The Power of Perseverance: a Black Gay Man Reflects on the 50th Anniversary of the March on Washington

David Wilson in front of the
Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial in DC

Fifty years ago I felt like I was living in two countries, two communities, two neighborhoods; among two distinct races and cultures, but in one class of poverty. I was born in an all- black housing project, but my parents thought opportunities would be better in an all-white housing project so we moved from the South End to Roslindale when I was five years old.  My parents, both Pennsylvania transplants, worked as domestics for white families west of Route 128, a secret I held closely because of shame, guilt and pride.

The message to this only child was keep your head down, fit in, get along, study hard, go to college, get a good job, marry, have children and you’ll be equal. During those formative years in this predominantly white environment, I felt pretty equal to my peers, attending school, playing sports, and accepting invitations to hang out with friends after school. We were all poor and living on some form of government assistance.

Our family moved to Dorchester when I was 16 so I could meet other black kids and experience black culture. My mother was hopeful that I’d date black girls and attend church on a more regular basis. For the first time in my life I felt un-equal. The clothes, shoes, music, cars were not the same as in my old neighborhood, and for the first time in my life class differences and cultural differences were very evident. Neighborhood and racial disparities were reflected in our stores, food choices, streets, and city services that I had taken for granted in my old neighborhood but now understood were absent in my black neighborhood.

At the same time, my brothers and sisters south of the Mason-Dixon line not only lived in segregated, marginalized neighborhoods like I did, they suffered under local, state and federal Jim Crow laws that prohibited equal access to housing, employment, education, full citizenship and basic human rights.

Happy Anniversary! 9 Years of Marriage Equality Today

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.

Broadening and Embracing the LGBT Family

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 Windsor case, 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.”

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.

Happy Valentine's Day

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!

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.

Arguing For Respect of Parallel Spousal Statuses

As other states across the country continue to enact civil unions and registered domestic partnerships -- legal statuses for same-sex couples that fall short of full marriage equality -- the question is: what happens when a couple with a civil union or RDP moves to a marriage state like Massachusetts?

GLAD believes Massachusetts should recognize those legal relationships, a position that senior staff attorney Karen Loewy argued persuasively before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court on May 8, in the case A.E.H. v. M.R.

“The point of this case,” Karen explains, “is the respect due to parallel spousal statuses, like registered domestic partnerships or civil unions, which provide all of the state-based protections for spouses. Recognizing the status advances Massachusetts’ commitment to equality and honors the intentions of the parties who entered into the status. Most critically, recognition secures the legal status of children and the protections that come from having two legal parents.”

GLAD is representing A.E.H., who entered into a registered domestic partnership in California with M.R. in 2003. The couple agreed to conceive and co-parent children together, and they later moved from California to the east coast when M.R. was pregnant with their eldest child, J. J was born while the couple lived in Massachusetts, and M.R. and A.E.H. were equal co-parents, acting as a family in every way. A.E.H. conceived their second child, M, and during the pregnancy, M.R. took J to Oregon under false pretenses and severed all contact between J and our client. But the Massachusetts Probate and Family court appropriately recognized both women as legal parents to the children and granted primary physical custody of both children to A.E.H.

M.R. appealed the ruling, and continues to argue that Massachusetts should not recognize their California domestic partnership, and as such she should retain sole custody of the older child she birthed and have no parental responsibility for the younger child that A.E.H. birthed.

The case is another unfortunate illustration of the way in which estranged same-sex partners sometimes attempt to exploit the lack of uniform legal protections – or the lack of any legal protections at all – to gain the upper hand in relationship dissolution and/or custody proceedings. In an effort to stem this tide, GLAD and other LGBT organizations collaborated on Protecting Families: Standards for LGBT Families, a set of guidelines urging parents to play fair and to honor the agreements they make with partners for the good of their children.

Read the standards and pledge to uphold them at www.glad.org/protecting-families.

We expect the SJC to issue its decision in late summer.

A Really Great Dad: Improving Legal Advocacy for Transgender Parents

Editor’s Note: June 1 is the 7^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. Please enjoy our submission by Liz Monnin-Browder, a former GLAD attorney and co-editor of our groundbreaking new publication, Transgender Family Law: A Guide to Effective Advocacy.

It was a prime example of serendipity. A few weeks ago, on the day that I saw the book TransgenderFamily Law: A Guide to Effective Advocacy in print for the first time, I received an email from a soon-to-be new dad who is a transgender man. He emailed to ask me for advice about what he should do to safeguard his parental relationship with his unborn child.

He gave me permission to share part of his email for this blog post:

“I think that the potential exists for my wife’s family to challenge my parentage should anything happen to her. I have found a family law attorney with experience in gay and lesbian law, but, as far as I can tell, I will be her first trans client. I know that you worked on family law cases at GLAD, and I was wondering if you could direct me to any written resources with which I could provide this attorney.”

As a new parent myself (my daughter is 11 months old), I was struck that this soon-to-be new dad not only needed to figure out which brand of car seat to buy and how many diapers to stock up on, but that he also needed to prepare for the arrival of his baby by retaining legal counsel and searching for resources to educate his attorney.

And he is wise to do so. He is married to his wife, and they are bringing this baby into the world together as their child.

But if something happened to his wife, his parentage – the fact that he is this baby’s father – could be challenged. The outcome would depend on the relevant state’s law and the judge’s familiarity with transgender people and respect for the legitimacy of their family.

So he is already being a really great dad by seeking information about what to do now to protect his legal parent-child relationship with his baby, even before the baby’s birth.

