Policy and Legal Update - March 17-24, 2014
Policy & Legal Updates
March 17 – 23, 2014NATIONAL MAP
NATIONAL POLLS
STATE POLLS
- PENNSYLVANIA • On 3 March 2014, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,405 registered PA voters regarding same-gender civil marriage, and reported that 57% support it, 37% oppose it, and 6% don’t know or don’t answer. • MEUSA Summary • News Source
NATIONAL LEGISLATION PENDING
- On 26 April 2013, U.S. Representative Aaron Schock (R-IL) introduced the Equitable Access to Care and Health Act (HR-1814), which would excuse a citizen from the federal law requiring the purchase of health insurance whenever that citizen claims a religious belief, and on 6 May 2013, U.S. Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) introduced the Senate version (S. 862). On 11 March 2014, the U.S. House of Representatives skipped Committee review, and passed HR-1814 on a voice-only vote. Lawmakers favoring it include 226 Representatives (145 Republican, 81 Democrat), and 32 Senators (16 Republican, 15 Democrat, 1 Independent). Based on history, the chance of enactment is 24%. • MEUSA Summary • News Source
NATIONAL LEGISLATION ENACTED
LAWSUITS PENDING
PENNSYLVANIA • 18 March 2014, in Cara Palladino & Isabelle Barker v. PA Governor Corbett et al.,a federal suit about marriage recognition, the court scheduled oral arguments for 28 May 2014. • MEUSA Summary • News Source TEXAS • On 7 March 2014, in Cleopatra De Leon, et al., v. TX Governor Rick Perry et al.,a federal class action lawsuit for all TX couples challenging the 2003 law and the 2005 TX constitutional ban on marriage inside and outside TX, the preliminary injunction against the TX same-gender civil marriage bans while the district court case is proceeding was appealed by TX to the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, and the district court case proceedings were stayed pending the appeal ruling. • MEUSA Summary • News Source TEXAS • On 12 March 2014, in Shannon Zahrn, et al. v. TX Governor Rick Perry, et al., a federal class action suit seeking equal marriage rights for all TX couples, and challenging the TX statutory and constitutional bans on same-gender civil marriage, TX asked the court to stay proceedings in this case pending the outcome at the 5th Circuit of Cleopatra De Leon, et al., v. TX Governor Rick Perry et al. • MEUSA Summary • News Source TEXAS • On 12 March 2014, in Christopher McNosky, et al. v. TX Governor Rick Perry, et al., a federal class action suit seeking equal marriage rights for all TX couples, and challenging the TX statutory and constitutional bans on same-gender civil marriage, TX asked the court to stay proceedings in this case pending the outcome at the 5th Circuit of Cleopatra De Leon, et al., v. TX Governor Rick Perry et al. • MEUSA Summary • News Source TEXAS • On 18 February 2014, In the Matter of the Marriage of A.L.F.L. and K.L.L., Allison Leona Flood Lesh and Kristi Lyn Lesh filed for divorce and child custody. A hearing is scheduled for 20 March 2014. • MEUSA Summary • News Source TENNESSEE • On 18 March 2014, in Valeria Tanco, et al. v. TN Governor William Haslam, et al., a constitutional challenge to the TN law that bans recognition of same-gender civil marriages, the TN attorney general: (1) asked for a stay of the injunction requiring TN to recognize the civil marriages of 3 same-gender couples, and (2) notified the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that TN is appealing the order requiring recognition of marriages made elsewhere. On 20 March 2014, the court denied the state’s request. • MEUSA Summary • News Source KENTUCKY • On 20 March 2014, in Timothy Love, et al. v. Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear (formerly Gregory Bourke & Michael De Leon, et al. v. Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear), a federal lawsuit challenging KY’s ban on recognizing same-gender couples married elsewhere, the court stayed enforcement of its final order (requiring KY to recognize marriages performed elsewhere) pending the outcome from the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. Briefing on the intervening couples’ claims is slated to finish by 28 May 2014. • MEUSA Summary • News Source WISCONSIN • On 20 March 2014, in Virginia Wolf & Carol Schumacher, et al., v. WI Governor Scott Walker, et al., a federal lawsuit for 4 couples challenging the 2006 WI ban on same-gender civil marriage or civil union, and WI’s unique ban on marrying elsewhere, for which each spouse faces up to $10,000 in fines and 9 months in prison as soon as they return to WI, WI DoJ claimed that existing mixed-gender marriage rights don’t include same-gender marriage rights, and asked that the case be dismissed. • MEUSA Summary • News Source ARKANSAS • The case of Kendall Wright, et al. v. AR Governor Michael Beebe, et al., in which 21 same-gender couples challenge the 2004 AR constitutional ban on same-gender civil marriage, the state law banning same-gender civil marriage, the federal law allowing states to ignore same-gender marriages from other states, and recognition of parental rights, birth certificate names, insurance, and other benefits, is scheduled for oral argument on 17 April 2014. • MEUSA Summary • News Source VIRGINIA • On 20 March 2014, in Timothy Bostic, et al. vs. VA 4th Circuit Court Clerk George Schaefer, et al., a federal lawsuit challenging VA’s 2006 ban on same-gender marriage, and out-of-state marriage recognition, the 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals confirmed the hearing of oral arguments on 13 May 2014 from attorneys for the original plaintiffs, assisted by attorneys from Lambda Legal and ACLU (in Joanne Harris, et al. vs. VA State Registrar Janet Rainey, et al., a certified class action case). • MEUSA Summary • News Source MICHIGAN • On 21 March 2014, in April DeBoer & Jayne Rowse v. MI Governor Rick Snyder, et al.,a challenge to the state’s 2004 ban on same-gender marriage, civil union, domestic partnership, and joint adoption, the court: (1) overturned the law and constitutional amendment that banned same-gender civil marriage in MI, (2) said that MI testimony calling same-gender parents inferior was "entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration," and (3) said that no available science contradicts the consensus that same-gender and mixed-gender couples are equally good at parenting. • MEUSA Summary • News Source MICHIGAN • On 22 March 2014, in April DeBoer & Jayne Rowse v. MI Governor Rick Snyder, et al.,a challenge to the state’s 2004 ban on same-gender marriage, civil union, domestic partnership, and joint adoption, officials in at least 5 counties married over 300 county-resident, same-gender couples until 5:00 p.m., when the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals issued a temporary stay, effective through Tuesday, 26 March 2014. • MEUSA Summary • News Source HAWAI'I • On 19 March 2014, in Natasha Jackson, et al., v. Governor Neil Abercrombie, et al., a marriage rights case, the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals requested an opening brief by 25 April 2014, an answering brief by 27 May 2014, and an optional reply brief 14 days after delivery of the answering brief. Lawamkers legalized same-gender civil marriage in 2013, but the court still wants to ensure an orderly disposition of the appeal for future reference. • MEUSA Summary • News SourceLAWSUITS RESOLVED
