Equal Justice Under Law

The Most Important Thing

noreply@blogger.com (GLAD) — Fri, 14 Jun 2013 01:30:00 +0000

Kelly, Nicole, Jonas and Wayne Maines, with GLAD attorneys Jennifer Levi and

Ben Klein, outside the Maine Law Court after oral argument June 12, 2013

“I hope [the justices] understand how important it is for students to be able to go to school and get an education, have fun, make friends and not have to worry about being bullied by students or the administration and to be accepted for who they are. That’s the most important thing.” - Nicole Maines

Not long into yesterday’s Maine Supreme Court arguments in our case Doe v. Clenchy, our client Nicole Maines leaned in a little closer to her mother, bringing her head to rest on Kelly Maines’ shoulder.

It’s good to have a supportive and loving parent around when things get tough, and listening to a cadre of lawyers and judges debating the difficult, discriminatory experiences of your life and your rights as a transgender girl can make for a tough day for a 15-year-old. Her dad Wayne and her twin brother Jonas were also by her side at the arguments.

The family has stuck together and supported each other through the stress of more than four years of legal proceedings and media attention related to the discrimination Nicole experienced as a 5^th grader at her Orono middle school, where administrators rescinded her access to the girls’ restroom after a male classmate followed her into the facility to make trouble. Nicole was forced to use a staff bathroom and separated from the other girls, in violation of Maine’s trans-inclusive non-discrimination law. The reversal forced Wayne and Kelly to withdraw their children from the Orono school system and move to another part of the state so they could attend school quietly and safely.

As Jennifer Levi, the director of our Transgender Rights Project who argued on Nicole’s behalf yesterday, explained in her opening remarks, “it’s undisputed that [Nicole] was a typical girl at the school, that the school agreed that her essential educational needs required her access to the girls’ restroom, that she did have such access throughout the third and fourth grades and beginning in the 5^thgrade year and that the school changed course only after another student misbehaved.”

The justices asked plenty of questions, most of them demonstrating a solid understanding of what it means to be transgender while also making it clear that they are wrestling with how to apply the law. Chief Justice Leigh I. Saufley, for instance, noted that the school was working in “unchartered territory” in trying to address Nicole’s needs as a transgender student. But in questioning counsel for the other side about how the school handled Nicole’s situation she also noted, “this wasn’t a sexual identity presented on whim. Everyone in this case understands [Nicole] to be a girl. The school treated her as a girl, her parents treated her as a girl; for all intents and purposes she is a female. Under those circumstances, isn’t her sex recognizable as female for purposes of bathroom assignment?”

As an LGBT advocate, that understanding of the reality of Nicole’s life was heartening to hear in a courtroom. Clearly, this case, on which Jennifer and fellow GLAD attorney Ben Klein have worked so diligently for so long, has done much to educate the court and the public about why transgender people like Nicole need and deserve the full protection of the law.

Of course, we could not have done this work without the courage and grace of Nicole and her family and their willingness to share their story, despite stressful circumstances.

When the arguments ended, a handful of reporters stood outside the courthouse in a drizzling rain, waiting for Nicole and her family to make a statement and answer a few questions. As Nicole approached the door to go outside and meet them, she suddenly stopped, feeling overwhelmed with an attack of nerves. I told her she absolutely didn’t need to speak if she didn’t feel up to it. She responded that she just needed a moment, and shivered a little, then took a deep breath. Then the girl who earlier had sought the comfort of her mother’s shoulder spoke eloquently and simply about what it meant to have her day in court.

“I wouldn’t wish my experience on another trans person,” she said, with her father by her side. “I am happy the court was able to hear my case today.”

“I hope they understand how important it is for students to be able to go to school and get an education, have fun, make friends and not have to worry about being bullied by students or the administration and to be accepted for who they are,” Nicole added. “That’s the most important thing.”

Now, once again, we wait. The Maine Supreme Court does not have a timeline within which it issues decisions. We’ll let you know when the justices issue their ruling.

Read some great coverage of the arguments from the Bangor Daily News and the Associated Press.

How to Be a Great LGBT Family

noreply@blogger.com (Laura Kiritsy) — Mon, 03 Jun 2013 13:25:00 +0000

Jonas, Wayne, Nicole and Kelly Maines in D.C. last year. Wayne, Jonas and Nicole were guests at President Obama's annual LGBT Pride reception.

Editor’s Note: June 3 is the 8^th Annual Blogging for LGBT Families Day, a tradition aimed at showing support for our families in the blogosphere brought to you by Mombian.com, one of our favorite LGBT parenting blogs. We hope you enjoy this post about a loving and courageous family with which GLAD has had the privilege to work.

If you think your family is being discriminated against based on a member’s gender identity or sexual orientation, contact GLAD’s Legal InfoLine for help.

When we think of LGBT families, we primarily think of those headed by LGBT parents. But really, any family that includes an LGBT person is an LGBT family since so often, that person’s experience as a member of our community impacts their entire family. When these families stand up and share their stories, they help educate the world about our community and serve as powerful examples about the importance of loving and supporting LGBT family members – particularly our youth.

I can’t think of a better example than the family behind our case Doe v. Clenchy, which will be heard before Maine’s highest court this month. GLAD is representing a transgender teen girl, identified in court records as “Susan Doe,” whose elementary and middle schools removed her from the girls’ restroom because she is transgender and forced her to use a staff-only restroom in isolation from her peers. Eventually, her parents were forced to withdraw their daughter and her twin brother from the Orono school system and move to another part of the state so they could attend school quietly and safely.

Susan’s parents first stood up for their daughter’s right to be treated the same as her non-transgender classmates way back in 2007, when pretty much no one was talking about transgender children and their needs. It wasn’t easy, especially when the story first hit their local papers – people pointed and whispered when they were out in the community; there were fewer invitations for the twins to attend sleepovers and other social events.

A few years later, with “Susan” and her brother settled in a new hometown and a more accepting school, the family took the courageous step of going public with their story and their real names, to help fight the stigma against trans youth. In a moving story by the Boston Globe’s Bella English, Nicole Maines and her twin brother Jonas, and their parents Wayne and Kelly, talked frankly about their family’s journey: the struggle to understand and incorporate into their family life Nicole’s preference for all things feminine from her earliest years, Wayne’s denial and difficulty accepting that he had a trans child, the decision for Nicole to transition and the ensuing pattern of discrimination both she and Jonas faced at school in Orono, and their activism on behalf of all families like theirs.

Wayne in particular has emerged as a powerful and inspiring advocate for his family. He speaks eloquently of his evolution from a fearful, disapproving parent to a Dad who is affirming and fiercely protective of both of his children, including testifying at the Maine State House as part of a successful effort two years ago to defeat legislation that would have rolled back non-discrimination protections for transgender Mainers.

Speaking at GLAD’s annual Spirit of Justice Dinner in 2012, he summed up his journey this way: “I have learned more from my two small children and my beautiful wife than I could ever imagine possible. Through their courage and grace, I’m a better man, a better father, a better husband.”

About a thousand audience members laughed through their tears when he added, “Today, I am changed. Because when she says ‘Dad, what do you think of this dress?’ my comment is typically, ‘It’s too short, go change your clothes.’”

He regularly shares his insights about life as the parent of a transgender teen for the Huffington Post. It should be required reading for any parent struggling with the idea that their child is transgender.

It’s impossible to overstate the positive effect that having an affirming, loving family has on a child who is LGB or T. Despite the stress of the lawsuit, the bullying she endured and starting over in a new town and a new school, Nicole, now a teenager, is thriving at school and enjoys many extracurricular activities like acting and activism. She has spoken publicly about how important Jonas’ and her parents’ support is to her.

Not surprisingly, research shows that LGBT children who have supportive homes have a much better chance to thrive and succeed as adults, while those that do not are at higher risk for suicidal behavior, substance abuse, poor school performance and other negative behaviors. The Family Acceptance Project at San Francisco State University, led by Caitlyn Ryan, has produced some informative and eye-opening research on this topic.

Parents who are struggling to accept an LGBT child should also check out PFLAG’s publication Welcoming our Trans Family and Friends: A Support Guide for Parents, Families and Friends of Transgender and Gender Non-Conforming People.

The Trans Youth Equality Foundation, which provides education, advocacy and support for trans and gender-nonconforming youth and their families, is also a fantastic resources.

If you Live in New England and think your family is being discriminated against based on a member’s gender identity or sexual orientation, you can call or email GLAD’s Legal InfoLine for help. The InfoLine operates 1:30-4:30 pm, Monday - Friday. Staff are available to answer calls and email in both English and Spanish.

Don’t live in New England? Check out our list of legal resources outside of the region.

In short if you’re struggling to accept a family member or friend who is LGBT, you’re not alone. Thanks to dedicated organizations like these and LGBT families like Nicole’s that are increasingly making their presence known in communities across the country, the journey forward is a little easier.

School’s Out – But You Still Have Rights!

noreply@blogger.com (GLAD) — Fri, 31 May 2013 02:28:00 +0000

Congratulations students on finishing up another school year!

The year may be winding down, but GLAD still wants you to know your rights.

Below is a summary of some of the more important rights you need to know. But remember, you can always contact GLAD’s Legal InfoLine with any questions, and you can check out our detailed information for each New England state.

· Graduation

o Your school has the right to set some limits on what is appropriate dress at graduation, but within those limits you are allowed to dress in a way that fits with your gender identity. So, if the girls wear white robes and the boys wear blue robes, you are free to choose the color robe that fits your gender identity. Raise the issue with school officials in advance so you can enjoy your ceremony.

· School Bullying

o You have a right to be safe at school. If you are experiencing bullying at school and your school is not responding, contact us – we can help!

o All six New England states have strong anti-bullying laws that require the staff of public schools to report bullying, the administration to investigate bullying and then to take appropriate action.

o If you are being bullied, get a copy of your school’s anti-bullying policy and make a report to the person designated in your school’s policy - try making the report via email, so that you can prove that you made it.

o In Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Vermont, some private school students are also covered by the state’s anti-bullying laws.

· School Proms, Homecoming and Other Dances

o You have a right to bring a same-sex date to your school prom or another school dance.

o You should be subject to the same rules that apply to bringing a different-sex date. For instance, if parental permission is not needed to bring a different-sex date, it shouldn’t be needed to bring a same-sex date.

o Your school has the right to set some limits on what is appropriate dress at a dance, but within those limits you are allowed to dress in a way that fits with your gender identity.

o Remember, school dances are for all students to enjoy! Check out this great story about a Middleborough, MA High School crowning its first transgender prom queen!

· Work

o Graduating and have or looking for a new job? Congratulations! Or are you working a summer job between school years? When you are working or applying for a job in New England, you are protected from discrimination and harassment based on your sexual orientation. Plus, in every state except New Hampshire, you have explicit protection against discrimination and harassment based on your gender identity.

o But even in New Hampshire if you are discriminated against because of your gender identity there may be a way to get protection under a different characteristic like sex, sexual orientation or disability.

o Don’t assume you aren’t protected – contact us if you have any questions.

