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.

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.

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.”

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.

Rhode Island’s Marriage Marathon

GLAD Attorney Janson Wu testifying at last night's hearing

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

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

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

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

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

  

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

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

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

For example:

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!

High Passions and Common Ground at the Rhode Island State House

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

Post by GLAD Staff Attorney Janson Wu

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

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

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

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

Making History: Mainers Said Yes to Real Values

 by Carisa Cunningham, GLAD Director of Public Affairs and Education

I'm still carrying my Yes On 1 election night badge with me!

Although I have wandered a few election night ballrooms in my life, I have never been on the inside of a campaign night – watching returns in a boiler room, biting fingernails, eating fried food – until last Tuesday night.

At the Holiday Inn in Portland, I nervously awaited the result of the Maine ballot question on marriage equality with my fellow executive committee members – folks from the ACLU, EqualityMaine and MaineWomen’s Lobby I’ve worked with for years, through good times and bad, to get to this day

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!

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.

Important News for Massachusetts Public Retirees

On November 18, 2011 Governor Deval Patrick signed Chapter 176 of the Acts of 2011, “An Act Providing for Pension Reform and Benefit Modernization.”

One section of this law allows retirees who retired under Chapter 32 of the Massachusetts General Laws on or before May 17, 2004 choosing Option A or B, and then married a person of the same sex on or before May 17, 2005 to change to Option C retroactive to their retirement date. Option C allows for a spouse to continue receiving a monthly retirement income after the retiree dies. This option is also available for the surviving spouse of a retiree provided the conditions above are met. Chapter 32 of the General Laws covers most Massachusetts state, county and municipal employees, including public school teachers.

Although the exact amounts are based on a number of factors including the ages of the retiree and spouse, in general changing from Option A or B to Option C results in about a 9-11% decrease in income for the retiree and if the retiree dies the surviving spouse gets two-thirds of that amount for his/her lifetime. If the spouse predeceases the retiree, then the retiree’s income reverts back to Option A effective the date that the spouse died.

If a retiree or surviving spouse chooses to take advantage of this, there will need to be adjustments to recover the excess income already received (the difference between the Option A or B income and the Option C income, which is approximately 9-11% each year). The law leaves how this will be done to the retirement boards. Also, it is not clear exactly what the IRS tax implications of this change are (since the retiree has already paid the federal tax on the Option A or B amount). We will provide further details as they become available.

The deadline for applying for this change is July 1, 2012. Retirement boards are still developing application forms for this purpose. You may wish to contact your particular retirement board to determine when applications will be available as well as when information will be available about how the adjustments will be made to recover the excess income.

To see the exact language in the law go to:

http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2011/Chapter176 Section 55.

If you have questions, contact GLAD’s Legal Infoline—800-455-GLAD (4523) or www.glad.org/rights/infoline-contact.

Know Your Rights: You Don’t Need to Divorce Where You Married

Now that marriage for same-sex couples has been available for over 7 years and civil unions have been available for over 11 years, the Legal InfoLine is receiving an increasing number of calls from couples who need to end their relationship. Many of the callers think that their only option is to return to the place where they entered into their relationship. Although same-sex couples do not have the same flexibility to end a relationship as different-sex couples, they do not always have to return to the place where they entered into the relationship.

For different-sex married couples, it is usually possible for the couple to divorce where they are currently living regardless of where they originally married. The reason for this is that for the most part, states respect the marriages of different-sex couples regardless of where the couple married. If a place respects the marriage, provided the couple meets the divorce residency requirements in that locale, they will be allowed to divorce where they currently live.

The complication for same-sex couples is that only certain places respect the marriages or civil unions of same-sex couples, and so you need to live in one of those places to be able to dissolve the relationship.

If you have a same-sex marriage, regardless of where you married, you will be able to dissolve it in places where same-sex couples can legally marry (i.e. MA, CT, NH, VT, IA, DC, NY), provided you meet the residency requirements for that place's divorce law. There may also be some additional states that, although they do not allow same-sex couples to marry, do respect the marriages of same-sex couple, at least for the purpose of divorce.

For couples in civil unions, the civil union can be dissolved in any state that had a civil union at some point, even though they may not now offer civil unions (i.e. VT, CT, NH, NJ, RI, IL and, effective January 1, 2012, DE and HI). Also states with domestic partnerships that offer nearly all the benefits of marriage like CA, OR, WA and NV also will likely dissolve a civil union. In addition, even places that offer marriage for same-sex couples may be willing to dissolve civil unions as well, but possibly using a legal procedure different from divorce (e.g. MA has dissolved civil unions under equity law). However, in all of the above, you will most likely still need to satisfy a residency requirement before the state has jurisdiction to dissolve your civil union.

For either ending a marriage or a civil union it only takes one member of the couple to file for the dissolution of the relationship, and so only one member of the couple needs to live in a place that respects the relationship, and only one member of the couple needs to meet the residency requirement for ending the relationship.

Although this seems (and is) rather complex, the bottom line is that if you wish to end either a marriage or a civil union don’t assume that the only way to do it is to return to the place where you entered into it. If you live in one of the New England states, contact GLAD’s Legal InfoLine at 800-455-4523 to find out about your options, and, if you live outside New England, contact Lambda Legal (go to www.lambdalegal.org to see the contact information for their regional offices).