STATE LEGISLATION PENDING
GEORGIA • On 3 March 2014, SB-377, which would allow religious belief to excuse violating federal health care laws, died in the GA legislature for 2014. • MEUSA Summary • News Source SOUTH DAKOTA • By 14 March 2014, SB-128 (which would legalize religion-based discrimination against LGBT people in 4 settings: (1) employment; (2) public accommodation; (3) commercial services; and (4) state courts) died in the 2014 SD legislature, after a 5-to-2 vote by the SD Senate Judiciary Committee defeated it. • MEUSA Summary • News Source CALIFORNIA • On 14 March 2014, CA initiative #13-0014 (which would exempt a citizen from any law that conflicts with that citizen’s religious bible-based beliefs, and would modify the CA constitution to protect religious expression even when it violates peace and safety) failed to collect 807,615 valid signatures for the November 2014 ballot. • MEUSA Summary • News SourceSTATE LEGISLATION ENACTED
STATE BALLOT MEASURES
Send questions and comments to: [email protected].
Same-Sex Binational Couple Still Fighting to Return Home
The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) may have met its demise last June but same-sex binational couples living abroad are still waiting for the federal government to recognize their marriages and allow them to return to America. Melanie Servetas and Claudia Amaral, a married, same-sex, binational couple living in exile in Amaral’s home country of Brazil, are one of the tens of thousands of couples who have found themselves caught in the backlog of cases waiting to be approved for an American green card.
Servetas and Amaral began their relationship in 2009 after meeting through an online dating service. Servetas held a high level position as a Senior Vice President with Wells Fargo in Rancho Cucamonga, California. Amaral was a successful IT business owner in Brazil. Within the next few months, the couple quickly found out about America’s unjust immigration laws and sought out options seeking a way they could be united. “After about six months, I decided to come here to Rio for a visit,” Servetas said. “After my trip here, I decided there was no way we could go on with our lives living apart.” Servetas gave up her American home and job and re-located to Brazil, intending to bring Amaral back to the U.S. with her should that ever become possible. In Rio de Janeiro, on June 26, 2013, the couple followed the news as the U.S. Supreme Court struck down DOMA, the federal law forbidding federal recognition of same-sex marriages. As soon as the ruling was public, the couple rushed to marry. They rejoiced at the thought of returning together to the United States. “Unbelievable joy that we could finally come home, sadness that we were still in Brazil, disbelief that we still have such a long way to go for equality and proud to be even a small part of a fight like this for equality” explained Melanie Servetas regarding her initial emotions after the repeal of DOMA.
Due to DOMA restrictions, American citizens in same-sex binational relationships were previously denied the right to sponsor their foreign-born partners for the purpose of immigration. Once DOMA was repealed, immigration opportunities became available to all same-sex binational couples. However, even during this time of celebration, the process of applying for a green card as a same-sex couple caused Servetas and Amaral to feel nervous and unsure of the future.
Despite the DOMA ruling and the resulting change in U.S. immigration law, hardships remain for the couple. Shortly after marrying, the couple submitted Amaral’s green card application with the assistance of their attorney, Regina Jefferies. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) initial approval process can take up to seven months. Once approved, the application gets transferred to the Department of State’s National Visa Center (NVC) for further review.
“We are still waiting for USCIS to notify the National Visa Center that their petition has been approved,” Jefferies said. “Once the petition gets transferred to the NVC, they request additional information. They do some pre-processing for the consulate. Once that information is there, it takes them another 30 business days to review. The NVC will complete their initial processing and forward the entire file out to the consulate in Rio.”
The procedure for applying for a green card for those couples who have been forced to live abroad in order to be together is an exhaustive and lengthy process. “We’ve been stuck, on hold in the process for almost 60 days now. USCIS has sent our approved petition to the NVC but the NVC has not officially confirmed they have received it for the next steps,” said Servetas.
After already enduring significant emotional and financial suffering, the waiting has made the situation almost unbearable. But Servetas and Amaral are committed to following through with the legal process so that they can return to America, despite the extreme burdens the system has placed on them. “The very long delays to process applications for people who have already suffered discrimination and hardships totally frustrate us,” said Servetas. “It seems wrong that our Consular processing is taking so much longer than that of people who were able to apply to the USCIS because they didn’t have to leave the US in order to stay together. I can’t believe we are still so many months away from even having our consular interview.”
Time is of the essence for the couple as critical family matters have arisen in America. The need for the couple to return to the United States in the near future has become even more pressing. “I am very worried because my family in the U.S. urgently needs our assistance to care for an ill family member and we haven’t been able to get a response on our request to expedite,” said Servetas.
