Ask the InfoLine: LGBTQ and HIV/AIDS Resources for You

Thanks to the work of two of our interns, Richard Luedeman and Allister Chang, GLAD now has a Resource List for each of the six New England states. You can either access the list online (see individual links below) or we can mail you your state’s Resource List in printed form- just contact GLAD’s Legal InfoLine.

Wherever possible we have included “umbrella” organizations that maintain lists of other local organizations that provide services in the area. For example, in some states there is a statewide HIV/AIDS organization that has a list of other local HIV/AIDS service providers. These “umbrella” organizations should have more up-to-date lists as changes occur.

We hope that you find these useful. We welcome suggestions of other agencies to include and would appreciate receiving any corrections or updates that need to be made. Changes, suggestions and comments can be sent to us here.

In addition to these Resource Lists, GLAD has a large number of publications on the various legal issues that affect the LGBT and HIV+ communities in the six New England states. Just contact the Legal InfoLine, and an experienced volunteer can guide you to the publication(s) that provide the information you need.

New England LGBTQ and HIV/AIDS Resources by State

Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont

A Moment of Celebration in Connecticut

Jennifer Levi with CT Rep Gary Holder-Winfield,
a vocal supporter of the transgender non-discrimination bill

Post by Jennifer Levi, GLAD Transgender Rights Project Director

Elated.

I don’t know how else to describe how I felt. Last night, after five-and-a-half excruciating hours of hearing the Connecticut House of Representatives debate the value of transgender people’s lives and whether we are worthy of the law’s protections, the chamber voted on HB 6599, a transgender non-discrimination bill. I ran upstairs to the viewing gallery to try to count votes being cast and projected up on the board. I knew we had to get to 76.

About three hours earlier, we had narrowly defeated a bathroom amendment that would have carved out exclusion from the law’s protection for transgender people in bathrooms (Don’t they know we have to go, too?). That vote was 62-65. We needed more than 65 to get this bill passed. Way more. Eleven doesn’t mean much in cents, but it’s a big lift, a huge lift, in votes. I didn’t know how many we’d get on the bill, now up for a vote. I started to count.

There had been a huge volume of floor speeches in opposition to the bill over the last five-plus hours. Frankly, it made me slightly nauseous to hear so many legislators speak so candidly about their discomfort with the bill and transgender people. For six years, the community has been working on this bill, bravely speaking openly about our lives and trying to educate anyone willing to listen.

Finally, the speeches in support of the bill came. Representative Richard Roy of Milford spoke. I wasn’t sure as he began whether he was speaking in support or in opposition to the bill. Suddenly, I heard these moving words about an experience in his family of a cousin who had recently transitioned from male to female. He talked about the compassion he had for someone he loved whose experience he may not have understood but for whom his love and admiration had remained steadfast. He said he had to support the bill. That he’d be a hypocrite if he voted in opposition knowing how brave and courageous this family member had been sharing her experience of transition in an exchange of Christmas cards. I dared to be slightly hopeful about the prospects of passage.

Then Representative Kim Fawcett began to speak. She is a Democrat but had not been a supporter of marriage equality. The issues are, obviously, very different but it has become hard to imagine that legislators who are not yet there on LGB equality issues could support trans rights. Representative Fawcett is a member of an evangelical church. She said that her remarks would be framed by her perspective – WWJD. WWJD? I wondered what she meant by that. She explained that she is guided by the question, What Would Jesus Do? Quickly, she answered – guided by this frame, she strongly supported the bill.

It was late. I had been sitting on a bench outside of the House chamber, passing notes to legislative aides, speaking to government officials, lobbyists, and supporters since arriving at the State House at 1:30 that afternoon. It was close to 11 p.m. I needed a cookie. I told one of our lobbyists, Betty Gallo (who had let me pick the chicken off her cobb salad for my dinner), that I was going to go to the vending machine for a cookie. I was reachable by text, by phone, by a shout down the halls. She said, “No, don’t go.” The majority leader was speaking in support of the bill. Nobody typically speaks after that and the vote would be called. I thought maybe I could still get to the vending machine and back in time.

Then, I heard the bell sound for a vote. I raced upstairs to the gallery so I could see the board, see the representatives casting their votes. I tried to count green dots and red dots but got lost among them. Then I heard the clerk announce the final tally. Seventy-seven in favor. Sixty-two opposed. I could hardly let myself believe it. For the first time since it was introduced six years ago, we had moved the bill through the House.

Much work remains. That I knew (and still know). We’ve still got to get it through the Senate and then, of course, secure Gov. Dan Malloy’s signature (he has, though, been a terrific champion on this one). Today I woke up to the education, advocacy, and hard work still needed to make this bill law. But last night, just for a little bit, at least on the half-hour drive home from Hartford to my house in Western Massachusetts, I did a teeny bit of celebrating. Hooray.