· HIV Privacy and Testing

o Knowing your HIV status can be a powerful way to take care of your health. There are federal and state laws to help you keep your medical information private, and to protect you from discrimination if you are HIV positive. See our detailed information about HIV-related laws in New England. or contact us if you have specific questions.

o In every New England state, you have the right to be tested for HIV without needing your parents’ permission. In some states, the doctor may report the testing results to your parents, so it is always a good idea to have a discussion with your doctor about your privacy rights before testing.

· Hanging Out

o In the warm weather, you may want to hang out with your friends at a park or on a public street corner. As long as it is a public place, and not someone’s private property, and you are not preventing others from being able to access the park, sidewalk, etc., then you have the same right as anyone else to be there.

· Looking Ahead to Fall

o We know that it’s not even summer yet, and the last thing you probably want to think about is another school year, but here are some things to consider for next fall:

§ Gay Straight Alliances (GSAs) can make a big difference in how safe LGBTQ students feel at school. Does your school have a GSA? If your school is public or receives federal funding and has at least one non-curricular student club, then it must allow you to have a GSA if you want one. So talk to your friends this summer about forming one or, if your school has one, about ways to strengthen it.

§ Get a copy of GLAD’s “Want to Know Your Rights as an LGBTQ Student?” brochure for your state and refer to it if you think that your rights are being violated.

And if you do feel that any of your rights are being violated, contact GLAD’s Legal InfoLine at www.glad.org/rights/infoline-contactor 800-455-GLAD (4523).

We want to make sure you know your rights and the steps you can take if they are not being respected.

Have a great summer!

Happy Anniversary! 9 Years of Marriage Equality Today

noreply@blogger.com (GLAD) — Fri, 17 May 2013 13:53:00 +0000

Post by Laura Kiritsy, Manager of Public Education

It’s been fascinating and fun to watch as legislators in Rhode Island, Delaware and Minnesota passed marriage equality bills that their respective governors enthusiastically signed into law in the past few weeks.

Things have changed dramatically from 10 years ago, when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling in our Goodridge marriage lawsuit pitched Beacon Hill -- along with our usual opponents in the Catholic Church hierarchy and the religious right -- into a state of hysteria.

“Opposition set in in about one nano-second,” Mary Bonauto recalled in the documentary film Saving Marriage. That sounds about right.

The knee-jerk reactions from our then governor, attorney general, House speaker and Senate president (none of whom still hold office) was that this historic decision just could not stand, sparking years of legislative battling – which our community ultimately won – to protect Goodridgefrom a constitutional amendment banning marriage between same-sex couples that would have rendered the decision moot.

In the midst of the uncertainty about whether the amendment would pass, the very first marriages between same-sex couples anywhere in the country began on May 17, 2004. As the associate editor of Bay Windows newspaper at the time, I had a front row seat to history for which I’ll be forever grateful.

To this day, I still get goose bumps and a little misty when I recall the wedding of Rob Compton and David Wilson at Boston’s Arlington Street Church on that glorious spring day. As the first of the seven Goodridge plaintiff couples to marry that day, the emotion in the crowded church was palpable. As I wroteat the time:

[The] tears of joy gave way to a far more unbridled emotional display when the Reverend Kim Crawford Harvie raised her right hand over the couple and said what Wilson and Compton - and countless others in the pews - have long waited to hear: "And now by the power vested in me by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts," said Crawford Harvie, at which point the sanctuary erupted in a rafter-rattling burst of applause, foot stomping and cheers that abated just long enough for her to say, "I pronounce you partners for life, legally married."

After waiting so long and working so hard for equality, those words were truly cathartic.

From there, I hustled off to Newton, where plaintiffs Maureen Brodoff and Ellen Wade tied the knot in the office of then-mayor David Cohen, jammed together with their families and a media swarm. Again, the feeling of “at last” permeated the proceedings, exemplified best when Maureen addressedher parents, who married when her mother was just 19, during the ceremony:

"Ellen and I have waited 24 years to get married," Brodoff told her parents, who were seated among Brodoff's three sisters and Wade's sister and her nephew, "but let me tell you - not to disapprove of your choice to get married so young, waiting does have its advantages. You were young and foolish, but lucky enough to have become perfect mates for each other. Here there is no luck involved. I know exactly who it is that I'm marrying and this marriage is, for that reason, so much more precious.”

Ellen and Maureen joined us yesterday in the Boston Public Garden to celebrate nine years of marriage equality in Massachusetts with a group photo of married couples and other supporters of the freedom to marry.

Boston's Mayor Thomas Menino honored the day with a statement of support, and current Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick reflected on the joy - and ordinariness - of marriage equality in the Commonwealth in the Washington Post.

As we celebrate the anniversary of marriage in Massachusetts, it’s inspiring and encouraging to know that more and more Americans are coming around to supporting the freedom to marry for same-sex couples.

For four years after the Goodridgeruling, Massachusetts stood alone as a marriage equality state, until California (however briefly) and Connecticut joined in 2008. Now, we get three marriage states in the span of two weeks – on top of the three marriage states we picked up at the ballot box last November, bringing us to a total of 12 along with the District of Columbia. That’s some serious progress.

On the other hand, there’s still 38 states where loving, committed couples and their children are not treated the same as all other families.

The Supreme Court is currently weighing two cases that could dramatically alter the trajectory of the marriage movement. Congress is grappling with whether to include a provision to allow LGBT Americans to sponsor foreign-born spouses or partners for U.S. citizenship in the immigration reform billAnd we continue to wait for movement on the Employment NonDiscrimination Act (ENDA). There’s a lot of work yet to be done.

Today, we celebrate love on this historic day.

Tomorrow, the work continues.

From Beyoncé to the Moon – the Making of a Great Summer Party Auction

noreply@blogger.com (GLAD) — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 14:48:00 +0000

Post by Molly Paul, Special Events Intern

Now that the snow is finally melting and the on again-off again snow flurries have become on-again-off again spring showers, it’s time to start gearing up for GLAD’s Summer Party in Provincetown on Saturday, July 27th. With Kate Clinton confirmed as our celebrity auctioneer extraordinaire - this is definitely an event you don’t want to miss!

Kate Clinton will once again be our auctioneer at the
annual Summer Party in Provincetown July 27

I spent the better half of the winter months poring through our past auction results and survey responses from winners - analyzing which packages were an absolute hit and what new packages we should try to secure for this year.

My auction outreach got a huge boost last month when Kimpton Hotels and Restaurantsgenerously donated 10 (yes ten!) travel packages to amazing LGBT hot spots like San Francisco, Miami, and Aspen. For those of you looking to get away, these packages will not disappoint.

We are also lining up everything you need to plan a jam-packed trip to Ptown, including accommodations, dinner packages, and gift certificates to many local shops – thanks to Sage Inn and Lounge, Anchor Inn Beach House, Mews Restaurant, and many more. And thanks to Boston Harbor Cruises you can get there in style with two round trip fast ferry tickets.

Sound amazing? I agree. The generosity of our auction donors is truly remarkable. Over the next couple of months, I’ll be reaching out to many more businesses seeking donations that will raise the bar even higher. What new items do you want featured at the 2013 auction? The Summer Party is all about you - our supporters - and I want to know what you are eager to bid on! Send your ideas my way by filling out this SURVEYso that this year’s auction can be bigger and better than ever.

Donations are also GLADly accepted! Donate a week stay at your vacation home? Personal chef services? Behind-the-scenes access to a Broadway show? Beyoncé tickets?!? Sky’s the limit – unless you can get us a suborbital Lynx space plane package from Buzz Aldrin and AXE– in which case the limit is out of this world!

On behalf of the GLAD events team, I would like to send a big THANK YOU to Kimpton Hotels and Restaurants and all of the incredible businesses who have already sent in donations. With their support – and yours - we’ll raise over $50,000 through GLAD’s live and silent auctions.

Broadening and Embracing the LGBT Family

noreply@blogger.com (GLAD) — Fri, 05 Apr 2013 15:30:00 +0000

David Wilson, together with his husband Rob Compton, was a plaintiff in GLAD’s 2003 case Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, which made Massachusetts the first state where same-sex couples could marry. Since that experience, he has committed his time and resources to the movement for LGBT equality, and particularly to working within the movement to increase outreach to people of color, combat institutional racism, and broaden and diversify who is embraced by and feels a part of the LGBT family.

And family is what it’s all about for David. He was in Washington D.C. last week for the two days of Supreme Court arguments on marriage equality and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). When we sat down to talk about that experience, however, he started with a different story, about his granddaughter.

David was a keynote speaker at the 2013 GLSEN Massachusetts Conference last weekend, and when his granddaughter Ruby, a high school student, learned about the engagement she not only asked to attend but wanted to speak. At the conference, she shared a story about a classmate who came out to her as transgender two years ago and how she immediately jumped into action as an ally, encouraging the student and asking what she could do to help him feel supported at school. She was a key player in helping fellow students understand the transition and ensuring that they use the right pronouns and be respectful of his privacy.

Her awareness as an ally, David pointed out, stemmed from her upbringing in a family headed by a gay couple (between them, David and Rob have five adult children from prior marriages, and seven grandchildren) and absorbing the joys and difficulties that LGBT people face through the experiences of her own family. Years and years of LGBT people forming families, he said, has led to entire families – like his and Rob’s – that are standing up to share their stories and join the movement for LGBT equality.

David calls this phenomenon “broadening the diversity and inclusion of the team” -- expanding the LGBT family to better represent the diversity of our community and the diversity of our issues. That’s precisely what was on his mind as he attended the Supreme Court arguments in the Windsorcase, and when he spoke at a rally on the courthouse steps last week.

“I was there [in DC] to figure out how a ‘win’ will impact people on the ground, especially people of color, transgender people, people outside the movement, people who don’t feel the movement is for them,” David explained. “As a plaintiff in the first winning marriage case, I’ve had a lot of privilege. How can I make sure I take the access I’ve had, and translate it to others? I’ve been at the forefront of this fight. What about the people left out or left behind?”

His concern for “the people left out” was only heightened when he finally got into the courtroom to hear a portion of the Windsor DOMA argument after a lucky opening happened for the last thirty people who were expected to stay 3 to 5 minutes but actually stayed 15 minutes until the ending statements. Once inside, David found himself thinking, ‘Where’s the diversity in this room?’ To my mind, it wasn’t there. There was certainly diversity among the nine justices but it did not appear to be present in the rest of the room.”

It was a marked contrast to the exuberant scene outside the Supreme Court doors, where a throng of LGBT protesters and various supporters of the freedom to marry gathered to make their voices heard. “The rally outside the Court was real,” said David. “The speakers, and the people gathered around were very excited, proud and connected. It was a really diverse crowd.”

