The Day DOMA Died

It’s not every day you get to stand at the foot of the marble stairs (quarried from Vermont!) of the U.S. Supreme Court on the day a blockbuster decision related to LGBT rights is handed down. But there I was in the sweltering heat at about 8:00 a.m. yesterday, waiting on two decisions. Though rulings in the Windsor DOMA case and the Perry Prop. 8 case were at least two hours from being handed down, the media was already out in full force, with dozing cameramen seated in folding beach chairs, all shaded by umbrellas. The line of folks hoping to get inside for a front row seat to history was already growing.

GLAD Civil Rights Project Director
Mary L. Bonauto arriving at the Court 

It wasn’t long before I caught up with my colleague Mary Bonauto, who laid so much of the foundation on which the Windsor victory was built, as Justin Peters described so well in this piece on Slate yesterday.  As the sun rose higher over the courthouse, we continually moved around in a mostly useless attempt to keep cool.

 
But soon there was nowhere left to move, as the sidewalk by the court was quickly clogged with LGBT people and allies from around the country, singing and chanting and keeping their hopes high. I was surprised there wasn’t a more visible presence of people who oppose LGBT rights. Maybe they were all in a bunker somewhere, bracing themselves for the end of the world. I did glimpse Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage strolling along the edge of the crowd, where no one seemed to notice him. He was still smiling at that point, but I’m guessing his day went a little south after the big news got out.

Wrapping up the week at the Supreme Court with Mary Bonauto

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 profile that 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. 

No Ordinary Day

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.

Creating "Beloved Community" Outside the Supreme Court

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

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.

Know Your Rights: DOMA and Tax Season

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 some states - 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.

Fearless, Uncompromising and Creative Advocacy

Janson Wu with Sarah Remes at the ACS National Convention

GLAD Staff Attorney Janson Wu was named the 2012 recipient of the American Constitution Society’s David Carliner Public Interest Award, becoming the first LGBT-identified attorney to receive the honor.

The Carliner Award recognizes “outstanding mid-career public interest lawyers whose work best exemplifies its namesake’s legacy of fearless, uncompromising and creative advocacy on behalf of marginalized people.”

In her presentation of the award  at the ACS National Convention in Washington, D.C. last Saturday, David Carliner's granddaughter Sarah Remes pointed out the many parallels between Janson's work and that of her grandfather:

 Mr. Wu has been a powerful advocate for marriage equality. He led the legislative effort to secure marriage equality in New Hampshire at a time when others believed such a thing was impossible.

In his recommendation, Bishop Gene Robinson wrote, "I now have a husband, not just a 'friend' or partner, because of Janson Wu's efforts in our midst."

Mr. Wu has taken the fight into the courts, where he is a lead member of the team challenging the Defense of Marriage Act. He and his team recently achieved an enormous victory when the First Circuit became the first circuit court to rule that DOMA is unconstitutional.  It is appropriate that Mr. Wu is honored with this award in the name of the person who brought the first interracial marriage case to the Supreme Court in 1956.
 

Mr. Wu has been a leader for transgender rights. While working on the marriage equality bill in New Hampshire, he insisted that his coalition include the struggles of transgender people.  He led a litigation effort against Denny's in Maine, after the restaurant refused to allow a transgender customer to use the appropriate restroom. Not only did Mr. Wu secure a settlement for his client, but Denny's changed its policies to be welcoming and respectful of all transgender customers.

Mr. Wu also was a key member of a Maine coalition that protected transgender rights against a right-wing attempt to cut them from an anti-discrimination bill. He is the co-author of a chapter in a recently published book, Transgender Family Law: A Guide to EffectiveAdvocacy.

In 1965, my grandfather won the right of gay employees to work for the federal government, and Mr. Wu's work follows in those footsteps.

“I’m humbled to receive this award for doing work that I love, particularly fighting for transgender rights and marriage equality,” Janson says.  “I hope to honor David Carliner’s amazing legacy by fighting for the most disadvantaged and unpopular in our communities, because it’s the right thing to do.”

All of us here at GLAD congratulate Janson on this well-deserved recognition!

Gill Decision Day: Behind the Scenes, in the Headlines

 GLAD staff around the conference table during a press call
on the Gill v. OPM appeals court decision

Yesterday’s ruling in favor of the plaintiffs in our Gill DOMA lawsuit made for a crazy (in a good way) day. We weren’t exactly expecting a decision so soon, given that the First Circuit Court of Appeals had just heard the case on April 4. So there was a moment of panic among the non-lawyers in the office when we learned at about 9:58 a.m. that the decision was coming at 10:00, since we hadn’t yet finalized our Decision Day Plan – the magic document that keeps each of us from killing each other on task when a big ruling comes down. About 30 seconds later someone was shouting “We won!” from somewhere in the office and panic gave way, briefly, to joy. Then the phones started ringing. We decided to test run the Decision Day Plan from Pedersen -- our other pending DOMA lawsuit -- which has been done for months now. You gotta work with what you have.

