New Jersey couple being denied benefits under the state's civil union law. As reported in the Star Ledger, the multi-state company UPS makes it explicit that they don't believe an employee's civil union compels them to offer health insurance for the employee's partner, although they do offer coverage to same-sex spouses of Massachusetts employees. According to a letter employee Gabriael Brazier received from UPS, in creating civil unions the New Jersey Legislature

“did not go as far as Massachusetts and afford same-sex couples the ability to marry. Had the New Jersey Legislature done that, you could have added Ms. Aurand as a spouse under the plan.”

Yet another example of how civil unions are not equality.

The Sky Isn't Falling, Says Post

Another excellent point in today's Washington Post:

"When the high court of Massachusetts ruled in 2003 that the commonwealth's constitution gave same-sex couples the right to marry, detractors railed against "activist judges" who were "imposing" their will on the people. Only the people, through their elected representatives, should decide something so fundamental, they said. Thus began an effort to amend Massachusetts's constitution by referendum to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Four years and about 10,000 same-sex marriages later, here's what the people have said: never mind."

That's exactly what happened a few weeks ago when opponents of equality failed to get the 50 votes needed in the legislature to move forward a ballot initiative to ban legal rights and recognition for lesbian and gay couples.

It's heartening (though not surprising) to see how the experience of witnessing lesbian and gay couples and families go about their lives with the recognition and protections of civil marriage has changed the view of many citizens and legislators in this state. People have realized what we've known all along - allowing all loving, committed couples access to equal marriage does not hurt the commonwealth, the society, or the institution of marriage in any way. If anything, it enriches it.

The rest of the nation can now take a good look at Massachusetts and see that, in the words of the Washington Post, "the sky isn't falling."

Trouble with Civil Unions

The Washington Post reported on Saturday that some couples in New Jersey who have registered for civil unions since they became available four months ago are still being denied the rights and benefits the law was intended to grant them.

The article tells of Craig Ross and Richard Cash. Despite their civil union, Ross's employer of 21 years is refusing to provide health insurance coverage for Cash. The company has a self-funded insurance plan, and claims - as have other employers - that federal regulations therefore allow them to ignore state laws regarding employee benefits.

The federal Defense of Marriage Act is often cited by companies like Ross's as justification for denying benefits to the partners of employees even when they are legally recognized by the state.

Ross and Cash are not alone. According to the Post, "A recent study by Garden State Equality, New Jersey's leading gay advocacy group, indicated that as many as one in eight of the 1,092 same-sex couples who have registered for civil unions there have been denied all or part of the benefits they hoped to gain from the law."

This is an excellent example of why civil unions are not an adequate substitute for equal marriage, as they are clearly considered to be less than marriage by some employers (not to mention the federal government).

Maine Pride

Several representatives from GLAD attended the Southern Maine Pride festival in Portland, Maine on June 16^th. We distributed information and fliers, and spoke with members of the Maine LGBT community who were interested to learn more about GLAD and our work.

The festival was a really wonderful event, featuring performances, tables with information and educational presentations. Many people were excited about the results of the Massachusetts Constitutional Convention, as well as the recent inclusion of LGBT domestic partnerships in the Family Medical Leave Act in Maine, and many had questions about GLAD recent legal developments.

This year, Southern Maine Pride had the largest attendance in the history of the event, and it was really encouraging and exciting to see people from around the state coming together to learn and celebrate.

One Step Closer

Janet Jenkins last Friday came one step closer to seeing her daughter again.

In dissolving the Vermont civil union between Janet and her ex-spouse, Lisa Miller, a Vermont Family Court judge ordered regular parent-child contact between Janet and her daughter, Isabella. Her first visit could be as soon as June 30.

The court's order is the latest development in GLAD's case Miller-Jenkins v. Miller-Jenkins, which you can read about here.

Equality Prevails!

The Massachusetts legislature voted just moments ago to defeat an anti-gay, anti-marriage equality amendment, 151 - 45.

Equality prevails in Massachusetts!

It is so nice when people do the right thing. Thank you.

You Should Be At the State House

If you're in Massachusetts, you should be at the State House today, demonstrating your support for equality.

That's where we are.

If you're not in Massachusetts, check back later for news on what happened, or watch the proceedings online, starting at 1pm.