Couples like Servetas and Amaral are running out of time and money as the United States continues infighting over immigration reform. The need for comprehensive immigration reform seems clearer than ever with so many couples finding themselves locked into a system bound by massive red tape and bureaucracy.
“The government has ‘safe traveler’ global entry programs -- certainly something similar could be applied in order to let us come into the U.S. We’d be able to begin to work at putting our lives back together while we wait out the approval process,” said Servetas. “Also, those cases being handled abroad through the consulates should be allowed to bypass the USCIS portion and apply directly to the consular post for approval. Handing these files back and forth, where they end up just sitting without review for months on end, seems punitive to a population like us who have already suffered discrimination. Just allow consular processing to be a direct procedure with the State Department.”
What couples like Servetas and Amaral have already endured in their attempts to be together should be considered astonishing. In America, we continue to fight for equality. But many injustices continue as the plight of those who have had to choose between love and country are forced to pay the penalty of previous discriminatory laws. By no means do Servetas and Amaral minimize the struggle that same-sex binational couples who reside in America face. They only want to let people know that for those who have been exiled by love, trying to come home is proving to be just as difficult as leaving was. Servetas and Amaral are still waiting to move forward with their application process and are committed to continue the fight against America’s broken immigration system.
By Gina Caprio
Reflections on Arizona’s Vetoed Anti-Gay Legislation: Time to Seize the Moment
Arizona’s recently failed attempt to enact a law permitting restaurants, hotels, and other businesses to deny services to LGBT people, under the guise of religious liberty, rightly raised the ire of LGBT people and all those who oppose discrimination. The nationwide attention the bill received also has a silver lining.
It awakened Americans to the fact that LGBT people currently have no protections against discrimination in public accommodations under federal law, and that only 13 states prohibit such discrimination against LGBT people (and another 8 states outlaw such discrimination against lesbian and gay people). In other words, even without the failed legislation, businesses in 29 states, including Arizona, currently can discriminate against LGBT people with legal impunity (if no local ordinance exists) because these states have no statutes prohibiting such discrimination, and federal law contains no such prohibition.
Ironically, our opponents’ efforts to enact this draconian legislation have educated Americans to the fact that LGBT people need these legal protections nationwide. It’s time for those who oppose discrimination in all its invidious forms to demand federal legislation to prohibit such discrimination against LGBT people.
The vetoed Arizona legislation also reminds us once again that we are all in this struggle together. Former Congressman Norman Mineta, speaking to the Japanese American Citizens League about marriage discrimination against same-sex couples, said “a threat to anybody’s civil rights is a threat to the civil rights of all Americans.” Nowhere is this insight more evident than the Right Wing’s efforts, under the guise of religious protection, to undermine gains in equality that LGBT people, other minorities, and women have gained over the last six decades.
Later this month, the United States Supreme Court will hear arguments in cases where owners of public businesses claim that their religious views about contraception should take precedence over the medical choices that female employees and their doctors make about what is in the best interest of the women employees. A decision in favor of the owners could dramatically narrow women’s opportunities in the workplace, and limit their autonomy over medical decisions – all under the guise of religious freedom.
Similarly, interpreting the First Amendment to allow business owners to use religion to justify discrimination could open a gaping hole in many other statutes that prohibit discrimination again minorities and women in employment and public accommodations. After all, the trial court judge inLoving v. Virginia, the case in which the US Supreme Court ultimately overturned laws that banned interracial couples from marriage, ruled in favor such bans, proclaiming: “Almighty God created …(different) races …and placed them on separate continents…(this) fact…shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.” Religion could once again be used in innumerable contexts to justify discrimination.
The backlash against the Arizona bill is already causing other state legislatures to rethink passing similar measures. It’s time to seize the moment and enact federal legislation to protect LGBT people from discrimination in public accommodations nationwide.
By MEUSA National Media Director Stuart Gaffney and MEUSA Director of Legal & Policy John Lewis
This article originally appeared in SF Bay Times, March 6, 2014: http://sfbaytimes.com/reflections-on-arizonas-vetoed-anti-gay-legislation-time-to-seize-the-moment/
My Dad, an Intrepid Love Warrior
My 89-year-old dad passed away last week. He was a marvelous person – and an intrepid love warrior throughout his life. When I was born in 1958, my dad told my mother that he would like to be the one who got up in the middle of the night to feed me. My mother agreed, and my dad always described our time together during those feedings as sheer joy. “We were having so much fun that you didn’t want to go back to sleep, and neither did I.”
Many years later, Stuart and I married at San Francisco City Hall on February 12, 2004, and I called my parents in Kansas City that evening to let them know. Before I could get a word out, my dad interrupted, exclaiming: “We saw what was happening in San Francisco on the news. Were you there? Did you get married?!” Just a few weeks before, my dad had heard then-President George Bush’s anti-gay pronouncements in the 2004 State of Union address, and I remember him telling me that it felt as if the President of the United States had attacked our family before the nation.
I came out to my parents back in the early 1980s. In many ways, I had it very easy: my dad was then a professor of counseling psychology with semi-out colleagues; and my mother, also a university professor, had hung out in gay bars in Amsterdam with her gay friends in the 1950s. Despite my parents’ experience and intellectual understanding, my coming out process, however, presented challenges for them emotionally. Over time, they overcame them, embraced Stuart and other friends, and for years sent me clippings of every gay-related article they saw in the newspaper. They even apologized to me for failing to be sensitive to what I had experienced growing up and asked my forgiveness.
My mother had passed away by the time Stuart and I were able to wed legally in June 2008, but my dad proudly attended the celebration at City Hall. Last March, I visited my dad at his retirement community in Chicago before going to Washington, DC, for the Supreme Court hearings in the marriage equality cases. My dad had told all his friends and many staff all about it, and that I had co-authored an amicus brief before the Court. When I arrived, marriage equality and LGBT rights seemed to be the talk of the community. His friends now refer to Stuart as my husband.