Two hours later, after the decision had been thoroughly reviewed, plaintiffs conferenced with, and media advisories, press releases and emails drafted and sent, our entire staff calmly crowded into our conference room for a quickly organized tele-press conference. We were lucky on such short notice to have plaintiff couples Jonathan Knight and Marlin Nabors, and Bette Jo Green and Jo Ann Whitehead join the call. They were on the line with Mary Bonauto, who dialed in from her Maine office, and more than 40 reporters.

Mary gave some brief background on the lawsuit, then some analysis of the decision and where things might go from here (like the U.S. Supreme Court!). True to her give-them-all-the-facts-first style, Mary forgot to mention one important thing before she turned things over to our legal director, Gary Buseck, who promptly stated the obvious:

“We’re very happy with this result. I think it’s what we’ve worked a lot of years for and believe it’s the correct decision.”

“Yes. I agree. I’m happy,” Mary chimed in to laughter from reporters and co-workers. “I’m just overwhelmed trying to make sure I get a handle on the decision here.”

Since that’s her job, she was easily forgiven. But all our plaintiffs really needed to know was the “we won” part, and they spoke movingly about what the decision meant to them -- particularly Jonathan, a soft-spoken guy who typically leaves most of the commentary to his husband Marlin.

“Marlin and I have been together for seven years and married for five, and we do our very best to live our lives together in truth and authenticity,” he said in his deliberate, thoughtful manner. “We know that our relationship is full of the same kind of hopes, struggles and dynamics as all other married couples. So we’re thrilled to learn the law’s on the same page now and that we fall into the same class as everyone else. We’re no longer second class citizens.” If it wasn’t for the 40+ members of the media on the phone, I’m pretty sure we all would have jumped up and cheered Jonathan’s perfectly eloquent analysis.

In my mind, there’s not much else to say about this case. That doesn’t mean we don’t appreciate all of the media coverage of the decision, which gives us an important opportunity to amplify voices like Jonathan’s to educate the public about what we’re fighting for

Here’s a quick round-up of some of the more insightful and in-depth coverage:

Richard Socarides, an openly gay man who worked in the Clinton Administration, calls the Gill decision “a blockbuster ruling” in a blog post for the The New Yorker. It makes me giddy!

The Boston Globe was the first outlet we saw to get comment from attorney Paul Clement, who argued the losing side in Gill. Clement said his team hasn’t decided whether to appeal, but he added, “We have always been clear we expect this matter ultimately to be decided by the Supreme Court, and that has not changed.” Bring it!

New York Times reporters Katharine Seelye and Ethan Bronner did an excellent analysis of the decision and its impact on the LGBT movement and Gill’s potential for victory at the Supreme Court, in the likely event it lands there.

Metroweekly’s Chris Geidner also did a great analysis of the decision, observing that its narrowness offers “a roadmap” for Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, whom many have pegged as the swing vote on any DOMA or marriage case that makes it to the High Court.

The Washington Post’s Joe Davidson interviewed our plaintiffs Al Koski and Jim Fitzgerald for his Federal Diary column examining the role federal employees are playing in the fight against DOMA. “Equal rights is all this is about,” Davidson writes. Indeed, it’s that simple.

The Post also did a more thorough analysis of the decision, with comment from Dale Schowengerdt, an attorney at the anti-LGBT legal organization Alliance Defense Fund. “Under this rationale, if just one state decided to accept polygamy, the federal government and perhaps other states would be forced to accept it, too,” he said. Yawn.

Federal Court to Hear First Appellate Arguments Challenging DOMA Wednesday

Attorney Mary L. Bonauto talks with reporters following District Court arguments in
GLAD's case Gill v. OPM in May 2010. District Court Judge Joseph L. Tauro ruled
Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional in July 2010.

For the first time this Wednesday, a Federal Appeals Court will hear arguments about the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Seven married same-sex couples and three widowers, plaintiffs in GLAD’s case Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, will go to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit to hear appellate arguments in their challenge to the law, which prevents them from accessing federal spousal protections as other married couples can.