This is just one story that illustrates why we need Transgender Family Law: A Guide to Effective Advocacy, the first book to comprehensively address family law issues for transgender people and their families. Each chapter – penned by experts from across the country – covers a different area of family law so transgender people and their attorneys can pick and choose to read the parts that apply to their situation. There are also useful sample documents in the appendix. We intended for it to be a practical, user-friendly resource.  I was so grateful to have this resource to share with the soon-to-be new dad for him to provide to his attorney.

Please join us in spreading the word about this book. We want as many transgender people and as many family law and estate-planning attorneys as possible to know about this resource. We want more families to be able to protect their families without ever having to go to court, and we want more families to achieve positive outcomes in the courts so that we can change the course of bad case law and make more good case law for transgender people and their families. 

I Was Smiling Inside All the Way Home

Editor’s Note: Please enjoy this inspiring guest post from Wayne, the father of Nicole, a transgender teen GLAD is representing in her fight against harassment and bullying in school. They are quickly becoming influential advocates for Maine’s transgender community, and you will understand why after you read this.

Nicole and I had a very special day on Friday, May 13. My wife Kelly and I are so proud of her. Prior to the Joint Standing Judiciary Committee’s vote on LD 1046, a bill to repeal part of the Maine Human Rights Act to prevent transgender people from using appropriate restroom facilities, we were invited to speak to the Democrats on the committee for about 30 minutes before they voted. Nicole did a great job.

When we arrived in Augusta and she saw the capitol building she got very nervous and scared.

“We are going there?” she asked.

I said, “Yes that is where all of the laws are promulgated and passed into law. Don’t worry, I will be with you and just remember to just be yourself and everyone will love you.”

We parked and walked into the lobby to wait for GLAD attorneys Jennifer Levi and Janson Wu and a couple of lobbyists. Nicole went to the restroom while we were waiting and after about 20 minutes I asked Jennifer to check on her. She was in a great deal of pain from a nervous stomach. After another five minutes I went in to tell her we had to go. She came out looking pretty bad; I was ready to pull the plug. She said she still wanted to go, so we went to our meeting.

I started to tell our story and quickly suggested they ask Nicole what she experienced and how she felt. She had the lawmakers’ full attention. She talked about the good times, what it was like to be a young, out transgender child and how it quickly changed. She talked about the bullying and harassment that she has experienced. She talked about why trans kids only want to go to the bathroom and visit with their friends and why it would be so harmful for trans kids if this bill were to pass. She explained that she currently uses the girl’s bathroom and locker room at her current school without any problems. She ended with explaining how hard it was to have to be stealth, to have her dad live in another town, and how difficult it was to understand what adults were so afraid of, when her peers have no problems with trans kids.

What a rewarding experience to see her finally have a voice. As she talked she became more and more confident and I became more and more proud of her. I could not help think that this might help make up for some of the pain and abuse that she has had to endure.

We went to the work session to wait for the committee vote. We were pulled out a number of times to talk to other key leaders. She did a great job every time. At the end of the day, the vote was 8-5 that LD 1046 "ought not to pass." I believe that Nicole helped move votes in our favor.

She told Jennifer that it was one of the best days of her life – she got to miss school, the vote was favorable, and she got a Snickers bar.

We walked out of the capitol building holding hands, and she smiled and said, “Daddy maybe I should be an attorney like Jennifer, or governor to help make sure we help people.”

I smiled and said, “Sweetie, you can do anything you want. You are a special girl and all you have to do is work hard and never give up.” She stopped and said, “I love you Daddy.” I was ready to cry, but I had promised her I would not cry that day.

We got in the car and she immediately fell asleep. I do not think either one of us slept the night before. As we were driving home, I thought maybe what we are going through is meant to be, maybe this experience will provide her with the energy, the resolve and the motivation to do great things. I was smiling inside all the way home. As I started to calm down and reflected on the morning’s events, I reminded myself that Nicole is still a little girl who will have many hopes and dreams and my job is to make sure she has a chance to explore the many options before her. In the end I just want her to be a happy and well-adjusted young adult who has the confidence and basic skills to do whatever she wants to do with her life. As we rolled into into our driveway I felt good, relaxed and hopeful.

School's Right to Teach About Family Diversity Upheld

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit yesterday unanimously affirmed District Court Judge Mark L. Wolf's dismissal of a lawsuit brought by two sets of parents against the Lexington school system. In the suit, parents David and Tonia Parker and Robert and Robin Wirthlin claimed that a Lexington elementary school violated their constitutional rights by exposing their children to books portraying many different kinds of families, including non-judgmental depictions of families headed by same-sex couples.

Judge Sandra Lynch wrote for a unanimous court that the parents who brought the suit have no constitutional "right to be free from any reference in public elementary schools to the existence of families in which parents are of different gender combinations." Her decision further stated, "Given that Massachusetts has recognized gay marriage under its state constitution, it is entirely rational for its schools to educate their students regarding that recognition."

We're delighted that school systems remain free to include age-appropriate material featuring a wide variety of families, including those with two moms and two dads. As a result, gay and lesbian parents and their children can feel safe and supported in their schools, and all children can learn about the true diversity of the society we live in.

Finally - and Forever - a Family

It was an historic day in Maine.

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

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

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

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

See the Press Coverage on this Story:

WMTW.com – Channel 8, Portland (Video)

WCSH6.com – Channel 6, Portland

Portland Press Herald

Who's in a Family?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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."