“But then the people coming down the steps from the Court didn’t reflect the people at the rally,” he added. “And there I was, coming out of the Court feeling so proud but disconnected from the folks gathered at the bottom of the steps of the Supreme Court”

Prior to going into the court, David received a warm welcome when he stepped to the microphone at the rally. “I think the organizers and the people gathered were excited to see a man of color, someone with gray hair, someone who has had long range involvement in this movement,” said David. “I felt incredibly welcomed, appreciated and valued.” Once the crowd recognized me as one of the earlier speakers, they were so happy and proud that I had been granted access as one of them.

He wants other members of the LGBT family to feel that same embrace, even if they feel the marriage movement doesn’t speak to them. Justice Elena Kagan gave him a way to do that during the DOMA argument when she quoted a passage from the House Judiciary Committee’s report on DOMA, in which the committee concluded that by passing DOMA, “Congress decided to reflect and honor collective moral judgment and to express moral disapproval of homosexuality.”

That’s when it dawned on David that a win in Windsor would not just provide married same-sex couples with federal equality in marriage, it could also potentially strike a blow to the many other laws that have been enacted out of moral disapproval of LGBT lives, affecting a much broader swath of our community.

“When Justice Kagan read the morality piece I really understood,” said David. “I thought, okay, when I leave this room, leave Washington, what can I do to make this more real? How can I show people that this will impact you, too? How can I translate this to the Black Church, to seniors, to kids of color?"

"That’s what I’m thinking about now.”

Wrapping up the week at the Supreme Court with Mary Bonauto

noreply@blogger.com (GLAD) — Fri, 05 Apr 2013 14:00:00 +0000

Post by Laura Kiritsy, Manager of Public Education

GLAD Civil Rights Project Director Mary Bonauto (right) discusses
DOMA and the Supreme Court on the Rachel Maddow Show March 27

On the heels of two of the most exciting and important days in recent LGBT history – the Supreme Court arguments in the Perry and Windsor cases – our own Mary L. Bonauto gave her expert analysis on the arguments in a conference call with GLAD’s Equal Justice Council late last week. Not surprisingly, we had the most RSVPs we’ve ever had for one of our monthly EJC calls.

Before summarizing Mary’s analysis, allow me to kvell for a moment, and point you toward a recent New York Times profilethat does a fantastic job detailing Mary’s and GLAD’s historic and strategic contributions to the marriage movement, work that made last week’s Supreme Court showdown possible. She also wound up on Rachel Maddow’s show –– and went head to head with the Family Research Council’s Ken Klukowski on PBS News Hour, among several other media appearances.

Now, a few highlights of Mary’s analysis, which was offered with the caveat that she was giving her “tentative impressions” of the arguments and the questions the justices asked, rather than making a prediction about case outcomes.

Mary Bonauto (center) with Freedom to Marry's Evan Wolfson,
San Francisco Chief Deputy City Attorney Therese Stewart and
in the background Maura Healy (left) from the MA Attorney General's
office and GLAD Board President Dianne Phillips

Mary sounded an optimistic note about United States v. Windsor, the challenge to Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, better known as DOMA.

Based on the very active questioning, there were at least five justices who expressed concerns about DOMA’s constitutionality because of its “uniqueness in federal law” as a cross-cutting definition applicable through the entire US Code and its “singularity” in wiping out only the marriages of same-sex couples for federal purposes.

Paul Clement, the attorney hired by the US House leadership to defend DOMA, did not argue the procreation-related justifications that appeared in his brief. That stood in contrast to the day before, when Charles Cooper, arguing for the Prop 8 proponents, cast “responsible procreation” as the central justification for marriage and thus for eliminating marriage for same-sex couples in California.

Instead, Mary explained, Mr. Clement pressed a “federal interest in uniformity” to justify DOMA. His argument was that DOMA creates uniformity by treating a same-sex couple from Massachusetts like one from Oklahoma. Of course, the difference between the two states is in their marriage laws, and several justices were quick to observe that the only uniform federal rule has been federal deference to state marital status determinations.

Justice Breyer, among others, also questioned whether uniformity explains why the 1996 Congress singled out the marriages of same-sex couples for disrespect under federal law: Why not deny respect to marriages from states where people don’t have blood tests? Or anyone under age 18? Wouldn’t those distinctions be arbitrary he asked, and Mr. Clement had no answer.

In one of the more dramatic moments, Justice Kagan questioned whether a concern for uniformity really had anything to do with DOMA’s passage, and then read from the 1996 House Judiciary Committee Report on DOMA citing “disapproval of homosexuality” as one of DOMA’s purposes. Justice Ginsburg later spoke of “rank discrimination.”

Of course, both the Hollingsworth v. Perryand U.S. v. Windsor cases are critically important, not only because they are about access to marriage and equal treatment of our marriages, but because they will tell us so much about whether the grand promises of equal protection and liberty for all can eradicate official discrimination against LGBT people’s families.

GLAD’s marriage work continues as we seek to secure Rhode Island as the 6^th New England state with marriage equality. And ever since same-sex couples began marrying in 2004 as a result of our win in Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, we have seen first-hand how DOMA inflicts harm by treating married same-sex couples as single for all federal purposes, including for vital protections involving social security, health insurance, family leave, and protections for active duty military and veterans.

Eradicating DOMA’s double standard is why we litigated two DOMA cases of our own, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management and Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management. The cases are currently on hold as we await the Supreme Court’s ruling in Windsor, but Mary lent her substantial expertise on DOMA (along with others on the GLAD DOMA team) to the Windsorlegal team by coordinating the amici curiae – “friend of the court”— briefs.

In terms of case outcomes, the most favorable outcome is obviously a ruling striking down DOMA in totoon equal protection grounds. Such a precedent would be a condemnation of sexual orientation-based double standards from our nation’s highest court. “It could also be a split decision where it’s four [justices for] equal protection, one [justice for] federalism, but five of them agree on the invalidity of DOMA,” Mary theorized. “It could also be five (or more) for equal protection. We have to wait and see.”

Mary offered a few other scenarios, including the unlikely scenario of a court ruling upholding the constitutionality of DOMA Section 3. Even then, there is a path forward. The law’s fate would then be in the hands of our federal lawmakers, she said, noting that the Respect for Marriage Act, a DOMA repeal bill, has been introduced in several recent Congressional sessions. Yet, with ENDA still pending after two decades, the road ahead is unpredictable at best.

Another unlikely scenario is that the court could invalidate DOMA on federalism grounds, declaring simply that the federal government has no role in saying who is married, even for purposes of federal programs. GLAD has always stated that Congress can determine the contours of federal programs, but that it must comply with the Equal Protection clause when doing so, including when it bases eligibility on “definitions” like DOMA.

GLAD has also consistently argued that federalism is relevant in informing the equal protection analysis: where the federal government does not itself marry people and states do, what “federal interest” justifies DOMA’s unprecedented exclusion of a class of valid marriages from laws governing marital benefits and burdens?

At the same time, the justices are also weighing if the parties before them present a “case or controversy” that allows them to weigh in and decide the question. The Justices asked that the parties address the “jurisdiction” question because the Obama administration decided to stop defending DOMA in court because it came to believe the law is unconstitutional.

Although the US is now effectively on the same side as Edith Windsor, the New York lesbian who challenged DOMA because the federal government didn’t recognize her marriage to her late spouse and taxed that spouse’s estate, Mary is hopeful that the court will reach the merits of the case. The court can find adversity, Mary noted, where the lower courts found DOMA unconstitutional and ordered reimbursement to Edith Windsor from the US Treasury, and also because the President continues to enforce the law.

There were also arguments about whether the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, a group of U.S. House members, had “standing” – or the legal right – to take up the legal defense of DOMA after the Obama administration stopped. That group did not act for the whole House and has no particular and personal injury, but instead only a general (even if passionate) interest in DOMA being enforced.

Similarly, the Supreme Court is also weighing whether or not they have jurisdiction to hear Hollingsworth v. Perry. The State of California did not appeal when Judge Walker invalidated Prop 8 after trial in August 2010. Like BLAG in the DOMA context, the proponents are not personally harmed by Prop 8. Moreover, private citizens do not normally have a basis for asserting the interests of the state itself.

Mary noted that five justices seemed “very concerned” about whether Prop. 8 proponents should have appealed Judge Vaughn Walker’s District Court decision that the measure was unconstitutional to the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld Walker’s ruling. If the Supreme Court finds that the Prop 8 proponents had no standing to appeal, the case would be dismissed, resulting in a significant victory in restoring marriage in California.

Despite all the wrangling over jurisdiction at oral argument, Mary theorized that it would be odd for the Court to avoid the merits of the cases. “It would be quite odd, I think, for the Supreme Court to have granted review in both of these cases and then suddenly to decide that neither of them should have been before it.”

The justices have now retreated to their chambers to deliberate, digest the many party and amicus briefs filed in the cases, and exchange draft opinions. There’s no predicting the outcome though the reams of speculation and analysis that have already been written will certainly keep you – and me - occupied from now until we actually get a decision, mostly likely sometime in June.

Like I always say, stay tuned.

No Ordinary Day

noreply@blogger.com (GLAD) — Wed, 03 Apr 2013 20:30:00 +0000

GLAD Public Affairs and Education Intern Adam Connito was in D.C. on March 27 to watch his aunt sworn in before the U.S. Supreme Court, and was able stay for the arguments in Windsor v. United States. He shares his reflections - written in the airport on his return flight to Boston - on witnessing the historic deliberations on behalf of Edie Windsor (pictured above with her late wife Thea Spyer) and tens of thousands of others impacted by DOMA.

Airports are a good place to reflect. Something about leaving one place for another – maybe it’s the anticipation of movement, progress, and destination. It’s nice to think about where you were before you get to where you’re going, and I can’t shake the thought of serendipity when I consider that my first trip to D.C. included a visit to the nation’s highest court to hear oral arguments in Windsor v. United States.

Who was I, a twenty-five year old intern with zero credentials, to bypass the endless lines of frigid onlookers, some of whom had poured decades of grueling time and energy into this effort? I was invited as a guest to see my aunt sworn in before the court, but surely I didn't deserve to walk these cavernous halls on this day. Besides, up until Tuesday my understanding of the Capital was a reduced catalogue of images, video-clips and sound-bites from cable news networks – a collage of important monuments filled with monumentally important people. It’s easy to forget that those buildings are nested in the heart of a city full of ordinary people and everyday stories.

And so it was inside the Supreme Court on March 27^th, a case of momentous stature resonating throughout a marble-columned room packed with linoleum lives. The fate of tens of thousands of American families cupped in the hands of nine justices.

I’ll leave it to the pundits and experts to parse through lines of questioning and analyze possible outcomes. I won’t pretend to comprehend the complexity of constitutional law or the intricacies of our justice system. But standing six feet small beneath the ornately patterned ceiling, between the grand pillars and long velvet drapes so drenched in history if you wrung them out you could fill an ocean, I couldn’t help but think of my married friends back in Boston. While they were not as privileged as I to bear witness to Windsor unfolding at the highest court, I sensed their presence in the room. Because after all the arguments are laid out clearly before the world, when the gavels have gone silent and the sound of media coverage has faded, with each right and responsibility weighed and every brief accounted for, the only thing left at the core of this issue is people. People in love.