Support Equality June 14

Tomorrow, June 14, the Massachusetts legislature meets to vote on an anti-gay marriage ballot amendment. Despite the fact that a vast majority of legislators oppose the amendment (which would define marriage as being between a man and a woman exclusively, thus stripping rights from lesbian and gay citizens), the amendment needs only 50 yes votes tomorrow to move onto the general ballot in November, 2008.

GLAD will be at the MA State House tomorrow (and has been working for months, along with many other committed, pro-equality organizations, legislators, and citizens) to encourage the legislature to do the the right thing and oppose the amendment. It's wrong to vote on anyone's civil rights.

If you're in Massachusetts and can get to the State House, please join us there. People will be gathering as early as 7am, and the Constitutional Convention starts at 1pm. We need a strong turnout throughout the day to demonstrate Massachusetts' overwhelming commitment to equality.

If you can't make it, visit MassEquality's website to find out what you can do. You can also watch the proceedings online.

New Hampshire Civil Unions: Feedback, Workshop, Radio

When the New Hampshire legislature recently passed a civil union law, they created an opportunity for lesbian and gay couples in the state to receive some of the rights and protections available to heterosexual married couples. However, in not granting full marriage equality, they created some complicated and potentially confusing legal issues for lesbian and gay couples to navigate.

To help New Hampshire couples understand the legal considerations facing them when civil unions become available on January 1, 2008, GLAD is offering a publication, New Hampshire Civil Unions, and, on July 12, a workshop, Civil Union Tips and Traps.

We'd love to hear from New Hampshire citizens on the specific questions you have about the new civil union law.

You can also tune in to New Hampshire Public Radio today at 6:30pm to hear GLAD Attorney Michele Granda discuss civil unions on "The Front Porch."

Pride 2007

The GLAD contingent marches by the State House during Saturday's Pride Parade. We'll be back at the State House on Thursday to show our support for equal marriage. Join us!

See more photos.

It's that time of year again

It's Pride week in Boston. Many activities are taking place across the city, and it's exciting to see some real diversity in the events. The nature of Pride - particularly in large American cities - has changed over the years. What were once political marches demanding equal rights are now parades, celebrating our community. But we must remember that the fight for full equality is not over, and the visibility that Pride affords is still crucial.

GLAD congratulates this year's Parade Marshals: Representative Liz Malia, SpeakOut, and Jacob Smith Yang (who once worked at GLAD!) - all have done great things in, and for, our community.

This year's theme - Ask. Tell. Proud to Serve. - has generated some controversy. While there is no doubt that LGBT people serve our communities in many capacities and in every part of society (including the military, when allowed) - and that we should be proud to speak out about who we are and what we do - the military reference is complicated in the midst of an ongoing war that continues to take the lives of US soldiers and Iraqi civilians alike.

Because we believe that visibility is important, and because part of our mission is to ensure that LGBT citizens know the legal rights they have - and those we are still fighting for - GLAD will be marching in the parade tomorrow. Look for us behind the big purple banner, and visit our table at the Festival on City Hall Plaza, where you can pick up important information about your legal rights in Massachusetts and across New England. Or just say hi - we'd love to hear from you.

Civil Unions are Inadequate

The New York Times agrees, judging from the editorial in today's issue.

What do you think?

Loving Equality

June 12th marks the 40th anniversary of Loving v. Virginia, the landmark Supreme Court decision that advanced racial equality and the freedom to marry in America.

In 1967, Virginia residents Richard Loving and Mildred Jeter, an interracial couple, married in Washington DC. When they returned home, they were arrested for violating Virginia's Racial Integrity Act, which prohibited their marriage. The couple challenged the arrest all the way to the US Supreme Court. Writing in a unanimous decision, Chief Justice Earl Warren stated that banning interracial marriages constituted "invidious racial discrimination," thus violating the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

Committed, loving couples whose relationships had previously been treated with legal disregard and societal disrespect were finally able to marry.

Is the Loving decision relevant to today's struggle for marriage equality?

Writing in an op-ed piece in this Sunday's Washington Post, University of Pennsylvania Law Professor Kermit Roosevelt makes an insightful argument that, indeed, it is. Roosevelt makes the case that court decisions based on the constitution's Equal Protection Clause, such as Loving, reflect evolving societal understanding of what constitutes invidious discrimination - "discrimination designed to oppress a particular group or to brand its members as inferior."