GLAD Civil Rights Project Director Mary L. Bonauto will be arguing on behalf of the plaintiffs before a three-member Court of Appeals panel comprised of Chief Judge Sandra Lynch, Judge Michael Boudin and Judge Juan Torruella.

In a July 2010 ruling in Gill - the first strategic, multi-plaintiff challenge to DOMA - District Court Judge Joseph L. Tauro ruled Section 3 of the federal law unconstitutional. Republican leadership in Congress intervened to appeal that ruling, after President Obama declared he would no longer defend DOMA.

We will be posting updates on the hearing throughout the day on Twitter and Facebook, and will provide a complete wrap up – including a link to audio from the argument provided by the court – here and at www.glad.org after the hearing concludes.

For more information about the case and the plaintiffs, visit www.glad.org/DOMA

Associated Press: Battle over federal Defense of Marriage Act heads to appeals court in Mass.

Metro Weekly: Stage Is Set for April 4th Arguments in First Circuit DOMA Challenge Appeal

Hearing Details
Gill et al. v. Office of Personnel Management et al.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
10:00 a.m. EST
John Joseph Moakley U.S. Courthouse, Boston

The Gill legal team is led by Bonauto and GLAD Legal Director Gary Buseck, with staff attorneys Vickie Henry and Janson Wu. Co-operating counsel on the case include Foley Hoag LLP (Boston), Sullivan & Worcester LLP (Boston), Jenner & Block LLP (Washington, DC) and Kator, Parks & Weiser, PLLC (Washington, DC).

Ask the InfoLine: Tax Time, Married Same-Sex Couples & DOMA

It’s tax time, and for married same-sex couples the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) can cause a number of problems. The first involves just filing your taxes. Because the federal government does not respect your marriage, you must file two separate returns using “Single” as your filing status. We encourage couples to in some way indicate on their return that they are in fact in a same-sex marriage so that there is no question about their relationship status if the tax return is used for some other purpose, like applying for a mortgage.

If you live in a place that recognizes your marriage, then in most cases (you should verify this for your place of residence) you MUST file as married, either as married filing jointly or married filing separately (which is different from the “Single” filing status). However, since state tax forms require that you bring over information from your federal form, you will need to create a “dummy” federal tax form as married that you use to bring over your figures onto the state form. The “dummy” federal form never gets filed anywhere—it is just used to create your married state form. For more detailed information about this see GLAD’s publication, Navigating Income Taxes for Married Same-Sex Couples.

The second issue that some married same-sex couples face, is that IF they could file as married they would pay less federal taxes than the current requirement of filing two “Single” returns. When GLAD wins one of its DOMA lawsuits, same-sex married couples should be able to file as married from that point on, but is there anything that can be done to get back some of the taxes that have already been paid out? Possibly.

Generally speaking, the IRS allows you to file an amended return up to three years from the date you filed your return. So if that time period has not expired, you can go back and file an amended return as married. Of course, that return should be denied because of DOMA, but you can keep appealing the IRS decision administratively until they will finally give you a “right to sue” letter in federal court. The idea is to keep your appeal going for as long as possible hoping that we will defeat DOMA while your appeal is still active. So you would want to stretch out each time limit as much as possible but still make sure that you take that step within the allowable timeframe. There is much more detailed information about this in our publication, Tax Time and Preserving Your Federal Rights.

If you have questions about any of this, the best place to go is GLAD’s Legal InfoLine at 800-455-GLAD (4523) or www.glad.org/rights/infoline-contact.

Same-Sex Bi-National Couples: Joy Turns to Sorrow

From the Legal InfoLine

There have been some very confusing developments concerning same-sex bi-national couples during the past few days. It all started with a couple of deportation cases being put on hold because the couple was married, and the US citizen had applied for permanent residency for the foreign national spouse. These isolated cases then resulted in a statement from immigration officials that all green card applications of same-sex married couples would be held in abeyance. Because of President Obama’s statement that he feels DOMA is unconstitutional, there was hope in the LGBT community that the applications would be held in abeyance until there was a final determination as to whether DOMA was constitutional.

These developments sent shock waves of joy through the same-sex bi-national community. However, yesterday immigration officials made it clear that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is still being enforced and that any green card applications from married same-sex bi-national couples will be denied and not held in abeyance.

The Legal InfoLine gets many calls from bi-national couples who are desperate to find a way to stay together after the foreign national’s visa expires. And so the hope that was raised and then dashed is particularly painful. The unfortunate reality continues to be that a US citizen who is in love with a foreign national of the same sex, in most cases has no ability to improve the foreign national’s immigration status, and celebrating their love for each other by getting married can have negative consequences for the foreign national spouse.