As politicians keep jumping ship from the sinking moral minority and the currents of change continue to carry us towards a more perfect union, let us not forget where this all began. It started with those little heart palpitations that grew heavier with every touch until they blossomed into a lifetime of memories built upon the simple, unyielding promise of forever and always. That’s what this is about. Ordinary people and everyday stories, stories from the book of love, and whether or not the Federal Government will acknowledge the person waiting anxiously with flowers at the landing gate.

Time to catch my flight.

Creating "Beloved Community" Outside the Supreme Court

noreply@blogger.com (GLAD) — Wed, 03 Apr 2013 13:00:00 +0000

Post by Carisa Cunningham, Director of Public Affairs and Education

Inside the Supreme Court on Monday and Tuesday it was all blue suits, “may it please the Court”, legal arguments, and tradition. Outside the court was a very different and yet also very American scene.

Wandering around connecting our side’s people with reporters, I was invigorated by the variety of expression and sheer joy of equality supporters. What’s not to love about signs like “If God hates gay people, then why are they so cute?” and “Nature Digs Homosexuality: Scientists for Equal Rights”? In addition to scientists, there were labor unionists, inter-racial (straight) couples, African-American ministers, military members, kids and grandparents, civil rights leaders, people from north, south, east, and west, all supporting equality under the law for gay people.

The other side cornered the market in mixed messages: we had the Westboro Baptist Church singing “Another One Bites the Dust” – by Queen; and men in skirts (okay, kilts) in an anti-equality marching band.

I ran into our wonderful plaintiffs Melba Abreu and Beatrice Hernandez, as well as Bette Jo Green and Jo Ann Whitehead, and Goodridge plaintiff David Wilson spoke to the crowd on the second day. The media was both penned up below the Supreme Court steps, and set up on the plaza to talk to lawyers and plaintiffs immediately following argument. Both days, the first person out the building was Jeffrey Toobin of CNN, who headed straight for his camera and immediately started talking.

It was incredibly moving to see Edie Windsor, in her bright pink scarf, waving to the crowd, which lovingly cheered her. And it was satisfying to see GLAD’s Mary Bonauto share her wisdom with everyone from ABC News to members of the community who stopped her on the street.

Kudos go to all of the organizers, and all who showed up, whether organized or disorganized. No matter what the legal outcome, these two days were a true expression of what Martin Luther King, Jr., called “the beloved community.” He said, “But the end is reconciliation; the end is redemption; the end is the creation of the beloved community. It is this type of spirit and this type of love that can transform opposers into friends. It is this type of understanding goodwill that will transform the deep gloom of the old age into the exuberant gladness of the new age. It is this love which will bring about miracles in the hearts of men.”

What a Day it Was: Stepping Up for Equal Rights

noreply@blogger.com (GLAD) — Tue, 02 Apr 2013 16:30:00 +0000

Jo Ann Whitehead (right) and Bette Jo Green, plaintiffs in GLAD's challenge to DOMA, Gill v. OPM, were in Washington D.C. last week for the rallies outside the Supreme Court. They share their experiences below.

Jo Ann Whitehead

And now we step up for our rights under the law of the land. Bette Jo and I are happy we went to DC last week to stand outside SCOTUS during the morning rallies on Tuesday, March 26 (prop 8) and Wednesday, March 27 (DOMA):

The weather was cold, but the fervor for equality warmed us deeply. The size of the supportive rally crowd took our breath away; it felt like a cold-weather Gay Pride Day. As the rally formed, we were cheek-to-jowl, able to move slowly through the flux of the crowd; this was a great opportunity to strike up conversations and make new “instant friends.” There was a mix of young, old, lgbt, straight, racially and culturally diverse, businesses, political groups, and religious groups. When the religious leaders (representing about every denomination you can think of) came from the prayer breakfast and walked through the crowd to the speakers’ area singing “this little light” it sparked a joyous sing-along.

Fortunately, we were a distance from the “opposition” and the “must-hate” groups who were there, but they were much smaller numbers than the waves of support; some of their signs and banners were confusing, some were downright nasty (tradition, marriage, property; [swastika]; god hates fags).

From our vantage point we enjoyed the bountiful upbeat, colorful, and supportive signs and banners, some homemade and some provided by the rally organizers: (Jesus had two dads and he turned out fine; guys, I said I hate figs; if God hates gay people, why are they so cute?; in case you’re confused [the rainbow flag] isn’t a white flag).

We were so happy to see two other Gill vs OPM plantiffs (Beatrice and Melba, who stood for a loooong time in the “three minute line” to get into SCOTUS for a bit of the hearing on Wednesday). Kudos go to many: GLAD, HRC and other media coordinators; the rally organizers (the lineup of speakers was notable); the legal teams, the legal teams, the legal teams...

Wow, thank goodness times change! As Gill vs OPM plaintiffs, we hope the big celebration comes soon.

Bette Jo Green

Tuesday morning early we were on our way. The Metro was humming with folks in suits carrying briefcases, getting on and off, until we arrived at our stop: Capitol South. We emerged into the crisp air, greeted by volunteers in red t-shirts and vests, giving us directions to the Supreme Court building, along with placards and smiles. Our placards read “Marriage is Love Commitment Family” and we noticed more and more warmly dressed placard-carrying folks going in the same direction. Then we joined the throng – bright colors, lots of laughter, hand-printed signs, rainbow flags – and tried to get as close to the front steps as possible. People stood in the visitor line for the hearing, but many more were just like us making their way past the cameras and reporters to celebrate this historic moment together: the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) taking on gay marriage and gay marriage rights. I shivered when I saw EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW inscribed on the building. Could that also apply to us?

The cold wind on this sunny day didn’t seem to matter so much in such a sea of humanity. We were huddled close together, jostling, saying “excuse me” so many times that we started talking about the day, learning each other’s stories, laughing as each new sign went by, chanting, singing, applauding the speakers, thanking the volunteers for all their efforts. We were a sea of color: rainbow and American flags, scarves, mittens, hats, and skin tone with the musical interludes keeping us hopping. A large contingent of ecumenical clergy wound their way through the crowd singing “This Little Light of Mine, I’m Going to Let it Shine” drawing us all in. And the speakers from near and far gave us inspiration from their personal stories and their support of the LGBT community. We left many hours later, only after our numb feet couldn’t hold us up any more. We needed energy for the next day.

Wednesday morning we were old timers, not only in age, but in experience. We knew the route, the stop, the way and came even earlier to the front steps of SCOTUS. This time we introduced ourselves to the folks around us who came from Virginia, Maryland, California, etc. Gay, straight, young, old, black, white – all energetic, all with stories to tell. The placards read “Equality Now” and multitudes of American flags joined the handmade signs, each person with a wider grin than the last. By this time our cheeks hurt from smiling so much. We talked with each other about the joys of commitment and our families and the weather and how good it felt to be here. It was amazing to realize that each of us in that vast crowd had a story to tell if we would take the time to listen. And we cheered for Edie Windsor and her legal team when she emerged from the SCOTUS building. By that time we were happily ensconced indoors watching her on TV.

What a good day it was.

Rhode Island’s Marriage Marathon

noreply@blogger.com (GLAD) — Fri, 22 Mar 2013 21:35:00 +0000

GLAD Attorney Janson Wu testifying at last night's hearing

Advocates for the freedom to marry often say that this movement is a marathon, not a sprint. Rhode Island is a case in point. Marriage bills have been filed every session since the late 1990’s, yet Little Rhodey is the only one of our New England neighbors that has not opened marriage to same-sex couples.

But this could be the year when loving, committed same-sex couples finally win the opportunity to say “I do.” Not in nearby Swansea or South Attleboro, Mass. or Pawcatuck, Conn., but in the state they call home. Rhode Islanders United for Marriage, a coalition of which GLAD is a part, is running a stellar campaign, thanks to dedicated local leadership and experienced veterans of other New England marriage campaigns. The House has already passed the marriage bill. Gov. Lincoln Chafee has pledged to sign it. Now, it just needs to pass the Senate, a more conservative body, but nonetheless where we have steadily built support.

But back to the marathon, a word that encapsulates well yesterday’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the bill. The hearing began shortly before 5 p.m. yesterday afternoon and wrapped up shortly before 5 a.m. this morning. Yes you read that correctly. The hearing lasted 12 hours.

Yes, that was plenty of time for the parade of usual suspects who oppose the freedom to marry for same-sex couples to malign the good LGBT people of Rhode Island or otherwise engage in fringe talk, like the guy who fretted that the world would become depopulated if same-sex couples were allowed to marry, or the woman who argued that children need a mother and a father because “a woman’s love can be smothering.” I could go on, but I’ll spare you the ridiculousness. No matter how ill-informed, outlandish and outright false much of the opposition’s testimony was, such trash talk is hard to hear for hours on end.

Hopefully the good testimony will outweigh the bad in the hearts and minds of Judiciary Committee members, and love will save the day, to quote the late Whitney Houston. Because there was plenty of love on our side. I didn’t stay at the hearing until the wee hours, but I had the privilege of helping to prep many of the personal testifiers -- the average Rhode Island folks, gay and straight, who shared personal stories about why marriage is important to them and why they believe same-sex couples should be able to share in that institution. I reviewed the testimony of folks like Rock Ripple, who talked of his 20-year relationship with his spouse (they were married in Massachusetts) and the pride they take in their college-bound teenage daughter, who Rock characterized as “12 pounds of willful joy” when she joined their family.

I got a little misty reviewing the testimony of Julian Harvey, a 20-year-old lesbian who wrote of her parents, “They, arguably, have taught me everything I know that’s worth knowing. Some of the most important lessons I’ve actually learned just from watching them and following their example,” – including the meaning of “true love and commitment, about steadfastness and understanding.” She attended the hearing with her mother Susan, who passed the time waiting to testify with her knitting.

I reviewed the testimony of Galen Hamman, who showed up for the hearing cradling her infant son Jackson. She talked of what a blessing he is to her and her spouse Jayme “because we now have the chance to share the love that our families gave to us.”

Every member of the Committee received written copies of testimony from these wonderful people – and there is no way they won’t be moved. In it they will have heard the truth about the real lives of their gay and lesbian constituents, the families they are raising or desire to someday create, and the many people who love and support them.

In addition to the many personal stories told, my colleague Janson Wu addressed what seems to be one of the thorniest issues for several committee members in this heavily Catholic state - the intersection of the freedom to marry and religious liberty.

“It is my hope that by elucidating the clearly established principles that currently allow religious liberty and marriage equality to freely coexist, we remove an impediment to moving this bill successfully out of committee,” Janson said at the outset of his testimony. Judging by the response he received, we think he held up his end of the bargain. Let’s hope the Senators got the message. You can link to Janson’s testimony from this pageon our website.