"Restricting the benefits of marriage to opposite-sex couples," Roosevelt points out, "is increasingly seen as invidious, an inequality inflicted for no good reason."

We couldn't agree more.

GLAD is joining a coalition of organizations led by Freedom to Marry in launching an ad campaign this week to commemorate the Loving decision and celebrate its importance:

• as a milestone in the fight against racial inequality,
• for its importance in securing the freedom to marry as a civil right,
• for its embodiment of the importance of social justice activism and independent courts, and
• for its relevance to today's ongoing battles against unfair exclusion from marriage.

Civil Unions Come to New Hampshire

Last week New Hampshire Governor John Lynch signed into law a civil union bill that had passed the legislature back in April. When the bill goes into effect next January, New Hampshire will be the third state in New England and the fifth in the US to offer lesbian and gay couples a legal union that - while not marriage - purports to offer the same rights, responsibilities, and benefits. Vermont, Connecticut and New Jersey also offer civil unions, and California offers a registered domestic partnership. (Oregon will start offering a similar domestic partnership option in January, 2008).

This is a big step toward equality in New Hampshire, where same-sex couples and their children currently live in a painful legal void. New Hampshire Freedom to Marry, gay and lesbian legislators and allies in the state should be congratulated on this victory.

But, for all the benefits they may provide, civil unions are not equal to marriage. Marriage provides better protection, allows entry into a universally recognized and respected institution, and avoids the inequities fostered by creating separate laws just for a minority group.

GLAD has created a guide to New Hampshire civil unions (pdf). The publication explains the process for obtaining a civil union (once they become available in January, 2008), the rights and protections civil unions will - and will not - convey, and information to help New Hampshire same-sex couples determine whether or not a civil union is the right step for them.

Take a look, and let us hear your feedback. Do you have further questions? What will civil unions mean for New Hampshire?

Let's keep moving forward toward full equality!

The GLAD Team at the AIDS Walk

Over 18,000 people participated in the Boston AIDS Walk on Sunday to raise $1.2 million in support of AIDS Action Committee. We were proud to be among them!

The AIDS Walk: It Still Matters

The annual AIDS Walk fundraiser for Boston's AIDS Action Committee is coming up this Sunday. Securing legal equality for people living with HIV/AIDS is a key part of GLAD’s mission, and supporting AAC's community-based education, prevention, advocacy and health service work is important to us.

And so we have a team walking, as we do each year. In fact, this year we’re proud to be the nonprofit organization that has raised the most money for the cause.

A large part of that money was raised by one dedicated staffer, who set a personal goal to ask 200 people to give just $5 each. Sure, some people weren't able to give, and then many people gave more than $5. The point was that lots of people never get asked to give at all, and if you ask, you may be surprised by who will.

More importantly, though, the effect of asking 200 people to support the AIDS walk, whether they gave money or not, is that 200 people were reminded that HIV and AIDS are still with us, and that AAC's mission - to provide support services for people living with AIDS and HIV; to educate the public and health professionals about prevention; and to advocate for fair, effective AIDS policy - is still vitally important.

AIDS is not over - neither is the fight.

Equal Marriage Loses an Ally

We lost a true friend and ally in the fight to secure lesbian and gay marriage rights when Sue Flood, former Town Clerk for the City of Attleboro, Massachusetts, recently passed away.

Sue was a courageous supporter of gay marriage, committed to issuing marriage licenses for Massachusetts and Rhode Island same-sex couples even when other Massachusetts towns became reluctant to do so.

One such couple was Wendy Becker and Mary Norton, Rhode Island residents and plaintiffs in GLAD's case Cote-Whitacre v. Dep't of Public Health, who were fortunate to have Sue shepherd them through the process of applying for a Massachusetts marriage license.

Sue will be missed by many.

Massachusetts Backs Marriages of New York Couples

New Yorkers Tanya Wexler and Amy Zimmerman married in Massachusetts in May, 2004

New York gay and lesbian couples who married in Massachusetts before July 6, 2006 - the date a New York court explicitly prohibited marriage between same-sex couples in that state - have a fully valid marriage. That was the final judgment made by a Massachusetts court on May 10.

GLAD attorney Michele Granda, who argued the case, calls the ruling "a cloud that’s been removed from these marriages. There shouldn’t be any question that those marriage licenses are worth the paper they’re printed on, and that Massachusetts fully backs the currency.”

