Transgender Pride

View more photos

Nearly 800 proud, visible transgender marchers took to the streets of Northampton last Saturday, June 7. What a fantastic day it was and how delighted I was to have been a part of it.

When I drove through Northampton around 11:30 that morning, I was not confident that the first New England Transgender Pride March would be a success. While it was a busy day in the downtown area, I did not see much of a crowd either lining the streets getting ready to watch a march or heading to Bridge Street School where the march was to begin. In fact, I decided that there was no rush for me to get my family to the assembly point in time to march, guessing that the organizers would have to start late in order to get an adequate mass assembled before taking to the streets.

As a result, it was probably around noon (the time that the march was scheduled to begin) when my family and I got a ride across town to where the march was to begin. So, given my complacency (and just a bit of pessimism), imagine my surprise when we drove under the train bridge only to see hundreds of beautiful trans marchers heading directly toward us and a police car with flashing lights ordering us to pull over so the march could begin. We quickly pulled over, jumped out of the car, and joined the marchers just as we saw the GLAD contingent heading toward us (following closely behind the march organizers and the very vocal Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition).

Whatever crowds had been lacking when I scanned downtown earlier that morning had assembled by the time the march made its way to the area. People were chanting (“What do we want? Trans Rights. When do we want them? Now”). And the crowds cheered and clapped as we made our way to the rally. My kids were too excited to be part of the march to be willing at any point to step out to watch the marchers who had assembled behind us. So I had no idea of its magnitude until we finally got to the rally space at the end. I never heard any official tallies but was unsurprised to hear credible reports of between 800 and 1,000 people being part of the march and rally.

Of course, for me, it wasn’t so much the numbers that mattered as the incredible range of identities (and bodies) I saw participating in the event. What struck me throughout the day was how few opportunities there are to be in a space where trans identity is the norm and where something more conventional is aberrational. For me, it was a day of feeling at home.

One of the more clever ideas of the march organizers was making available nametags for rally participants that had a blank for “name” and “I identify as.” Lots of people put “male,” “female,” “boi,” “girl,” or “trans.” Pronoun designations ranged from “he/his,” “she/her,” to “ze,” “hir,” and “you pick it.” Some of the more creative entries for identity included, “me,” “human,” “here,” and “person.” The feeling of freedom was palpable; the celebration was intense.

The day was a scorcher and everyone was happy for the bottles of water freely available through the duration of the rally. GLAD had a table not far from the speakers and stage seating and from where I could see everything. There was little coverage, though, from the sun so I spent a fair bit of time huddled in the shade behind GLAD’s table. But the heat of the day seemed to wither noone’s spirits or enthusiasm for the event. The nearly 5 hour rally was a great opportunity to talk to people about GLAD’s newly launched Transgender Rights Project as well as a chance to hear more about the injustices many of us face in our daily lives.

Unsurprisingly, I heard from a lot of people who have been plagued by the challenges of getting gender markers on identity documents that reflect their lived gender identities. More than a few people shared their experience of being denied insurance coverage for medically necessary surgery or hormone therapy, some foregoing essential procedures and others emptying savings accounts in order to get the care and treatment they need and deserve. A couple of people spoke of the challenges they faced as parents defending their relationships with their kids in the face of a legal system rife with bias and prejudice against anyone who doesn’t fit the stereotype of what a “real woman” or “real man” should look or act like.

I was reminded of why GLAD believes it is essential at this moment in time to launch a Transgender Rights Project. So few laws exist that clearly protect our community and so many of us face daily legal obstacles to living our lives with dignity and in safety.

I wanted to round out this blog with two personal stories that were highlights of my day. At the GLAD cocktail reception, I was delighted to meet up with a trans woman (forgive me if that’s not quite an accurate description of your identity) who I first met nearly fifteen years ago. Danielle (not her real name) and I first met at a Sunshine Club barbecue in Western Massachusetts where she and I bonded over neither easily fitting in the gender typical community nor easily fitting in the trans community into which she and I had both just recently found our way. A lot of our trans brothers and sisters at the barbecue were mad that she unapologetically wore her hair butch short, rode a motorcycle, and retained the physique of (for lack of better description) a male body builder. I thought she looked great (still do). But more than that, I was grateful to find someone within the trans community who comfortably exploded so many myths about gender. I was thrilled to learn that she continues to live her truth with all the challenges (and comfort as well) that brings to her.

The other highlight of my day was finally meeting Imani Henry. Imani is a performance artist, trans activist, and all around fantastic guy. I have been a fan of him and his work for many years. He and I have corresponded about a number of issues, political and legal, that have come up in the community throughout the last 12 years or so. We have not, however, ever formally met. We finally did last Saturday. We were both happy to finally be in the same room and have the chance to talk in person. Probably the funniest part of that meeting was his learning that I am not someone who identifies from an MTF-perspective but rather from an FTM one. I suspect it was my name in combination with my trans identity (but no visual context) that supported his assumption. He didn’t come quite out with it, but I knew from his energetic laugh and delight at the discovery of my actual identity that he and I (and likely everyone in the room) still hold onto prejudgments and expectations based on gender categories despite all our work and best efforts. We laughed for a while before putting our heads together again to figure out how best to continue to challenge gender stereotypes.

Jennifer Levi
Director, GLAD Transgender Rights Project

The Sky Isn't Falling, Says Post

Another excellent point in today's Washington Post:

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

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

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

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

Trouble with Civil Unions

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

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

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

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

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

Maine Pride

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

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

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

Loving Equality

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

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

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

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

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

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

We couldn't agree more.

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

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

Fighting for Dignity and Respect

Take a look at more photos from the day

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

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

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

12:59

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

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

12:55

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

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

12:43

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

The Justices didn't question her.

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

12:40

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

12:40

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

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

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

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

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

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

12:20

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

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

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

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

12:00

The Justices adjourned for their morning recess.

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

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

11:50

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

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

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

11:35

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

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

11:00

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

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

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

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

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

10:40

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

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

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

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

10:24

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

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

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