My Afternoon on the Hot Seat, and Other Adventures in Transgender Advocacy

On Monday, I testified before the Connecticut Legislature’s Judiciary Committee in favor H.B. 6599, “An Act Concerning Discrimination,” which would add the phrase gender identity and expression in Connecticut’s non-discrimination laws. My prepared testimony was just about two minutes, but I spent the next hour on the hot seat, fielding questions from committee members about the bill and how, when adopted as law, it would be enforced. That is as it should be. It’s important to let those who are just learning about transgender people’s lives ask of all their questions and have them answered in a reasoned, thoughtful way.

I got lots and lots of questions about bathroom use by transgender people, which is no surprise since our opponents know that the more people talk about bathrooms the more generally insecure and scared people feel about supporting transgender non-discrimination laws. From Maine to Massachusetts to Connecticut and beyond, opponents of transgender equality have tried to derail progress and undermine legislative advances by speciously asserting that trans-inclusive civil rights laws will lead to gender-neutral bathrooms and/or create a rash of sexual predators in women’s bathrooms, including in radio and TV ads that have been effective in peeling away our support. Many lawmakers have become preoccupied with this misinformation even though more than 100 trans-inclusive non-discrimination laws and ordinances have been successfully implemented nationwide with no reported incidents of these alleged problems. And, as I explained at the hearing on Monday, the reality is that transgender people have to and do use bathrooms, often using the restroom that is consistent with our gender identity or expression regardless of our physiology or assigned birth sex.

Interestingly, though, for the first time at a public hearing, I also got questions about what happens when a masculine appearing woman (whether trans or not) uses the women’s room and other women complain to management or confront the individual telling her to leave. This was an easy question to answer because of it being so personal – I experience other women’s discomfort with me using women’s restrooms on a near daily basis. The reality is that when that happens, the person who is the object of other people’s uneasiness (often, me) has to stick up for herself and assert that she is in the right place and, because the law protects her right to be in that space regardless of other people’s derision and discomfort, the uncomfortable party often backs down. They don’t require the gender nonconforming person to physically prove or present identification backing up her asserted gender. Rather, they get a needed education about the fact of gender diversity that hopefully makes it so the next gender non-conforming woman they encounter in the restroom doesn’t have to face the hostility the first one did.

That’s how civil rights and non-discrimination laws work. They don’t make bias and prejudice go away immediately, but they definitely provide important legal protections for marginalized and discriminated people and groups. Hopefully, over time they also change hearts and minds by shifting the burden on others to explain why we shouldn’t be in public spaces -- or employed, or housed, or educated, etc. -- rather than on us to explain why we should. As I told the Judiciary Committee, other people may be made uncomfortable by [an] individual’s expression and that transgender person’s presence in their life but it’s just that kind of discomfort that I would say non-discrimination laws are intended to address and will diminish over time as transgender people just gain more visibility and more presence and more protections in our laws.

At the end of it all – the hearing actually lasted well over 11 hours – I think that proponents of H.B. 6599 made a compelling case of the passage of this bill. Our partners at ctEquality did a fantastic job of filling the room with supporters and lining up compelling testimony from trans men and women, parents of transgender youth, and a host of strong allies. I’m feeling optimistic about the passage of this bill this year, and, anyone who knows me well can attest to the rarity of such optimism.

As Director of GLAD’s Transgender Rights Project, I’ll be talking more about our work on H.B. 6599 and our entire docket of trans legal advocacy at an event next Wednesday called GLADHour. It’s an after-work happy hour at the Boston eatery Lir, so I promise not to cut into the fun by talking too long. But you’ll hear about the latest promising developments in Freeman v. Denny’s, a case in which we’re fighting for a Maine transwoman to have proper restroom access in a local restaurant, and our efforts to defeat a discriminatory bill – filed in response to Freeman – that would limit public restroom access for transgender people. The Transgender Rights Project is doing lots of other exciting and groundbreaking work. I hope you’ll show up to hear all about it. See you next Wednesday!

Jennifer Levi
Director, Transgender Rights Project

Photo by Glenn Koetzner for The Rainbow Times. See more photos.

Civil Unions are Inadequate

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

What do you think?

Marriage Equality Press Conference

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

Equal Marriage in the News

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

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

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

Fighting for Dignity and Respect

Take a look at more photos from the day

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

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

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

12:59

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

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

12:55

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

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

12:43

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

The Justices didn't question her.

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

12:40

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

12:40

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

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

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

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

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

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

12:20

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

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

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

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

12:00

The Justices adjourned for their morning recess.

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

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

11:50

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

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

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

11:35

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

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

11:00

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

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

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

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

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

10:40

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

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

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

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

10:24

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

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

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

Connecticut Supreme Court: 9:46 AM

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

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

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

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