Today's New York Times ran an article about the decision and what it means for New York couples.

Marriage Equality Press Conference

Here is a video of the press conference following last Monday's Connecticut Supreme Court hearing.

Happy Anniversary!

Today is the third anniversary of equal marriage in Massachusetts. After GLAD's landmark court victory in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, loving, committed same-sex couples in Massachusetts began legally marrying on May 17, 2004.

We don't love each other more because we can legally marry. No law or court decision can do that. But marriage does mean we have respect and recognition, and we can better protect our relationships and our families. Legal marriage means more people being treated as full and equal citizens.

Today is a day for celebration in Massachusetts. And it's also a day to remember that work must continue to gain full equality for lesbian and gay citizens throughout New England, and throughout the country.

Equal Marriage in the News

Today at 4pm NPR's All Things Considered presents a segment on civil unions, and the fact that more couples are saying "thanks, but no thanks!" to what they see as a second-class substitute for the real deal. You can listen live at wbur.org

You can also read some interesting coverage of Monday's court case in the Hartford Courant:

A Word that Also Divides Us
A Look at the Couples Challenging Connecticut's Marriage Laws
Arguing Over a Word

Fighting for Dignity and Respect

Take a look at more photos from the day

After yesterday's oral argument at the Connecticut Supreme Court, GLAD Attorney Ben Klein and the eight plaintiff couples in the case participated in a press conference on the courthouse steps.

Ben opened by saying: "Today the plaintiffs argued for the right to the same treatment and dignity that all other families get. Under the Connecticut constitution, we believe that they are entitled to the same respect and dignity of any other couple."

Lead plaintiffs Beth Kerrigan and Jody Mock then took the microphone to explain how important it is to them and their children to be able to say that they are married, and how heartened they were to hear one of the Justices bring up that point in court. "We have five year old boys in kindergarten, and they always ask us 'are you married?' And it breaks our heart to have to say the truth, which is that we're not. But we're fighting for that."

The Couples Behind the Case

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit sat in court listening to arguments on both sides today. The couples have been together for between 9 and 31 years and are raising a total of 14 children between them; some have faced serious illness and some are now facing retirement. You can read the stories of each of these couples at GLAD's website.

Adjourned

Court was adjourned following Ben's (shown in photo above - front - with some of the plaintiffs) closing statements.

If you missed it live, you can view the webcast of today's court proceedings on demand now at www.ctn.state.ct.us.

12:59

In closing, Ben focused his argument on the fact that marriage is more than the sum of all the tangible rights and benefits associated with the word “marriage.” Rather, the ability to say that you are married is one of the benefits of marriage. There is no adjective or verb associated with the word “civil union” and gay and lesbian couples and families deserve a legal status that let’s them convey to the world that they have access to the same level of equality enjoyed by CT’s other citizens.

Ben also rebutted the state’s argument that the legislature could have rationally believed that civil unions are better because they are more likely to be granted recognition in other states. Ben said that the premise was all wrong. Only a few states have civil unions but all states have marriage recognition laws. No one can prejudge whether a marriage will be respected in whole or in part because the outcome of a marriage recognition analysis might turn on what aspect of marriage someone needs to have recognized, as well as potentially competing public policies. For example, a state may respect a marriage to enforce child support obligations arising from a marriage because the state policy of protecting children surmounts any competing public policy.

12:55

After Ben's return to the podium, Justice Borden revisited the issue of whether the plaintiffs should be considered a suspect class or a quasi-suspect class. Are gays and lesbians politically powerless now? Or do we look at whether they historically have been politically powerless? What lens do we look at in applying that part of the test?

Ben responded that, to answer this, the Court has to look through an historical lens, to reflect the reality that systemic discrimination does not appear in a short timeframe. And also a national lens, because Connecticut citizens are affected by what happens nationally. There have been gains, but gays and lesbians as a group are still subject to the control of the majority, and there is still inequality.

12:43

Attorney Judith Ravel, representing Dorothy Bean, the town clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to the plaintiff couples, gave a brief statement for her client. Mrs. Bean, she said, did the only thing she could do, which is to follow the instructions of the attorney general.

The Justices didn't question her.

Still, she said with emphasis, "Mrs. Bean got served, and she didn't like it."