Although immigration officials will not officially recognize a same-sex married couple, if they learn that the couple is married and the foreign national spouse has a short-term visa, they may use the marriage to deny that spouse entry into the US or deport the person if they are in the US. The reason for this is that they may interpret the fact that the foreign national is permanently attached to a US citizen as an indication that the person may overstay their visa date. For more information on why getting married poses risks, see our GLAD publication about this.

GLAD strongly recommends any same-sex bi-national couple who wants to marry or wants to deal with an immigration issue contact an immigration attorney who is experienced in LGBT issues BEFORE taking any action. The events of the last few days show that relying on what is being said in the media or what comes up on a Google search may prove to be inaccurate. Immigration is a high stakes issue, and you want to make sure that you have accurate advice before you take any action. GLAD can provide referrals to experienced immigration attorneys in the six New England states by calling our Legal InfoLine at 800-455-GLAD (4523).

Reality Check: The Big Lie About Catholic Charities, Adoption and Marriage Equality

Last month’s marriage equality hearing in Rhode Island left me feeling a little like Congressman Joe “You Lie!” Wilson. Wilson, you’ll recall, shouted his infamous exclamation at President Obama after the president stated in a speech to Congress that his health care legislation would not provide free health coverage for illegal immigrants, despite what vocal opponents of the healthcare bill were saying. As I watched Austin Nimocks of the anti-gay Alliance Defense Fund testify without blinking that marriage equality in Massachusetts “forced” Catholic Charities of Boston out of the adoption business, it was all I could do not to let loose a “You Lie!” right there in the marbled halls of the Rhode Island State House. Okay, I might have said something to that effect in a rather loud stage whisper, right before tweeting Nimocks’ comment with a terse analysis (“LIE!”) to our roughly 3500 Twitter followers. But the big difference between me and Joe Wilson is that my “You Lie!” moment was justified. Nimocks, unlike President Obama, was indeed lying. And no amount of truthiness on his part can change that fact.

It’s true that professional right-wingers have been spreading lies about gay people since Anita Bryant in the 1970s accused gay people of recruiting America’s children “to freshen their ranks” because they couldn’t have kids of their own. And if the LGBT community spent all of its time debunking their whoppers, we wouldn’t have much time to work on more important things, like passing marriage equality legislation.

So why is exposing this particular lie important? First of all because Rhode Island is one of the most Catholic states in the country, and the Catholic Church is lobbying hard against marriage equality legislation there. Their efforts seem to be having an impact, as the Providence Phoenix recently reported.

Secondly, since the Rhode Island Senate Judiciary Committee is set to hear testimony on marriage equality legislation today, senators are likely to hear the Catholic Charities lie over and over again, among other specious arguments about how allowing same-sex couples in the Ocean State access to civil marriage will destroy religious freedom.

Lastly, this is an issue I followed closely not for just professional reasons – I was on staff at the LGBT newspaper Bay Windows when the saga unfolded – but deeply personal ones. I and my four siblings were all adopted through Catholic Charities, so I know firsthand the immeasurable value of their good work. In 2006 I wrote an essay about my own experience and the impact of the agency’s decision to quit the adoption business.

So here’s a little reality check. Catholic Charities of Boston was not forced out of the adoption business because of marriage equality in Massachusetts. The organization voluntarily ceased doing adoptions after the state’s four Catholic Bishops got wind that gay parents had been adopting kids through Catholic Charities from an October 2005 Boston Globe story. Not surprisingly, all of this happened as the Massachusetts Legislature was wrestling with whether to put an anti-gay marriage amendment on the statewide ballot, which the local Catholic hierarchy supported wholeheartedly.

The Globe reported that over the course of about two decades, Catholic Charities placed 13 children with gay parents, out of about 720 adoptions they facilitated during those years. For the record, those 13 children were considered hard to place with adoptive parents because they were older or had physical or emotional difficulties, meaning had they not found loving parents who happened to be gay, they’d likely not have parents. Catholic Charities was accepting state funds to provide adoption services and was thus bound by the state’s gay-inclusive anti-discrimination law not to reject qualified adoptive parents based on sexual orientation. Oh, and by the way, the non-discrimination law has been on the books since 1989 -- long before marriage equality was but a doodle on Mary Bonauto’s legal pad.

The Globe also reported that though Catholic Charities President Bryan Hehir didn’t love the idea of placing children with same-sex couples, he saw it as “a legal accommodation in the name of a greater social good.” The story later states that, “Hehir said that to his knowledge, his agency has never sought an exemption from the nondiscrimination language.”