The Lewis family came to America from Wales in the late 17th century to escape religious persecution as Quakers. When they arrived, they started a book in which they wrote down every member of the family born in the New World. My dad has the book today. In one of our last conversations, he asked me to get the book and to make sure that Stuart’s name was included in it. It is. My dad, born a kind, joyful, caring, and thoughtful spirit, was a love warrior to the end.
By MEUSA Director of Legal & Policy John Lewis
This article originally appeared in SF Bay Times, February 20, 2014: http://sfbaytimes.com/my-dad-an-intrepid-love-warrior/
Guest Post: New Federal Benefits For Same Sex Married Couples
US Attorney General Eric Holder has announced that the US government will now recognize same sex marriages as equal to heterosexual marriages in all federal matters. That means they will be treated just the same in bankruptcy court proceedings, visitation privileges for inmates of federal prisons and in federal survivor benefits.
Note: I am not an attorney or a qualified tax expert. No action should be taken based solely on the content of these memos. However I hope the memos will help you ask the right questions of people who are qualified in these issues.
Same sex married couples will now be able to jointly file for bankruptcy. This ensures alimony and domestic support debts aren't discharged in bankruptcy cases. And, if they do file for bankruptcy and were married in a state which allows same sex marriage, such as California, their bankruptcy will be valid all across the nation, even in states that do not recognize same sex marriage.
Also, from now on, people in same sex marriages will have to right to refuse to testify against their spouses in civil and criminal cases heard in federal court, even when the court proceedings occur in states that do not recognize same sex marriage. And the same sex spouses of all law enforcement officers and firefighters will be entitled to benefits in the event of death or severe injury in the line of duty.
Federal prison inmates, who are married to people of the same sex, will have the same rights as inmates who are in heterosexual marriages. For example, their spouses will be allowed to visit them in prison, federal prisoners will be allowed to take escorted trips to attend the funerals of their spouses or to deal with crises being faced by their spouses, to engage in correspondence with their spouses, and to obtain compassionate release, or reduction of their sentence, to care for a disabled spouse who is not in prison.
The Attorney General’s order also covers some lesser known programs such as the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) Program . During the cold war era with the Soviet Union, the United the United States carried out numerous atomic bomb tests. In order to do these tests people mined uranium and others processed that uranium to prepare it for use in that program. Some of them got sick and died from exposure to the uranium.
Congress passed the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act to provide monetary compensation to those who got sick from the radiation. The act also provides compensation to the spouses of people who died from that radiation. Now those spousal benefits will be available to the same sex spouses of those who died.
Attorney General Holder also stated that same sex spouses would be eligible for spousal compensation from the September 11 Victim Compensation Fund.
It is important to note that the US Attorney General has little or no authority over state courts and programs. It is possible, for example, that a state court in Georgia might compel the same sex spouse of a defendant to testify against his or her spouse in state court, even if they married in a state where same sex marriages are recognized.
None-the-less, Attorney General Holder’s announcement is another major step in the march to full and equal rights for LGBT people.
Authored by Boyce Hinman, founder and director of the California Communities United Institute, and member of Marriage Equality USA. Hinman has been writing and posting a series, "Monday Morning Marriage Memo," as part of his Anatomy for Justice blog. This article was first published there, and is republished here with the author’s permission. Hinman resides in and serves California, therefore the posts sometimes have a California slant. NOTE: Marriage Equality USA is not a legal firm or a tax/accounting firm. No action should be taken based solely on the content of our news blog or website.
Policy and Legal Update - February 3-9, 2014
Policy & Legal Updates
February 3 – 9, 2014NATIONAL MAP
NATIONAL POLLS
NATIONAL LEGISLATION
LAWSUITS
MICHIGAN • On 6 February 2014, in April DeBoer & Jayne Rowse v. MI Governor Rick Snyder, et al., a suit challenging the MI laws that deny adoption to certified foster parents when they are not married, the plaintiffs sought to ban the testimony of sociology professor Mark Regnerus because his flawed methods, rejection by peers, lack of qualifications, unreliability, irrelevance don’t meet the minimum requirements for federal evidence. Trial is scheduled for 25 February 2014. • MEUSA Summary • News Source UTAH • On 6 February 2014, in Jonell Evans, et al. v. State of Utah, a case seeking immediate recognition of all marriages between same-gender couples who were married from 20 December 2013 through 6 January 2014, the plaintiffs asked for an expedited hearing. • MEUSA Summary • News Source LOUISIANA • On 27 January 2014, in Jonathan Robicheaux and Derek Pinton, et al. v. LA Attorney General James Caldwell, a federal case challenging the LA constitutional amendment and state law banning same-gender civil marriage, and banning LA recognition of same-gender couples married elsewhere, Judge Martin Feldman denied a request to un-consolidate this case (#2013-cv-05090) from another case (#2014-cv-00097). • MEUSA Summary • News Source ARKANSAS • On 31 January 2014, in Rita & Pam Jernigan et al. v. Crane et al., a federal lawsuit seeking same-gender civil marriages, AR asked a federal judge to dismiss the lawsuit challening the 2004 AR constitutional ban on same-gender civil marriage. • MEUSA Summary • News Source WISCONSIN • On 3 February 2014, in Virginia Wolf & Carol Schumacher, et al., v. WI Governor Scott Walker, et al., ACLU filed a federal lawsuit for 4 couples challenging the 2006 WI ban on same-gender civil marriage or civil union, and WI's unique ban on marrying elsewhere, for which each spouse faces up to $10,000 in fines and 9 months in prison as soon as they return to WI. • MEUSA Summary • News SourceSTATE LEGISLATION & POLLS