12:40

Rosenberg rounded out her statement by saying that changing the defintion of marriage in the state of Connecticut should be a matter for the Legislature.

12:40

Rosenberg advanced several arguments about why limiting marriage to different-sex couples related to a rational state interest, including maintaining the traditional meaning of marriage, promoting consitency with the laws of other states, the possibility that the rights associated with civil union will be recognized by states prohibiting marriage for same-sex couples.

Justice Borden asked whether the state relies at all on the "responsible procreation" argument; Rosenberg responded that although amici raised that argument, the state doesn't rest on it.

Rosenberg began her conclusion by stating that marriage is not a matter of constitutional law for the court to decide; rather, it's a legislative matter that should be decided by the people.

Justice Borden wondered about the analysis applied to the Virginia Military Institute case; Justice Norcott identified it as the McLaurin analysis, which may fall somewhere in between an intermediate analysis and strict scrutiny.

Justice Borden continued to ask whether Rosenberg thought it was important for all children, including the children of same-sex couples, to say that their parents are married. He also asserted that there is a good amount of evidence pointing to the equal parenting abilities of same-sex and different-sex couples.

In response, Rosenberg revisited her idea that the plaintiffs' feelings about the word marriage - valid as they may be - didn't lend themselves to a legal argument, and that that may be an issue for the Legislature.

12:20

Rosenberg resumed her remarks by arguing that rational basis--the "model of judicial restraint"--is the appropriate standard in this case.

Justice Borden, who had a similar dialogue with Ben, asked Rosenberg how she would balance between the Glucksberg cautionary tale (against overly broad definitions of marriage) and Lawrence's cautionary tale (against overly narrow defnitions of marriage).

Rosenberg responded that this case will change the definition of marriage in a radically different way than either of those cases.

Borden led Rosenberg to a discussion of the idea that, even in Goodridge, Justice Marshall acknowledged that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court acknowledged that it was, in fact, changing the defnition of marriage.

12:00

The Justices adjourned for their morning recess.

Just before leaving, they questioned Rosenberg about the level of scrutiny required for a suspect class argument, which she identified as strict scrutiny. But she maintained that the case was not about sexual orientation discrimination, since nothing prohibits gay men and lesbians from marrying a member of the opposite sex--they just choose not to do so.

Justice Borden questioned whether that was a realistic argument, if sexual orientation is a central part of their identity. And Justice Palmer, clearly troubled by the logic, responded that he thought it was a facile approach to a suspect class claim.

11:50

The justices began their questioning of Rosenberg by asking about the harms caused by marriage inequality. How, asked Justice Palmer, does the difference between civil union and marriage not stigmatize those relagated to civil unions? Appellate Judge Harper asked about how the denial of a marriage licence does not count as a constitutional harm.

Rosenberg maintained that, although she respects the plaintiff couples' feelings that they are stigmatized by not having access to marriage, those feelings do not go to the legal question at hand, i.e., whether the Legislature is required to use the word "marriage." She continued to say that there is nothing in the civil union law that is intended as derogatory for same-sex couples, and in fact civil unions indicate a step forward.

Justice Palmer asked if this "step forward" is the reason the defendants claim the plaintiffs can't satisfy the "political powerlessness" component of a suspect class argument. Justice Norcott interjected that, "if gay and lesbian folks in Connecticut had true political power, they'd have passed the bill across the street (in the legislative building), and we wouldn't be here."

11:35

The justices continued their rigorous questioning to Ben about the standard of scrutiny required by plaintiff's claims, based on being members of a suspect class (status that makes a law that categorizes on that basis suspect, and therefore deserving of greater judicial scrutiny).

Attorney Jane Rosenberg, assistant attorney general for the state began her opening statement on behalf of two defendants, the commissioner of the Department of Public Health, and the Department of Public Health. She began by talking about how Connecticut has been a leader in promoting civil rights, and stated that, after granting the rights and benefits of marriage to same-sex couples under a different name, the question remaining for the Court is "what's left?"

11:00

Borden asked about the argument of marriage as a "fundamental right."

Judge Harper asked if the plaintiffs differentiate the fundamental right to marriage and the right to marriage for same-sex couples.

Ben responded that there is no fundamental right to same-sex marriage; the plaintiffs seek the fundamental right to marriage.