Now we pace ourselves as we wait for the Judiciary Committee to digest the testimony and vote on the bill. There are still hearts and minds to be changed in the legislature and around the state. But the work will get done. This is a marathon we’re going to win, so hang in there.

See you at the finish line.

Know Your Rights: Tax Deduction for Medical Care Related to GID

noreply@blogger.com (GLAD) — Thu, 21 Mar 2013 20:39:00 +0000

Post by Bruce Bell, Legal InfoLine Manager

GLAD has great news for transgender people who may benefit from claiming a tax deduction for medical treatment The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) determines the types of medical treatment that may qualify for a medical deduction on a person’s federal income tax. Even though the American Psychiatric Association in its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) identified a medical condition (called “gender identity disorder (GID)” in its fourth edition, now called “gender dysphoria” in its fifth edition that will be released this May), until 2010 the IRS considered most treatment for GID to be cosmetic and, therefore, not eligible to be claimed as a medical deduction.

But this changed in 2010, when GLAD won the O’Donnabhain case in federal Tax Court. As a result of this victory, the IRS now considers GID a medical condition, and therefore the expenses related to the treatment of GID may be claimed as a medical deduction. As it does with any medical deduction, the IRS requires medical documentation that the treatment you received was appropriate for your specific diagnosis.

If you have had medical expenses for the treatment of GID in previous tax years, the IRS allows you to file an amended return for up to three years from the date of your original filing. This means that in most cases, you still have until April 15, 2013 to file amended returns for the 2011, 2010 or 2009 tax years.

In addition to taking a medical deduction on your income tax, you may be able to get reimbursed for expenses related to your medical care if you have a consumer-directed health plan such as an FSA, HSA, MSA or HRA, because these plans use the IRS code to determine allowable medical expenses.

GLAD strongly recommends that you consult with a tax professional about the best course of action for your particular case and that you have sufficient medical documentation for any expense you are claiming.

If you have any questions about this, or any other LGBTQ/HIV legal issue, please contact GLAD’s Legal InfoLine at 800-455-GLAD (4523) or at www.glad.org/rights/infoline-contact. This is a free, confidential service where you can receive information and resources tailored to your individual needs from a highly trained volunteer.

Know Your Rights: HIV Testing—Consent and Privacy Issues

noreply@blogger.com (GLAD) — Mon, 11 Mar 2013 20:32:00 +0000

Post by Bruce Bell, GLAD Legal InfoLine Manager

Strong legal protections for people living with HIV are essential prerequisites to effective risk-reduction and prevention strategies. By fighting discrimination based on HIV status, protecting people’s privacy, and improving access to information about HIV-related legal issues, we can strengthen the health of our communities.

GLAD’s AIDS Law Project continues to fight for strong privacy protections for HIV status and medical information, and to educate the public about the consent requirements for HIV testing across New England.

Because the laws vary from state to state, it’s important to understand what is and is not allowed or required where you live. Read on for an overview, and visit www.glad.org or contact our Legal InfoLine for more information.

What HIV testing privacy protections exist in New England?

Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Rhode Island all have HIV-specific laws that require a patient’s written consent for HIV results to be released by a doctor or medical facility.

While there is no HIV-specific law in Vermont, under general common law principles, health providers cannot disclose private medical information to others without the patient’s consent.

Are there any circumstances under which a person’s HIV status can be disclosed by a health provider without the patient’s consent?

In Maine and Massachusetts, the answer to this question is no.

As mentioned above, Vermont has no specific laws related to HIV and general medical disclosure laws apply.

Connecticut, New Hampshire and Rhode Island each allow for disclosure without consent under specific circumstances:

· CONNECTICUT

o to another health care provider to provide appropriate care;

o to a health care worker or other employee where there has been a significant occupational exposure;

o to employees of mental health facilities if a patient’s behavior poses a significant risk of transmission;

o to life and health insurers in connection with life, health or disability benefits;

o to any person allowed access by a court order

· NEW HAMPSHIRE

o to another health care provider directly involved in the patient’s care;

o to a blood donation agency.

· RHODE ISLAND

o when the test results are relevant to law enforcement investigations, lawsuits or fraud cases;

o when the information is needed to provide emergency treatment;

o to notify the Department of Children, Youth and Families the results of an involuntary test;

o to inform third parties when an HIV-infected patient poses a clear danger and the patient will not inform the third parties;

o when someone dies of AIDS, notify the person picking up the body, the embalmer and funeral director;

o when a first responder is has sufficient exposure to create a risk of transmission.

What kind of consent is required to be tested for HIV?

· CONNECTICUT—A general consent for medical care is sufficient as long as the general consent contains an instruction to the patient that the patient may be tested for HIV unless the patient indicates when giving the general consent that he/she doesn’t want to be tested for HIV. The burden is on the patient to communicate a refusal to the healthcare provider.

· MAINE—A patient must be informed orally or in writing that an HIV test will be performed unless the patient declines. The law also requires that the patient must be told before the test the meaning of positive and negative test results and be given the opportunity to ask questions.

· MASSACHUSETTS—Only verbal informed consent is required each time an HIV test is performed.

· NEW HAMPSHIRE—Only verbal consent is required each time an HIV test is performed.

· RHODE ISLAND—To perform an HIV test the person must:

o be provided with oral or written information and an opportunity for discussion with a health care professional,

o be informed of the right to decline testing, and

o orally consent to the test.

· VERMONT—No specific consent is required, so an HIV test may be done based on a general medical consent.

Can an HIV test be performed against a person’s wishes?

· CONNECTICUT—Yes, under the following conditions:

o a significant exposure to HIV occurs during a person’s occupational duties;

o the person is unable or lacks the capacity to consent;

o on an inmate if the person’s behavior poses a significant risk of transmission.

o if a woman gives birth to a child and she has not had an HIV test, the health care provider must administer an HIV test to the newborn.

· MAINE—Yes, under the following conditions:

o occupational exposure that creates a significant risk of HIV infection;

o after conviction of a sexual assault;

o testing of pregnant women and newborns.

· MASSACHUSETTS—No.

· NEW HAMPSHIRE—Yes, under the following conditions:

o after conviction of a sexual assault;

o prisoners;

o patient emergencies where the person is incapable of giving informed consent;

· RHODE ISLAND—Yes, the following testing is permitted but not required:

o any person under one year of age;

o any person between one and thirteen years of age who appear to be HIV+;

o any person under the age of eighteen who is in state care and a test is necessary to secure health or human services for that person;

o a patient who exposes a health care worker to a significant risk for contracting HIV;

o emergency medical situations where it is not possible to get the consent of the patient.

· VERMONT—Yes, when a court orders that a person convicted of a sexual assault be tested.

Can minors give their own consent to be tested for HIV without obtaining their parents’ or guardians’ consent?

Yes, in all six New England states minors can be tested for HIV without obtaining their parents’ or guardians’ consent. However, these additional factors apply:

· CONNECTICUT—the health care provider must counsel the minor to work towards involving the parents or guardians and about the need to notify partners.

· MAINE & NEW HAMPSHIRE—the physician is not required to but may inform the minor’s parents or guardians, so it is important for the minor to have a conversation with the doctor about his/her policies on this issue.

· MASSACHUSETTS—if the physician feels that the minor’s life is in danger, then the doctor is required to notify the parents or guardians.

If you have any questions about LGBTQ/HIV legal issues, please contact GLAD’s Legal InfoLine—by email or live chat at www.glad.org/rights/infoline-contactor by phone at 800-455-GLAD (4523). This is a free, confidential service, and you will be assisted by a compassionate, highly trained volunteer.

Thoughts on President Obama’s Justice Department Brief in Support of the Freedom to Marry

noreply@blogger.com (GLAD) — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 17:51:00 +0000

"President Obama now tops the list of influential supporters who have
filed briefs opposing Proposition 8 at the Supreme Court."
Post by Mary L. Bonauto, GLAD Civil Rights Project Director

President Obama’s Justice Department joined the litigation efforts for the freedom to marry with their February 28 landmark filing of a “friend of the court” brief to the United States Supreme Court arguing that California’s Proposition 8 is an unconstitutional violation of the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.

As my colleague, GLAD Executive Director Lee Swislow, has said, the President’s support for the freedom of same-sex couples to express their love and commitment through marriage could not be more significant.

The Department of Justice brief addresses the constitutionality of Proposition 8 rather than the laws of other states that bar same-sex couples from marrying. The question presented to the Supreme Court asks: “Whether the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the State of California from defining marriage as the· union of a man and a woman,” and the Department’s brief answers “YES.”

While the brief specifically addresses why Proposition 8 is invalid, it clearly does so in ways that could affect the legal debate beyond California.

For example:

The Justice Department argues that laws distinguishing based on sexual orientation merit close judicial scrutiny because of “the greater danger that the [sexual orientation] classification results from impermissible prejudice or stereotypes.”

While the Department first took this position in cases challenging the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), including GLAD’s two cases Gill v. OPM and Pedersen v. OPM [links], this is the first time they have done so in a case seeking the right to marry. Most people agree that state laws denying government marriage licenses to same-sex couples would not survive such heightened scrutiny.

The Department’s brief calls attention to the fact that Proposition 8 took away marriage from gay and lesbian Californians, but left in place a registered domestic partnership system providing the same legal rights and responsibilities under a separate legal system just for same-sex couples.

The brief speaks powerfully to the fact that there are no justifications for recognizing that same-sex couples deserve such protections yet insisting they must be placed in a separate system. While the brief does not address the law of the 7 other states that currently have registered domestic partnership or equivalent civil union laws, its arguments about the law of California strongly suggest what the administration’s position would be as to each of those other states.

Finally, even if the Supreme Court does not reach the issue of heightened scrutiny and applies rational basis review, the force and logic of the Department’s arguments show that there are no legally valid reasons for denying equal treatment under law to gay people and our families. It handily refutes arguments about tradition, responsible procreation and child-rearing, caution, democratic self-governance and protecting children from being taught about marriage for same-sex couples in schools.

The brief is built around two themes: that denying marriage to same-sex couples harms those couples; and that there is no greater public good accomplished by withholding marriage from same-sex couples. This certainly provides a foundation for continued involvement from the administration, if need be, in years to come.

President Obama now tops the list - and uniquely so - of influential supporters including religious denominations, American businesses, Republicans, and civil and human rights groups – including GLAD - who have filed briefs opposing Proposition 8 at the Supreme Court.

Oral argument in the Prop 8 case will take place on March 26. The following day, the Court will hear argument in the case against DOMA, Windsor v. United States.

You can find more information about the challenge to Prop 8 here, and about the challenge to DOMA here and here.

Calling All GLAD Alumni!

noreply@blogger.com (GLAD) — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 16:07:00 +0000

By Robbie Samuels, Senior Manager of Events and Donor Engagement

Did you intern, volunteer or work at Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders sometime over the last 35 years? Thank you! You helped pave the way for GLAD to become the groundbreaking legal rights organization we are today.