ARIZONA • On 5 February 2014, the Camp Verde, AZ council voted against recognizing civil unions for same-gender couples. • MEUSA Summary • News Source UTAH • On 29 January 2014, UT state Representative Merrill Nelson proposed a law so that citizens can donate funds via their UT tax return for legalizing discrimination against same-gender couples. • MEUSA Summary • News Source KANSAS • On 6 February 2014, HB-2453, which would legalize discrimination by individuals, businesses, and government against same-gender couples whenever the excuse is religious beliefs, passed from committee to the full House for a vote. • MEUSA Summary • News Source INDIANA • IN Republicans criminalized the performance of any religious ceremony that religiously marries two people of the same gender, starting 1 July 2014. • MEUSA Summary • News Source UTAH • On 27 January 2014, state Rep. Jacob Anderegg (R) introduced 2 bills (HB-231, HJR-1) that would prevent clergy from being forced to solemnize marriages against their beliefs. • MEUSA Summary • News Source VIRGINIA • On 3 Febuary 2014, the Republican-led VA House of Representatives passed HB-706, a bill that would let any state lawmaker defend the VA ban on same-gender civil marriage in place of the governor and attorney general. The bill also needs approval of the VA Senate, then the VA governor. • MEUSA Summary • News Source WEST VIRGINIA • On 4 February 2014, the Morgantown, WV City Council unanimously approved a resolution supporting marriage equality in the WV legislature. • MEUSA Summary • News Source ARIZONA • On 4 February 2014, an AZ House Government Committee passed HB-2153, which legalizes discrimination against LGBT people whenever the perpetrator claims religious beliefs as the excuse for the discrimination. SB-1062 also passed its respective committee in the AZ Senate. • MEUSA Summary • News Source TEXAS • On 4 February 2014, Bexar County, TX extended health benefits to county workers' same-gender spouses. • MEUSA Summary • News Source ARIZONA • On 5 February 2014, an AZ House committee approved a bill to legalize discrimination against LGBT people whenever religious belief is the excuse. • MEUSA Summary • News Source TENNESSEE • On 6 February 2014, TN state Senator Brian Kelsey (R) and Representative Bill Dunn (R) proposed SB-2566 and HB-2467, to legalize discrimination against same-gender couples in domestic partnerships, civil unions, and marriages, whenever the discrimination is excused by claims of religious belief. • MEUSA Summary • News Source KENTUCKY POLLS • On WKYT-TV, WHAS-TV, and 2 newspapers surveyed 1,082 registered voters on same-gender civil marriage, and reported that 55% oppose it, 35% support it, and 10% aren’t sure. • MEUSA Summary • News Source WISCONSIN POLLS • On 29 October 2013, Marquette University surveyed 800 WI registered voters on same-gender civil marriage, and reported that 53% support it, 24% support only civil union, 19% oppose all legal recognition of same-gender couples, with 4% unaccounted for. • MEUSA Summary • News SourceSTATE BALLOTS & POLLS
OHIO • On 9 February 2014, FreedomOhio announced it has gathered 650,000 petition signatures, hopes to reach 1,000,000 by summer, and will decide later whether the statewide vote occurs in 2014 or 2016. • MEUSA Summary • News Source Send questions and comments to: [email protected].Guest Post: Marriage Equality And Maximizing Social Security Income
Under current federal law a spouse who has reached age 62 can claim a Social Security benefit based on his or her own earnings. That spouse could get a higher monthly payment if he or she waits to age 65 before claiming the benefit. Once the spouse submits the claim, he or she will start receiving monthly checks from Social Security.
There is a way that some same sex married couples can manage their Social Security to maximize their total household Social Security income.
Note: I am not an attorney or a qualified tax expert. No action should be taken based solely on the content of these memos. However, I hope the memos will help you ask the right questions of people who are qualified in these issues.
Here is how a same sex married couple might be able to maximize their Social Security income. Federal law allows someone (let’s call him Tom) to claim a Social Security benefit based on the earnings of his or her spouse. Let’s call him George. If George had much higher income than Tom, Tom’s Social Security check might be higher if he claimed as the spouse George instead of claiming the monthly amount due based on his own earnings.
The problem is that, in order for Tom to claim Social Security as George’s spouse, George must also claim his Social Security benefit. The problem with that is that locks in the amount that George can receive in each month from Social Security.
George could claim Social Security as early as when he reaches age 62. But that means he would be locked in to a relatively low Social Security monthly check. If he waited until he was 70 years old his monthly check would be higher. In fact each year beyond 62 that he continues working, and not claiming Social Security, (up until age 70) the amount of Social Security dollars he would qualify for goes up by 8%.
Then too, George’s salary, between his 62nd and 70th birthdays are likely to be the highest he earned during his work life. That salary increase would increase the amount he qualifies for in Social Security monthly checks.
It would be a shame for George to have to sacrifice that extra Social Security income just so Tom can claim Social Security based on George’s work history. But actually George does not have to make that sacrifice.
Under current law George can file for Social Security benefits, but then immediately suspend receipt of those benefits until some future date. By doing this, Tom can claim a spousal benefit and George can let his or her own retirement benefit grow at 8 percent per year. In this way some same sex couples can significantly increase the amount of monthly benefits they receive from Social Security.
Authored by Boyce Hinman, founder and director of the California Communities United Institute, and member of Marriage Equality USA. Hinman has been writing and posting a series, "Monday Morning Marriage Memo," as part of his Anatomy for Justice blog. This article was first published there, and is republished here with the author’s permission. Hinman resides in and serves California, therefore the posts sometimes have a California slant.
NOTE: Marriage Equality USA is not a legal firm or a tax/accounting firm. No action should be taken based solely on the content of our news blog or website.