Knowing Your Rights Is the First Step to Being Your Own Advocate For Change

Hana Tauber, Community Engagement Coordinator

In the Public Affairs and Education wing of GLAD we are always so delighted when we can provide information that helps people successfully fight for their rights. Information is power, and it is our job to spread the word in the community about what legal protections exist to protect people no matter what their sexual orientation, HIV status or gender identity might be. As educators and advocates, we are excited when community members take the law under their arm and advocate for themselves.

A week ago we got a call on the InfoLine from a same-sex married couple who were denied spousal health insurance by a Massachusetts public entity. This couple knew that something was wrong.

Our callers made a strong impression on us since they handled the situation with such determination. They remembered all of the names of the people that they spoke to; they were asking clear and directed questions; they had a timeline of events; and they called all ends of the spectrum from the insurance company, to the Massachusetts Attorney General’s office, to GLAD.

We were able to guide them through some steps to challenge the information that they were given. Sometimes simply requesting a denial in writing is enough to cause authorities to take a closer look at their decisions and correct them. Massachusetts authorities realized, a little late, that they cannot deny state, country or municipal employees same-sex spousal health benefits.

When they won health insurance coverage for the spouse, they thanked us by sending a fruit, cracker and cheese basket. This was the first time that we ever received a gift from one of our InfoLine callers, and we were, well, just touched. They wrote to us saying that:

Your team at GLAD talked us through every step of the process to get us to where we needed to be, which was having my employer provide health insurance for my wife in addition to myself. We have never encountered such cooperation and compassion while getting correct information based on the law and our rights as a same-sex married couple with which to combat the inaccurate information being given to me by my employer.

Thank you to this amazing couple, to our volunteers, to our legal team for having our back, and to the community for turning to us for information.

Know Your Rights: Why Can’t I Get My Spouse On My Company’s Health Plan?

Many companies provide health benefits to the spouses of their employees. So, most people assume that if a same-sex couple marries and lives in a place that recognizes the marriage that their spouse will be entitled to the same health benefits that a different-sex spouse is entitled to. Unfortunately, this is not always the case.

The reason is fairly complex, but basically it has to do with whether the company’s health plan is insured (the company pays a premium for each health plan to an insurance company) or the plan is self-insured or self-funded (which means that the company directly pays the health expenses that are incurred under the plan). The only way to tell whether your company’s plan is insured or self-insured is to obtain a copy of the plan or speak to your HR person, because even companies with self-insured plans often hire an insurance company to manage their paperwork.

With insured plans, usually the state’s insurance laws apply to the plan, and so in places that recognize the marriage, the company and health plan are required to treat same-sex spouses the same way they treat different-sex spouses.

Self-insured plans, however, are regulated by a federal agency, ERISA, which sets minimum standards that employers must meet. Because of DOMA, ERISA does not require employers to treat same-sex spouses the same way it does different-sex spouses, and so with self-insured plans employers can legally discriminate against same-sex spouses and not allow them to get on the health plan.

It is important to understand though that ERISA does not PREVENT employers from offering the same benefits to same-sex spouses. If the benefit is denied, it is because the employer is deliberately choosing to discriminate against its same-sex married couples. Also, sometimes even with self-insured plans, the definition of spouse may legally require that same-sex spouses be covered. So if you are denied spousal coverage, call GLAD’s Legal InfoLine. We can arm you with information that may persuade your company to provide coverage.

Even if a same-sex spouse is allowed on the other spouse’s health plan, DOMA steps in with another example of discrimination. Employer benefits to different-sex spouse are tax free, but since the federal government does not recognize the marriages of same-sex couples, any benefit the employer offers to a same-sex spouse gets considered as extra income to the employee (called imputed income) and gets taxed by the federal government. However, in places that recognize the marriage there is no state tax.

If DOMA goes away, both these forms of discrimination would disappear. There is more detailed information about this at www.glad.org. If you have any questions about this blog or any other legal question, contact GLAD’s Legal InfoLine at 800-455-GLAD (4523).

Religion and Equality

We received news this week that our friends at the Religious Coalition for the Freedom to Marry (RCFM) will be closing their doors here in Massachusetts – for the best of reasons. “We’ve accomplished our mission!” said RCFM leader Rabbi Devon Lerner. While marriage equality is secure in Massachusetts, Rabbi Lerner also told us that she recognizes that the work of religious leaders is not done: “We know we have more work to do in our denominations and in our faith communities for GLBT equality, but it will be done through new and different coalitions.”

Our partnerships with religious people over the years have subverted the idea that religion = bigotry, and that the religious right speaks for all people of faith when they denounce gay equality. In our work throughout New England, we’ve seen religious coalitions for equality grow in strength and numbers in Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Maine, and of course here in Massachusetts.

One of the most powerful moments on the June day that our Massachusetts legislature was to vote marriage equality up or down came early in the morning. The Religious Coalition held a rally and prayed at St. Paul's Cathedral, then marched en masse across the Boston Common to the State House. Religious opponents to marriage equality, praying across the street, had to part ways to let the supportive clergy through. It was only one of many times and many ways over the years that RCFM has demonstrated its support for equality, and we are extraordinarily grateful.