At least not until the four bishops, led by Cardinal Sean O’Malley of Boston, decided that Catholic Charities should be exempt from the state’s non-discrimination law, a move that was detailed in a March 11, 2006 Globe article about Catholic Charities decision to stop doing adoptions. When that proved to be a non-starter on Beacon Hill, the bishops simply elected to shut down Catholic Charities of Boston’s adoption services – despite a unanimous vote by the agency’s 42-member board to continue facilitating adoptions by gay people. As the Globe reported on March 11, Hehir and Catholic Charities board president Jeffrey Kaneb said the decision stemmed from their inability “to reconcile church teaching that placement of children in gay homes is “immoral” with Massachusetts law prohibiting discrimination against gays.” No mention of marriage equality as the reason for the policy change. In fact, nowhere in the entirety of the joint statement they released at the time do Hehir and Kaneb say same-sex marriage played a role in the decision to terminate adoption services. Because it didn’t.

In reality, it was just garden variety anti-gay bigotry on the part of four Catholic bishops that killed Catholic Charities of Boston adoption services. Who knew?

Know Your Rights: What is ‘heightened scrutiny’ and why is it important?

Courts have found that laws that discriminate against certain groups of people are more likely to reflect prejudice against that group than they are good public policy. Rather than being assumed to be constitutional, such laws need to be justified with exceptionally good reasons. This is called “heightened scrutiny” and has, for example, been used in cases where a racial group is being discriminated against.

GLAD has consistently argued in the courts that sexual orientation deserves “heightened scrutiny.” So it was an enormous breakthrough last week when the President and the Department of Justice (DOJ) agreed with GLAD on that point- and because of that also agreed that DOMA is unconstitutional.

This is only the opinion of the President and the DOJ, and what ultimately matters is how the courts view things. GLAD’s two DOMA cases, Gill and Pedersen, will continue, and we will have to wait to see how the courts rule on the issue of heightened scrutiny, and on DOMA’s constitutionality. If GLAD can convince the courts to accept heightened scrutiny as the proper standard of review, this would impact not only GLAD’s DOMA suits, but any suits that come before those courts which involve sexual orientation.

On the other hand, under the usual review standard that courts use, ”rational basis,” a law is presumed to be constitutional and, in order to demonstrate that, any valid reason (other than a discriminatory one) will do. It is certainly possible to win cases under the rational basis standard. GLAD’s Massachusetts marriage case, Goodridge, was decided on that basis, and U.S. District Court Judge Joseph L. Tauro concluded that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional under rational basis, in GLAD’s Gill case now on appeal in the First Circuit. But heightened scrutiny review greatly increases the chances that a law will be found unconstitutional.

Until there is a final decision by the courts, DOMA remains the law of the land and is being enforced by the federal government. GLAD has prepared a helpful FAQ about what last week’s decision by the DOJ means. Take a look, and contact GLAD’s Legal InfoLine at 800-455-GLAD (4523) with your questions.

Something on Which GLAD & NOM Agree! Courts Have a Role to Play in the Real World

On the heels of the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) announcement last week that it would no longer defend DOMA against legal challenges by GLAD and other organizations, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) issued an action alert urging members to immediately call their congressional reps to demand they defend the odious law.

“It’s a constitutional outrage,” NOM President Brian Brown wrote in the alert. “Why do we even have courts if the President himself gets to decide which laws are constitutional?” (Emphasis added).

Interesting question from an organization that seems to believe that the only reason courts exist is to give “activist judges” a place to while away their weekday afternoons. Google “National Organization for Marriage” and “activist judges” and 71,800 hits later, you’ll get the picture. Nowhere was NOM’s disdain for the judiciary more apparent than in their successful multi-million dollar effort to oust three of the Iowa Supreme Court justices who ruled in favor of same-sex couples who sought access to civil marriage rights in that state – complete with a campaign ad that begins, “Activist judges on the Iowa Supreme Court have become political, ignoring the will of the voters.”

And that’s really what it comes down to for NOM – judges that don’t rule their way are activist, and the people should always be able to vote on whether same-sex couples should be able to access the institution of civil marriage. Occasionally they toss their talking points when it suits their ends, like when it’s time to rally their supporters to cajole Congress into taking on the DOMA defense. But it’s telling that while Brown was slamming Obama’s decision to stop defending DOMA in an email to his constituency, NOM board chair Maggie Gallagher was on Fox News saying that Obama’s decision would be beneficial because the president “wasn’t really defending this law at all -- his justice department was trying to throw this case.”