Policy and Legal Update - January 27-February 2, 2014
Policy & Legal Updates
27 January – 2 February, 2014NATIONAL MAP
NATIONAL POLLS
NATIONAL LEGISLATION
LAWSUITS
VIRGINIA • On 31 January 2014, in Joanne Harris, et al. v. Staunton, VA Court Clerk, et al., a lawsuit for two couples seeking full marriage equality for all VA residents, including couples married elsewhere, the court granted class-action status, so the case now affects all same-gender couples. • MEUSA Summary • News Source NEVADA • On 27 January 2014, in Beverly Sevcik, et al., v. Governor Brian Sandoval, et al., a lawsuit seeking full marriage equality for 8 couples, the Carson City, NV Clerk-Record Alan Glover withdrew his Answering Brief in the appeal case, and no longer opposes the Plaintiffs. • MEUSA Summary • News Source VIRGINIA • On 27 Januar y2014, in Joanne Harris, et al. v. Staunton, VA Court Clerk, et al., a federal class action lawsuit for two couples seeking full marriage equality for all VA residents, including couples married elsewhere, VA Attorney General Mark Herring notified the court that VA’s state laws banning same-gender civil marriage are unconstitutional, that VA is reversing its position in the case, that he will not defend them, and that he will argue that they are unconstitutional. • MEUSA Summary • News Source OKLAHOMA • On 28 January 2014, in Mary Bishop, et al. v. United States and Tulsa County Court Clerk, et al., a case challenging the state constitution for denying the right to marry the person of one’s own choice, and for refusing to recognize same-gender marriages performed in other states, the Tenth Cicuit U.S. Court of Appeals decided to review the OK and UT appeals (a) on a fast-track schedule, and (b) by the same panel of judges. The appeals will be briefed separately and argued separately. The OK appeal schedule is: cross-appeal 1st brief by 24 February, 2nd/supplemental briefs by 17 March, 3rd brief by 1 April, optional reply brief by 7 April, and oral arguments after 7 April. • MEUSA Summary • News Source UTAH • On 28 January 2014, in Kitchen, et al. v. Utah Governor Gary Herbert, et al., a federal lawsuit challenging UT’s constitutional amendment banning same-gender civil marriage, the Tenth Cicuit U.S. Court of Appeals decided to review both the UT and OK cases (a) on a fast-track schedule, and (b) by the same panel of judges. The UT and OK appeals will be briefed separately and argued separately. The UT appeal schedule is: last filings 4 March; oral arguments 10 April. • MEUSA Summary • News Source UTAH • On 28 January 2014, in Jonell Evans, et al. v. Utah, an ACLU suit to force UT to recognize about 1360 marriages performed from 20 December 2013 through 2 January 2014, the case was moved from state court to a federal court. • MEUSA Summary • News Source VIRGINIA • On 28 January 2014, in Timothy Bostic, et al. vs. VA State Registrar Janet Rainey, et al., a federal lawsuit challenging VA’s 2006 ban on in-stateand out-of-state same-gender marriage, VA Governor Terry McAuliffe (D) told dozens of Republican lawmakers he would not appoint any special prosecutor to defend the VA same-gender civil marriage ban. • MEUSA Summary • News Source VIRGINIA • On 28 January 2014, in Joanne Harris, et al. v. Staunton, VA Court Clerk, et al.,a federal class action lawsuit for two couples seeking full marriage equality for all VA residents, including couples married elsewhere, VA Governor Terry McAuliffe (D) told dozens of Republican lawmakers he would not appoint any special prosecutor to defend the VA same-gender civil marriage ban. • MEUSA Summary • News Source HAWAII • On 29 January 2014, in McDermott v. Abercrombie, a state judge ruled that the HI Marriage Equality Act of 2013 violates neither the state nor the federal constitutions. • MEUSA Summary • News Source WEST VIRGINIA • On 28 January 2014, in Casie Jo McGee, et al. v. Cabell County Clerk Karen Cole, et al., a federal lawsuit for three couples challenging the state law that bans marriage equality, the judge denied WV’s motion to dismiss the suit, but dismissed the complaint about recognizing out-of-state marriage licenses, unless additional plaintiffs are added. • MEUSA Summary • News Source UTAH • On 30 January 2014, in Kate Doe & Beth Roe v. Utah, a lesbian couple sued UT for refusing to recognize their 2010 marriage in another state. • MEUSA Summary • News SourceSTATE LEGISLATION & POLLS
KANSAS • On 24 January 2014, KS state Representative Charles Macheers introduced a bill to legalize discrimination against same-gender couples whenever a person, group, or business claims that their discrimination is religiously based. The KS House Federal and State Affairs Committee scheduled a hearing for 28 January 2014. • MEUSA Summary • News Source SOUTH DAKOTA • On 21 January 2014, SD state Senator Ernie Otten proposed SB-67, which would legalize discrimination against same-gender couples whenever the perpetrator claims religions as the excuse. • MEUSA Summary • News Source SOUTH DAKOTA • On 21 January 2014, SD state Senator Ernie Otten proposed SB-66, which would prevent clergy and religions from being sued for not performing a same-gender civil weddings. • MEUSA Summary • News Source SOUTH DAKOTA • On 30 January 2014, SD SB-67 was withdrawn, and replaced by SB-128, which would legalize religion-based discrimination against LGBT people in 4 settings: (1) employment; (2) public accommodation; (3) commercial services; and (4) state courts. • MEUSA Summary • News Source IDAHO • On 28 January 2014, ID state Representative Lynn Luker proposed a bill to legalize discrimination by people in 28 licensed professions who use religion as their excuse for the discrimination. • MEUSA Summary • News Source NEBRASKA • On 28 January 2014, Sarpy County, NE commissioners extended health insurance benefits to spouses of county employees with same-gender spouses who got legally married in another state. • MEUSA Summary • News SourceSTATE BALLOTS & POLLS
INDIANA • On 27 January 2014, by 57 to 40, the IN House approved HJR-3, a proposal to revise the IN constitution to ban same-gender civil marriage, after revising it to delete a ban on civil union, domestic partnership, and worker spouse benefits, but whether same-gender civil marriage goes before voters, and in what year, remains undecided. • MEUSA Summary • News Source PENNSYLVANIA • On 29 January 2014, Franklin & Marshall College surveyed 580 PA voters about same-gener civil marriage, and reported 56% in favor, 39% opposed, and 6% don't know. • MEUSA Summary • News SourceSend questions and comments to: [email protected].