Many of our earliest interns, staff and founding board members (e.g. Urvashi Vaid, Richard Burns and Cindy Rizzo) went on to become leaders in the LGBT movement. Which made me wonder – where are all of our alumni now?

Haven’t been in touch recently? Are you in the Boston area? Join us at our next GLADHour on Wednesday, February 27. Held three times a year, these happy hours for fans of LGBTQ equality are the perfect opportunity to reconnect with GLAD and meet some of our amazing supporters.

When we started hosting these GLADHours several years ago, we wanted to create an easy and fun way to engage with GLAD and we succeeded! Each GLADHour brings together over 100 people of various ages, races, sexual orientations and genders. Some have been long-time supporters and others are just learning who we are.

So if it’s been awhile since you’ve been to a GLAD event, join us at the next GLADHour on February 27 at 6pm. Grab a drink, enjoy free happy hour snacks (thanks to our friends at Reproductive Science Center), say hello to some of our current staff and learn about GLAD’s transgender advocacy from Jennifer L. Levi, Transgender Rights Project Director and one of our nation's leading experts on transgender legal issues.

Are you in touch with other GLAD alumni? Spread the word by inviting them to the Facebook event page. Tweet us a hello! @GLADLaw #GLADHour

Know Your Rights: LGBTQ Youth Rights in the Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice Systems

noreply@blogger.com (GLAD) — Wed, 20 Feb 2013 20:39:00 +0000

by Bruce Bell, Legal InfoLine Manager

In a recent post, I focused on the rights that students, particularly public school students, have and the anti-discrimination laws that provide protection to youth as well as adults in employment, housing and public accommodations.

GLAD’s Youth Initiative is also working to make sure youth in the child welfare system or the juvenile justice system know their rights, and we are exploring ways to increase those protections.

If your rights are being violated or you have questions about your rights, or if you work with LGBTQ youth in one of these areas and have questions, GLAD would like to hear from you. Contact GLAD’s Legal InfoLine by email or live chat or call our toll-free number, 800-455-GLAD (4523). A friendly volunteer will assist you—it’s free and confidential.

LGBTQ youth in the child welfare system have the right to safe and appropriate placements, free from discrimination or harassment based on sexual orientation or gender identity or expression, and have the right to:

Be free from harassment and abuse based on actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity or expression in foster care placements. This means protection from both physical and emotional harm in placements and placement with caretakers who will ensure their safety and well-being both inside and outside the home.
Be open about their sexual orientation and gender identity and expression.
Be identified by the name and pronouns and wear clothing that accord with his or her gender identity.
Be free from religious indoctrination that condemns or disparages their sexual orientation or gender identity or expression.

LGBTQ youth have the right to equal treatment and to access appropriate services for their sexual orientation or gender identity or expression while in the child welfare system. In particular, LGBTQ youth:

Must have access to appropriate medical or mental health care and should not be forced to undergo improper or disreputable services damaging to their well-being, such as reparative or conversion therapy.
Should be treated equally to heterosexual and gender conforming youth, including with regard to age appropriate displays of affection.
Should have access to supportive materials and resources.

LGBTQ youth in the juvenile justice system have the right to safe and appropriate placements free from discrimination or harassment based on their sexual orientation or gender identity or expression. In particular:

LGBTQ youth are entitled to protection from physical, emotional or sexual abuse by other youth or facility staff.
A facility’s response to harassment or violence against an LGBTQ youth cannot be to move the victim to a more restrictive facility or to isolate the victim.
LGBTQ youth cannot be segregated or classified as sex offenders based on myths that LGBTQ youth prey on other youth.
LGBTQ youth have the right to be open about their sexual orientation and gender identity or expression.
Transgender youth have the right to be identified by name and pronouns and wear clothing that accords with their gender identity.

LGBTQ youth have the right to equal treatment and to access appropriate services for their sexual orientation or gender identity or expression while in the juvenile justice system. In particular, LGBTQ youth:

Must have access to appropriate medical or mental health care, both for general services and for any medical services that may be unique to LGBTQ youth.
Should not be forced to undergo improper or disreputable services damaging to their well-being, such as reparative or conversion therapy.
May not be disciplined for engaging in age-appropriate romantic or sexual conduct that would not be punished between two different-sex youth.
Have the right to be free from religious indoctrination by facility staff that condemns or disparages their sexual orientation or gender identity or expression.

Happy Valentine's Day

noreply@blogger.com (GLAD) — Thu, 14 Feb 2013 16:01:00 +0000

New England has led the nation in affirming the love and commitment of same-sex couples and families.

From securing the rights of same-sex couples to adopt children, to elevating protections for civil unions, to celebrating groundbreaking marriage equality in Massachusetts 10 years ago this year - with Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine (and hopefully soon Rhode Island) following suit, GLAD is proud to be a part of ensuring that the love shared in LGBT families and relationships can thrive and flourish.

Take a look at some heart-warming New England love stories below, and have a happy Valentine’s Day!

David and Rob David and Rob had a historic wedding ceremony at Arlington Street Church as one of the first same-sex couples to legally marry in the United States on May 17, 2004. “We had so much in common and could really support each other.” Together they have five children and Seven grandchildren.

Barbara and Robin One fateful day, when Robin was filling in for a colleague at a clinic, she met Barbara, a computer consultant and small-business owner. The two became great friends and quickly developed a strong connection. After Barbara was no longer Robin’s patient, their relationship grew and blossomed into love.

Mason and Lauren “I hate to use the word ‘traditional,’” Mason says, “but we’re very much an average married couple.” Lauren’s loving support was critical in what Mason calls his “journey through gender.” “We approached this as a team, and I never felt alone because of that.”

Daisy and Jamie At the time of their first date, Daisy was a member of a medieval re-enactment group, and they both knew it didn't get much geekier than hanging out in the woods, reliving the wild and woolly days of Robin Hood and Joan of Arc in puffy hats and tunics. Nonetheless, says Jamie, “I married her anyway.”

Geraldine and Suzanne Geraldine and Suzanne call their family - with their three boys - "Team Artis."

Kaden and Brittany At first they were just close friends, sharing details of their lives in frequent conversations. Then love began to blossom. “He got very flirtatious,” Brittany recalls, although Kaden remembers it differently.“I don’t flirt,” he says, smirking. Six years later, Kaden and Brittany are married and living in Strafford County.

Jackie and Gloria “We complete each other’s sentences; often we’re thinking the same thing at the same time. We’re just really soul mates,” says Gloria. “It's hard to keep us apart.”

Jerry and John “We clicked,” says Jerry. “It worked. We have a lot in common and at the same time we’re very different. I like to say that we complement each other in those areas where we’re most deficient ourselves. We don’t always see eye to eye on everything, but when we don’t it’s oftentimes for our own amusement.”

Behind the (Event) Wizard’s Curtain

noreply@blogger.com (GLAD) — Wed, 13 Feb 2013 20:52:00 +0000

By Savannah Hughes, Special Events Intern

Get ready for a “behind-the-scenes” look at special events at GLAD. With three new interns, the events team has more than doubled this year. We’re the bells and whistles people - we make sure everything runs smoothly by managing data, engaging with donors, and investigating great places for events. We’ll be regularly blogging about what we’re focused on and what’s on the horizon.

Meet the team who will be bringing you all of these amazing GLAD events:

Jennie Robbiano, Special Events Intern, is working with us full-time so she’s getting her hands on a wide array of development projects and is excited to learn about the ‘backstage’ world of non-profits at GLAD. Originally from Upstate New York, Jennie is currently in her second year at Northeastern University studying International Affairs and Religious Studies .She’s a vegan, loves to sew in her spare time, and has a cat named Spike.

Molly Paul, Special Events Intern, is focusing her 20 hours a week on producing our most successful Summer Party auction ever. She is a 4th year student at Northeastern University, studying Sociology and Jewish Studies. She came to GLAD to not only gain experience in non-profit development work, but to become a part of an organization and a movement about which she is passionate. In her spare time Molly kicks butt on the Northeastern Women's Rugby team and teaches a Jewish Outdoors class to a group of 8th graders at a synagogue in Newton.

Rachel Rapoza, Special Events Coordinator, is the events teams’ “mission controller” as she deftly juggles between competing priorities, including logistics for regional events and staffing the Spirit of Justice Award Dinner Committee. She joined GLAD in September 2010 after graduating from Hamilton College with a degree in Classics. At Hamilton, she was involved in the school’s LGBT alliance, Classics Club, and served as the captain of the varsity ice hockey and softball teams. Rachel’s commitment to volunteering introduced her to many non-profit organizations, and she gained previous development experience through an internship at the Human Rights Campaign. In her free time, she enjoys playing hockey and listening to oldies.

Robbie Samuels, Senior Manager of Events and Donor Engagement, is psyched to have so much help as he oversees the 25 events on GLAD’s 2013 calendar. Robbie works with the entire development department to keep our major donors invested in and informed about GLAD’s work, and engages with donors motivated specifically by GLAD’s Transgender Rights Project. With a background that includes working with nonprofits on the grassroots, regional and national levels, Robbie brings extensive event planning and fundraising experience to his management of GLAD’s successful annual event program. Robbie’s other passions include organizing Socializing for Justice - a cross-issue progressive network in Boston, advocating for an anti-racist LGBT movement, and sharing his experience as an openly trans staff member to educate others. He holds a BA and an MSW from SUNY Stony Brook. Learn more about Robbie.

Savannah Hughes, Special Events Intern. During my 20 hours a week at GLAD, I’ll be managing mailings and data entry and keeping everyone informed about events through social media. My other life is studying Political Communications at Emerson College, but I’m looking forward to learning the ‘behind the scenes’ of event production at GLAD. Outside work, you might find me baking or watching something on Netflix. And if you see me out at a GLAD event, feel free to strike up a conversation in French or Spanish (or English!) or share a good (bad) knock-knock joke.

Stay tuned for a missive from Molly…

Know Your Rights: DOMA and Tax Season

noreply@blogger.com (GLAD) — Tue, 12 Feb 2013 14:46:00 +0000

Suzanne Artis on one of the many ways DOMA hurts her family at tax time:
"I don’t like to have to divide [my children] up. They’re not property, they’re my family."

by Bruce Bell, Legal InfoLine Manager

Like most of us right now, you are probably working on, or thinking about, filing your federal and state income tax returns. For married same-sex couples, the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) makes tax time extra stressful - as the New York Times pointed out yesterday. Because of DOMA, the federal government – and somestates - will not allow you to file your taxes as the married couple or family that you are.

GLAD has led the fight to knock out DOMA through litigation and public education since same-sex couples first began marrying in 2004. Currently, we are orchestrating the critical friend-of-the-court briefing strategy in the DOMA challenge being heard by the Supreme Court this session, Windsor v. United States. We anticipate that the Supreme Court will rule on DOMA’s constitutionality by the end of June. If DOMA is ruled unconstitutional, most of the federal discrimination married same-sex couples experience should end.