Judge Harper responded that same-sex couples are not precluded from marriage, only precluded from same-sex marriage.

Ben argued that defining marriage as only between a man and a woman simply because it's always been between a man an a woman, is circular reasoning. You determine the right to marry by the attributes of that right, not by a traditional definition. The fundamental nature of the right is not dependent upon the gender of the two parties; it's the relationship of two legal equals by mutual consent, taking responsibility for each other, and protected by the state. As in Griswold, same-sex couples have the same interests in entering into those loving bonds that different-sex couples do.

10:40

Justice Borden suggested that civil unions are inclusive, rather than exclusive, in that they grant rights and privileges of a status that did not exist before.

Ben acknowledged that civil unions are a step forward, but that they don't comport with equality under the Connecticut constitution. The Court's role, Ben argued, is to figure out whether the Legislature drew the line in the right place, cutting same-sex couples off short of full marriage.

Borden refocused his questioning on the argument that civil unions are unconstitutional. The premise of cases the plaintiff's cite, such as Plessy v. Ferguson, was based on race. Analogies to those cases have to rest on an underlying premise that there is an illegal classification.

Ben responded that the classifications in the case are both sex and sexual orientation. Since sex and race both are invidious classifications, cases like Loving are applicable.

10:24

Ben Klein opened his argument by addressing the separate and unequal status of civil unions, referencing historical cases relating primarily to race-based discrimination and stating that separate institutions for minority groups are unheard of in US jurisprudence today. He further stated that the law understands that the legal mechanism of creating separate institutions has no purpose other than to mark one group of citizens as inferior and unworthy, and to deny them a set of rights available to other citizens.

While stating clearly that he did not wish to equate the civil rights struggle of gay and lesbian citizens with that of African-Americans, Ben made the point that race discrimination cases have become the paradigm for what the constitution requires, and, relevant to the sex-based discrimination claim in this case, that race- and sex-based classifications are analyzed exaclty the same under Article 1 Section 20 of the Connecticut constitution.

Justices Norcott and Borden, and Appellate Judge Harper, began the questioning during Ben's remarks by questioning the applicability of the civil rights cases cited by GLAD, including Brown v. Board of Education and Loving v. Virginia.

Connecticut Supreme Court: 9:46 AM

Yesterday was Mother's Day for Barbara and Robin Levine-Ritterman, one of eight plaintiff couples in our Connecticut equal marriage case. The couple's daughter Maya gave Robin a pair of earrings, and wrote a poem for Barbara. And, with the excitement of an 11-year-old who has learned something new to share, she rounded things out by playing them their Mother's Day PowerPoint presentation.

It was a week of celebrations and milestones for the couple, who last Thursday had the fifteenth anniversary of what they call their committment ceremony. In the years since that ceremony, they have had two children, Barb has fought and won a hard battle with cancer, and their love and committment--and their family--has grown stronger.

Barb and Robin join our other plaintiff couples this morning, along with GLAD and cooperating attorneys.

"This really is a great day," GLAD attorney Mary Bonauto told them before they headed to the courthouse. "We're utterly changing the debate in Connecticut."

Today's the Day for Equal Marriage

Oral Arguments begin in our Connecticut equal marriage case at 10am this morning. We'll soon be bringing you live updates from the courthouse right here, and you can also watch a live webcast of the proceedings, courtesy of Connecticut Network.

While you're waiting, you can read yesterday's New York Times article on the case, or today's article in the Hartford Courant.

Separate is Not Equal

On Monday, May 14, Senior Attorney Ben Klein will present oral arguments before the Connecticut Supreme Court in GLAD's case Kerrigan and Mock v. Connecticut Dept. of Public Health. The case challenges Connecticut's exclusion of lesbian and gay couples from full marriage equality.

For the first time, GLAD will be reporting on the proceedings live from the courthouse, here at our new blog created especially for this occasion. Check in with us starting at 10am on Monday for full coverage.

Since this is our first experiment with blogging at all - not to mention live from a courthouse - we expect that things won't go completely smoothly, so bear with us. But this case is so important we couldn't pass up the opportunity to bring you play-by-play coverage, along with a little GLAD commentary.

You will also be able to view a live webcast of the proceedings at
www.ct-n.com.

So, join us on Monday, join in the conversation, and give us your feedback - as GLAD argues for equality for all Connecticut citizens.