Guest Post: California Married Individuals May Qualify for Paid Time Off for Family Leave
Because Proposition 8 was overturned by the US Supreme Court, if you are in a same sex marriage, you may qualify to take paid time off from work if your husband or wife is seriously ill.
Note: I am not an attorney or a qualified tax expert. No action should be taken based solely on the content of these memos. However, I hope the memos will help you ask the right questions of people who are qualified in these issues.
Now that same sex couples can marry in California, they may qualify for paid family leave under California law. They may also qualify for family leave under federal law. However the federal law does not provide income during the period of the leave.
Here is how the state law works.
California law allows people who work for most private employers to take up to 6 weeks (per 12 month period) of paid time off of work to care for a seriously ill child, spouse, parent, or registered domestic partner, or to bond with a new born child. People may also take paid time off to bond with a newly adopted child or with a child who is new to the home as a foster child.
In addition, self employed workers can qualify for the benefit if they have enrolled in the State Disability Income Elective Coverage Program.
Since same sex couples are now allowed to marry in California, workers can now qualify for paid time off to care for a seriously ill same sex spouse.
This paid time off program is a part of the California Disability Insurance (SDI) program, and those who qualify for SDI generally qualify for paid family leave as well.
Generally employees of the state of California do not qualify for this benefit. However they do qualify if their union has successfully bargained for the right to the coverage.
There is a federal family leave law that does require employers to re-hire workers who have taken time off under that law to care for a sick family member. However, that federal law does not provide any income during the leave period. Also, to qualify for the federal program, the worker must be employed by a company that has at least 50 employees within 75 miles of where the person seeking leave time works.
By contrast, the California Paid Family Leave Program provides income during the leave time, but employers are not required to take the worker back.
The weekly benefit amount (provided by the California Paid Family Leave Program) is approximately 55 percent of the earnings shown in the highest quarter of the employee’s base period. But the total will not exceed $266 per week. The payments come from the state. The employer is not required to pay the employee during the leave period.
Sometimes workers can take adequate care of their spouse, or other family member while working part time. In that case they can get paid part time by their employer and get a partial payment from the California Paid Family Leave Program as well.
Employers can require their workers to take up to 2 weeks of accrued vacation time before leaving on paid family leave. However, they can’t require workers to use accrued sick leave before starting paid family leave.
A medical certificate from a doctor is required when the time off is requested in order to care for a seriously ill family member. That certificate must include a diagnosis of the family member’s illness, the beginning date and probable duration of the illness, along with a statement that care by the person seeking time off is appropriate.
If the request is for bonding the time off requested must be within one year of the arrival of the child.
Workers can apply on line for California paid family leave.
Or they can order a paper copy of form DE 2501F by calling 1-877-238-4373. Hearing impaired people can order the form by Teletypewriter (TTY) 1-800-445-1312. The form also is available to be downloaded.
Authored by Boyce Hinman, founder and director of the California Communities United Institute, and member of Marriage Equality USA. Hinman has been writing and posting a series, "Monday Morning Marriage Memo," as part of his Anatomy for Justice blog. This article was first published there, and is republished here with the author’s permission. Hinman resides in and serves California, therefore the posts sometimes have a California slant.
NOTE: Marriage Equality USA is not a legal firm or a tax/accounting firm. No action should be taken based solely on the content of our news blog or website.