See the end of this post for information on how you may be able to preserve a claim to a refund of federal taxes you over paid due to DOMA, if and when the law is finally declared unconstitutional.

But first, since we are still living with DOMA for now, we have put together a summary of how to file your state and federal taxes, with links to our more comprehensive resources.

Filing Federal Taxes

For federal taxes, wherever you live, you must file your federal income tax as “single” or as “head of household” if one of you meets the requirements for that status. However, GLAD recommends that you indicate in some way on your return that you are a same-sex married couple, since income tax returns can be used for a variety of purposes, such as getting a mortgage—and for that purpose it may be important that the mortgage company knows that you are married. For more information, see Navigating Income Taxes for Married Same-Sex Couples

DOMA hurts same-sex couples and families in many ways at tax time. In addition to not being able to file as “married,” and potentially paying higher taxes as a result, same-sex married couples must also pay a tax on any benefit an employer offers to the same-sex spouse of an employee, and when a same-sex couple divorces, the alimony one spouse pays to another is not an allowable deduction as it is for a different-sex married couple. And for many, like the Artis family in the video above, the pain of having to ‘carve up’ the family by choosing which parent includes children on their tax form is as bad as, or worse than, any extra money DOMA costs.

Filing State Taxes

How you should file taxes in your home state depends on the way your home state’s tax law is structured, as well as the existence or non-existence of a state marriage restriction.

In New England

If you are married and live in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont or Maine, you must file your state taxes as married (either as “married filing jointly” or “married filing separately”). Since filling out the state income tax form depends on bringing over figures from a federal form, you also need to complete a “married” federal income tax form in order to be able to fill out your “married” state tax form—this “dummy” federal form is only used to complete your state income taxes and never gets filed anywhere.

New Hampshire has no state income tax and Rhode Island’s tax law requires the same filing status on the state tax form as is on the federal tax form, so if you live in Rhode Island you must complete your state income taxes using the same filing status as on your federal form (i.e. “single” or “head of household”).

For more information, or if you live outside New England, see Navigating Income Taxes for Married Same-Sex Couples.

Receiving Retroactive Benefits after DOMA

If DOMA is overturned and you are in the process of appealing a previous tax return, you may be eligible to receive a refund on the extra taxes you paid. The IRS allows you to file amended income tax returns up to three years after the original return was filed. For example, in most cases you can still file an amended return for the 2009 tax year provided the IRS receives it before this April’s filing deadline.

GLAD has prepared a publication, Tax Time and Preserving Your Federal Rights, which lists the steps to take if you want to try to preserve your right to a refund as a married couple for a previous year.

We know that this information can be confusing, which is why GLAD provides a free Legal InfoLine, where a friendly, knowledgeable volunteer can work with you one-on-one to answer any questions you have. Visit www.glad.orgto contact us by email or live chat or call us at 800-455-GLAD (4523).

Of course, it’s always best to talk to a qualified tax expert about your particular situation.

Good luck with your filing, and let’s hope this is the last year we have to share this information about DOMA and taxes!

Happy GSA Day!

noreply@blogger.com (GLAD) — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 19:16:00 +0000

View a larger version of this image

Today is National GSA Day! GSAs, or Gay Straight Alliances, can help make schools more welcoming, empowering and safer for LGBTQ students.

If you attend a school that receives federal funding - that's all public schools and even many private schools - you have a right to form a GSA if your school allows any extracurricular groups.

Your school cannot treat your GSA any differently. This means you get the same rights, privileges and access as any other group or club.

If you have questions about forming a GSA or encounter problems at your school, email GLAD's Legal InfoLine at www.glad.org/rights or call us at 800-455-GLAD.

You can also read more about your rights in our publication The Right to Establish a GSA.

Know Your Rights: GLAD's Youth Initiative

noreply@blogger.com (Bruce Bell, InfoLine Manager) — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 20:52:00 +0000

GLAD is expanding our Youth Initiative with the goals of both fighting for additional rights and protections for LGBTQ youth and, of equal importance, empowering LGBTQ youth through knowledge of the many rights and protections that currently exist in New England. Knowledge is power. If you know your rights, you’ll know when they are being violated. GLAD can work with you to make sure that you are treated justly both in and out of school.

Let’s start in school.

LGBTQ students are a high risk group to be the victims of bullying and harassment. The good news is that the six New England states have some of the strongest anti-bullying laws in the country. All of these laws require that, if school staff see bullying, they must report it; the school must investigate it, and, if the investigation determines that bullying occurred, the school must take appropriate action to keep the victim of bullying safe and to prevent future incidences of bullying. Schools are required to make sure that both students and parents are aware of the school’s anti-bullying policies and have access to copies of those policies.

All of the New England states except Massachusetts list sexual orientation, gender identity and disability (which includes HIV status) as specific characteristics that can motivate bullying, along with other characteristics like race. The anti-bullying laws of Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Vermont apply to all public and some private school students, while the laws of Connecticut, Maine and New Hampshire only apply to public school students.

GLAD has a chart that details the various features of each New England state’s anti-bullying laws.

If you find yourself being harassed, bullied or discriminated against you should:

· Tell somebody. If you have understanding friends, parents, or counselors, use them as a support system.

· Keep notes on what is happening (and record who, when, where, and how).

· Get a copy of your school’s policies on student conduct and discipline. It might be in your student handbook or on the school website. You can also talk with your guidance counselor or school administrator.

· Report it to the person designated in your school’s policy. Make your report in writing so that you can prove you made it.

All public school students also have the right to:

· Form a Gay/Straight Alliance (GSA) that gets treated the same as every other non-curricular group, including equal funding, access to facilities, and the ability to choose your group’s name (private school students whose schools receive federal funding also have this right);

· Access information about LGBTQ subjects, including educational websites;

· Free speech and expression, including the right to express ideas respectfully that may offend others, and to disagree with others;

· Dress and present yourself in a manner that is consistent with your gender identity.

· Be protected from discrimination or harassment based on gender or HIV status (private school students whose schools receive federal funding also have this right).

What about outside school?

In all six New England states there are laws protecting you from discrimination based on your actual or perceived sexual orientation, HIV status or sex in employment, housing and public accommodations (like restaurants or stores). There are also explicit protections for gender identity with the exceptions of New Hampshire and Massachusetts (in Massachusetts only public accommodations are not explicitly covered). However, in many cases, even where there is not explicit gender identity protection, it is possible to be protected using a different characteristic like sex, sexual orientation or disability. Never assume you are NOT protected. Contact GLAD to know your rights.

You also have the right to be tested for HIV without obtaining your parent’s permission. But, in some states your doctor may report the test results to your parents, so make sure you have a discussion with the doctor about the confidentiality of your test results.

You have the right to report to the police anyone in or out of school who physically harms you, threatens you or vandalizes your property.

GLAD has prepared colorful, easy to read LGBTQ Student Rights brochures for each of the New England states which tell you about the rights students have in your state. You can see these brochures online or contact the Legal InfoLine and we would be glad to mail you a hard copy. We will gladly send copies to GSAs or other youth groups, just contact us.

If your rights are not being respected, or if you have any legal question, EMAIL GLAD’s Legal InfoLine anytime at www.glad.org/rights/infoline-contact,

work one-on-one with a trained volunteer Monday-Friday, 1:30-4:30 p.m. either by LIVE CHAT at www.glad.org/rights/infoline-contact or by PHONE: 800-455-GLAD (4523).

GLAD’s Legal InfoLine is free and confidential and can provide you with additional information about your rights—and resources that can help you fight for them.

We Are Family

noreply@blogger.com (GLAD) — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 21:16:00 +0000

A Creating Change Workshop Session with
LGBT Movement Leaders from China and Taiwan

Post by Laura Kiritsy, Manager of Public Education

It’s hard to know where to start when trying to wrap up my experience at this year’s Creating Change, the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force’s annual conference for LGBT activists and leaders, which took me, along with my colleagues Eva Boyce, Janson Wu and Robbie Samuels, to Atlanta last week. I’m still savoring memories of Krispy Kreme donuts, which were readily available in the Hilton Atlanta lobby. With all due respect to Dunkin’ Donuts, I’m still baffled by Krispy Kreme’s crash and burn in New England.

But I digress. Carb-laden confections certainly were not the best thing about this year’s Creating Change.

Truly, the most gratifying part for me was the strong attendance at the workshop I co-presented with Gunner Scott of the Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalitionand Stephanie Perkins, the deputy director at Promoting Equality for All Missourians (better known as PROMO), Missouri’s statewide LGBT organization. Titled “From Bathroom Panic to Basic Rights: Winning the Message War on Trans Rights Legislation,” the workshop was a chance to share with other activists the lessons we learned in combating our opponents’ mythological message that trans-inclusive non-discrimination laws will some how open up women’s restrooms to male predators looking to assault women and young children. Yes, it’s ridiculous, but it’s proven effective in stoking fear among the electorate, from Massachusetts to Missouri, and beyond. More than 40 people turned out for our workshop, which, if I do say so myself, was pretty impressive for a Friday morning at 9 a.m.. Never mind the fact that we were also competing with my colleague Robbie’s popular and likewise informative workshop, “The Art of the Schmooze.”

I’d like to think we gave folks who are working to pass trans rights bills some practical tools for passing this legislation. I met folks from West Virginia who are gearing up to push for a non-discrimination law and a college student who is leading an effort to create trans-friendly restrooms on her Canadian campus. Mason Dunn, a New Hampshire activist who is featured in We Are New Hampshire: Transgender Lives in the Granite State, also turned up. And I was excited to see a familiar young face of the next generation of activists: Jazz Jennings, a transgender ’tween who has been periodically profiled by Barbara Walters on 20/20, attended our workshop with her mom, Jeanette.

With my workshop out of the way early on, I was free to catch Task Force Executive Director Rea Carey’s inspiring State of the Movement speech at the Friday afternoon plenary. But before Carey took the stage, the thousands of people crowded into the Grand Ballroomwere treated to a surprise greeting (via pre-recorded video) from President Obama, the first sitting president to address a Creating Change conference.

“I’ve always said that the change we need in this country — real change — doesn’t come from Washington, it comes from folks like you,” said Obama. “Change has always come from ordinary Americans who sit in or stand up or marched to demand it. … With your help, we will continue the journey to perfect our union. The work will be hard, the road will be long, but I’m more confident than ever that we will reach a better future as long as Americans like you keep reaching for justice — and all of us keep marching together.”

Carey’s speech also emphasized a theme of partnership as a way to advance LGBT equality. She noted that, last year, the Task Force dedicated staff, financial resources and its grassroots organizing expertise not only to the four state marriage campaigns (Maine, Maryland, Minnesota and Washington State), but also to the successful Maryland DREAM Act Campaign and the unsuccessful bid to outlaw the death penalty in California.

Working in coalition on other progressive causes has paid off in terms of other organizations reciprocating that support, Carey said, noting that the LGBT community’s recent electoral successes are more meaningful and more lasting because it wasn’t just LGBT people who worked for or celebrated our victories.

“In fact, some of the first calls and e-mails I got when the president came out for marriage and when marriage equality won in state after state, were from leaders of civil rights, labor, women’s and other non-LGBT organizations,” Carey told the crowd. “If there is one message we can take away from Election Night 2012, it is that we are not alone. We are not alone as a movement, as a people, and we need to make sure no one else is alone either.”

But my favorite part of Carey’s speech, which also summed up the spirit of the conference, is when she talked at length about the Task Force, and the entire LGBT community as a family. Yes, Carey acknowledged, it’s a little cliché to talk that way, and I definitely don’t disagree. But it was hard not to believe in the LGBT family after she noted that through the sponsorship of the LA LGBT Center, a group of more than 20 LGBT activists from China and Taiwan were able to attend Creating Change – the founders of the LGBT movement in their respective countries, Carey noted. They were greeted with thunderous applause when Carey welcomed them “to our family” and asked them to stand and be recognized.

It was impossible to not be inspired when Carey said, “I believe that all movements need guiding principles and values, a True North, and that ours must be love, commitment and compassion — but it must be an expansive love; a broad commitment to the many ways we create family; and compassion that leads to action for those who are marginalized.”
And it was hard not to cheer – particularly when contemplating all the work that is yet to be done to achieve complete transgender equality -- when Carey wrapped up her speech by declaring, “We are family and we will not leave any of you behind!”

I plan to do my part in the coming year to ensure that no member of our LGBT family is left behind. I hope you’ll join me.

Boston Represents at Creating Change:
My colleague Robbie Samuels with Ellyn Ruthstrom from the Bisexual Resource Center and Jess Green from Socializing for Justice

Know Your Rights: Violence, Harassment and Bullying

noreply@blogger.com (Bruce Bell, InfoLine Manager) — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 18:16:00 +0000

This week during No Name Calling Week, schools and organizations across the country are working to raise awareness of the need to stop the bullying and harassment of LGBTQ people.

Despite the fact that all six New England states have hate crime protectionsfor gay men and lesbians, four of the six have explicit hate crime protections for transgender people, and all six have some of the strongest anti-bullying laws in the country, GLAD’s Legal InfoLine continues to receive calls from LGBT people who have been attacked after leaving a gay bar, students who are being so badly harassed at school because of their gender identity or sexual orientation that they no longer feel it is safe for them to attend, and victims of same-sex domestic violence who are not taken seriously by the police, just to name a few troubling issues.

These reports to the InfoLine are mirrored in reports at the national level. As GLAD’s Mary Bonauto and Boston attorney Jeffrey Robbins, chair of the Anti-Defamation League’s New England Board, wrote recently in the Boston Globe, “Fourteen years after Matthew Shepherd was murdered because he was gay, and three years after President Obama signed the hate crimes law that bears Matthew’s name, the victimization of Americans based on their sexual orientation remains real, and on the rise.”

Their article goes on to say: “In addition to the troubling hate crime statistics, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network’s (GLSEN) 2011 National School Climate Survey reports over a third of LGBT students faced physical harassment and nearly 20 percent were assaulted in the last year.”

LGBT victims of hate crimes, domestic violence and school bullying are often reticent to report what happened to the police or school authorities because they fear that they will not be taken seriously and will even be further mistreated or humiliated. This only further encourages perpetrators of hate crimes or school bullies to feel they can victimize LGBT people without having to fear punishment.

In Massachusetts, GLAD has been meeting regularly with the Boston, MBTA and State Police to establish better lines of communication and to make the police more sensitive to the needs of the LGBT community. One result has been that the Boston Police have implemented a model program to better identify LGBT hate crimes.

In the schools, GLAD continues to do substantial outreach to LGBTQ students throughout New England in order to educate them about their legal rights and how to get help if their rights are being violated. We are also involved in efforts to strengthen anti-bullying laws and ensure that they are enforced.

In addition, there are several national bills that deserve support:

· The Safe Schools Improvement Act addresses bullying prevention programs and requires states to collect and report information about bullying and harassment;

· The Student Non-Discrimination Act forbids schools from discriminating based on sexual orientation and gender identity and prohibits them from ignoring harassing behavior; and

· The Tyler Clementi Higher Education Anti-Harassment Act requires colleges and universities to recognize cyberbullying as a form of harassment and to fund anti-harassment programs.

GLAD wants to do whatever we can to end violence and harassment against LGBT people. If you are a victim of violence or harassment, contact our Legal InfoLine at 800-455-GLAD (4523) or www.glad.org/rights/infoline-contact, and we will connect you with resources to help you get through the initial trauma, and provide you with ways to seek justice.

High Passions and Common Ground at the Rhode Island State House

noreply@blogger.com (GLAD) — Fri, 18 Jan 2013 19:28:00 +0000

Janson Wu (right) with Marriage Equality Rhode IslandCommunications Director Devin Driscoll (left) and Campaign Director Ray Sullivan

Post by GLAD Staff Attorney Janson Wu

For a little state, Rhode Island made a big showing last Tuesday. Hundreds of citizens gathered that evening at the state house for the House Judiciary Committee hearing on what is the 17th and hopefully final marriage equality bill to be filed in the Ocean State.

With prayer circles in the house rotunda, and same-sex couples holding signs of love in the hallway, supporters and opponents of marriage equality mixed outside the hearing room in a rare and, honestly, inspiring showing of civic participation, even as passions ran high.

One conversation I had, while waiting in the hallway to greet our testifiers, was with an ex-gay minister. He told me his story of finding God after a violent incident with a same-sex lover that almost killed him. As I listened to him, feelings of sadness, admiration, disbelief, and sympathy ran through me as I tried to make sense of it. I was struck that someone with whom I shared so much in common could be in such a different place in life, but heartened that, while we were at the State House for opposing reasons, we were still able to come together to share our stories with one another.

Meanwhile, inside the overheated and packed committee room, testifiers rose one by one for the next 6 hours to give their two minutes of testimony in support of or opposition to the legislation.

For the opponents, representatives from the Catholic Church, the National Organization for Marriage, and the Ruth Institute made false claims about threats to religious liberty, children in schools, and the future of the human race.

For our side, GLAD, as part of our new coalition RhodeIslanders United for Marriage, helped organize panels of expert testifiers in areas as diverse as labor, faith, education, and medicine and psychology -- all ready to counter any argument that our opponents might make.

But as we have learned in the other 5 New England states with marriage equality, what ultimately moves people are personal stories. Stories like those of Lise Iwon, who lost her wife Peg after 32 years together, yet still showed up that night to talk about why being able to marry in their home state was so important to them both. David Olson, who despite getting a civil union in Rhode Island with his partner Len, was still told by his employer that the pension survivor benefits that his married straight coworkers could receive was "not applicable" in his situation because there was "no spouse." And Matthew Lannon, 12 years old, who simply wanted to know why his two dads could not get married.

After so many years of trying to pass marriage equality in Rhode Island, hopefully this will finally be the year that Rhode Island, with GLAD and our coalition partners’ help, joins the rest of New England in protecting and valuing all families. Many of the folk in the state house Tuesday night will no doubt view that as the ultimate defeat. What I hope is that, just like what brought that ex-gay minister and myself together that evening, one day what we all share in common will ultimately bring us back to the same place, together.

See more photos from the hearing at Freedom to Marry's website.

Back to Beacon Hill for (Full) Transgender Equality

noreply@blogger.com (GLAD) — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 22:23:00 +0000

Constituents waiting to talk to their legislators about co-sponsoring
"An Act Relative to Equal Access in Hospitals, Public Transportation, Nursing Homes, Supermarkets, Retail Establishments, and all other places open to the public"

Post by Laura Kiritsy, GLAD Manager of Public Education

I was at the State House today for the first time since the big, celebratory, ceremonial signing of the Transgender Equal Rights Bill almost exactly one year ago (my colleague Jennifer Levi wrote a nice reflection on that event for our blog). Given that, you may be surprised to hear that my trip to Beacon Hill today was for a Legislative Day of Action in support of a bill called “An Act Relative to Equal Access in Hospitals, Public Transportation, Nursing Homes, Supermarkets, Retail Establishments, and all other places open to the public.” The Equal Access Bill, as we call it, would add protections for transgender people in public accommodations to our state’s non-discrimination laws.

What, you say? Didn’t the transgender community get these vital protections when Gov. Patrick signed the Transgender Equal Rights Bill? Unfortunately, the answer is no. These protections were stripped out of the final bill that passed in the midst of the seemingly endless – and unnecessarily distracting -- debate over bathroom access for transgender people. So, transgender people are protected from discrimination in housing, employment, education and credit, but we still have work to do.

Our work is to educate people about the fact that when we talk about public accommodations, we are talking about so much more than bathrooms. We’re talking about just about everywhere we go between home, school, and/or work: the grocery store, the mall, banks, movie theaters, restaurants, nursing homes, healthcare facilities, the bus and any other mode of public transportation, government buildings, etc. – the list of public places where transgender people can still lawfully be denied entrance or service in Massachusetts is endless. And it does not make sense that, under current law, transgender people cannot be denied employment at some of these places simply because of who they are, but they can otherwise be lawfully excluded from accessing them.

We began the work of educating our legislators with today’s Day of Action, and I think we’re off to a great start. Heading up to the State House, I was feeling a little worried that few people would show up, after the years of organizing, educating and lobbying our community had already put into passing the Transgender Equal Rights Bill. So I was heartened to walk into a State House conference room this morning to find it overflowing with folks ready to go talk to their legislators about co-sponsoring the Equal Access Bill. People came from as far away as Pittsfield. One woman had rescheduled a flight out of town so that she could attend the Day of Action. Another woman had her toddler-sized granddaughter in tow. Over the course of two hours, a non-stop stream of people were in and out of the room, picking up informational packets about the bill to give to their legislators and returning later to tell us what they heard in response. We even got a visit from State Sen. Jamie Eldridge, a staunch supporter of the LGBT community.

It’s a good thing my colleagues Michelle Weiser and Maryse Pearce joined me, because there was plenty of work to be done helping people figure out who their legislators were and where their offices were located. To be sure, GLAD staffers weren’t the only ones doing the work. The MassachusettsTransgender Political Coalition did a superb job organizing the event and kept things humming throughout. The folks from MassEquality and the MassachusettsACLU were there, doing their part. All of these organizations -- and many others – are part of the coalition that will be working to pass this bill.

But we can’t do it without the support of the broader community – like all of the great folks who showed up today to drum up support for this bill on Beacon Hill. In the coming months, there will be plenty for all of us to do – sharing our stories about what it means to be transgender or a transgender ally; educating people about what public accommodations are and explaining why transgender people need and deserve these critical protections. What will you do to make sure that transgender people are finally, fully equal under the law?