Policy and Legal Update - January 20-26, 2014
Policy & Legal Updates
January 20 – 26, 2014NATIONAL MAP
NATIONAL POLLS
- On 8 December 2013, Anzalone Liszt Grove Research surveyed 800 registered voters in states where same-gender couples could not marry about whether they should be able to marry, and reported that51% said yes, 41% said no, with 8% unaccounted for. Among non-equality states, support is strongest in central states (59% to 36%), then western states (53% to 34%), then southern states (46% to 46%). Among non-equality states nationwide, 56% of voters expect same-gender civil marriage to be legal within 2 years, and 78% expect minimal or a positive impact. • News Source
NATIONAL LEGISLATION
LAWSUITS
UTAH • On 16 January 2014, in Kitchen, et al. v. Utah Governor Gary Herbert, et al., a federal lawsuit challenging UT’s constitutional amendment banning same-gender civil marriage, UT decided to pay $300,000 to the 3 attorneys who, with help from 2 UT attorney general staff attorneys, will argue to ban same-gender civil marriage before the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. Their fee for the U.S. Supreme Court appeal would be similar. • MEUSA Summary • News Source FLORIDA • On 21 January 2014, in Catherina Pareto, et al., v. Miami-Dade County Court Clerk Harvey Ruvin, 6 same-gender couples, represented by National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) and Equality Florida Institute, sued FL for marriage rights. • MEUSA Summary • News Source UTAH • On 21 January 2014, in Kitchen, et al. v. Utah Governor Gary Herbert, et al., a federal challenge to UT’s constitutional amendment banning same-gender civil marriage, the Appeals Court allowed UT 7 extra days to prepare, so the opening brief is due 3 February, the response brief 25 February, and any reply brief 4 March, with oral arguments in March or April. • MEUSA Summary • News Source UTAH • On 21 January 2014, in Jonell Evans, et al. v. State of Utah, ACLU sued UT in state court (a) for ignoring the marriages of 2,600 people who were legally married as same-gender couples in UT, and (b) for harming their childen. • MEUSA Summary • News Source IDAHO • On 22 January 2014, in Sue Latta, et al. v. ID Governor C. L. Butch Otter, a federal lawsuit challenging the 2006 state constitutional amendment, and Idaho laws, banning same-gender civil marriage and civil union, the judge allowed the ID attorney general to intervene. • MEUSA Summary • News Source NEVADA • On 22 January 2014, in Beverly Sevcik, et al., v. Governor Brian Sandoval, et al., a lawsuit seeking full marriage equality, NV’s brief argued that same-gender civil marriage should be banned because mixed-gender marriage should be promoted. • MEUSA Summary • News Source OREGON #2 & #4 • On 23 January 2014, the federal court combined the cases of Deanna Geiger et al. v. OR Governor John Kitzhaber et al., two women challenging OR’s constitutional ban on same-gender civil marriage, and OR’s refusal to recognize legal marriages from other jurisdictions with the case of Paul Rummell, et al. v. OR Governor John Kitzhaber, et al., two Portland couples challenging OR’s ban on same-gender civil marriage. • MEUSA Summary • News Source MICHIGAN • On 3 January 2014, in April DeBoer & Jayne Rowse v. MI Governor Rick Snyder, et al., a federal case challenging the constitutionality of the MI’s 2004 ban on same-gender marriage, civil union, domestic partnership, and joint adoption, lawyers from ACLU and G&LA&D joined the plaintiff legal team. • MEUSA Summary • News Source VIRGINIA • On 21 January 2014, in Timothy Bostic, et al. vs. VA State Registrar Janet Rainey, et al., a federal case challenging VA’s 2006 ban on same-gender marriage, the plaintiffs’ attorneys asked the court to follow the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals recent ruling, and apply heightened scrutiny (the assumption that a law is probably discriminatory) when evaluating VA’s marriage ban. • MEUSA Summary • News Source OKLAHOMA • On 24 January 2014, 2 of the 4 plaintiffs appealed the district court’s ruling that they don’t have standing to challenge: (1) OK’s refusal to recognize their CA marriage, (2) part B of the Oklahoma constitutional amendment, and (3) Defense of Marriage Act, Section 2. • MEUSA Summary • News Source VIRGINIA • On 23 January 2014, in Timothy Bostic, et al. vs. VA State Registrar Janet Rainey, et al., a federal lawsuit challenging VA’s 2006 ban on same-gender marriage in VA or elsewhere, VA’s new attorney general, Mark Herring, said that VA’s ban on same-gender civil marriage violates the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment (equal protection, due process), and that instead of defending the ban, he will join plaintiffs in two lawsuits arguing that it be struck down. • MEUSA Summary • News SourceSTATE LEGISLATION & POLLS
VIRGINIA • On 20 January 2014, VA lawmakers voted to table Bill 939, which would have repealed the statutory bans -- without legalizing -- same-gender civil marriage, civil union, and domestic partnership. The bills which would have repealed the constitutional ban are not being heard during this legislative session at all. The earliest that voters could vote to repeal the constitutional ban is in 2016, which may be unnecessary if either federal lawsuit prevails before then. • MEUSA Summary • News Source NEW HAMPSHIRE • On 15 January 2014, Public Policy Polling surveyed 1,354 NH voters on same-gender civil marriage, and reported that 60% support it, 29% oppose it, and 11% are unsure. Regarding the impact of equal marriage since 2010, 66% reported no impact, 20% positive impact, and 14% negative impact. • MEUSA Summary • News Source OKLAHOMA • On 20 January 2014, state Representative Mike Turner introduced House Joint Resolution 1076, to put same-gender civil marriage, civil union, and domestic partnerhsip on a statewide ballot so that all three can be re-banned via the state constitution in 2014, just the way they were in 2004. • MEUSA Summary • News Source OKLAHOMA • On 20 January 2014, state Representative Mike Turner introduced the Preservation of Marriage Act (H. 2466) to outlaw same-gender civil marriage. • MEUSA Summary • News Source ILLINOIS • On 21 January 2014, IL state Senator Kyle McCarter (R) proposed SB-2637, a law to repeal the equal marriage law enacted in November 2012. • MEUSA Summary • News Source COLORADO • On 21 January 2014, the CO state Senate preliminarily approved a bill letting same-gender couples married elsewhere file their CO state tax returns jointly. • MEUSA Summary • News Source SOUTH DAKOTA • On 21 January 2014, 28 lawmakers introduced SB-66 (which would exempt clergy, non-clergy, and organizations from performing same-gender civil marriages), and 26 lawmakers introduced SB-67 (which would legalize discrimination against commercial customers on the basis of religious beliefs). • MEUSA Summary • News Source OKLAHOMA • On 25 January 2014, OK state Representative Mike Turner proposed banning all marriage statewide as a way to prevent any same-gender civil marriages being mandated via the courts in the lawsuit over the 2004 voter-approved ban. • MEUSA Summary • News SourceSTATE BALLOTS & POLLS
INDIANA • On 21 January 2014, IN House Speaker Brian Bosma moved the proposed equal marriage ban constitutional amendment bill from the House Judiciary Committee, where 3 members were reluctant to pass it, to the Elections and Apportionment Committee, where it passed, 9-to-3 (two of the bill’s authors are members). A full House vote is next, then a Senate vote. • MEUSA Summary • News Source FLORIDA POLLS • On 22 January 2014, Public Policy Polling surveyed 591 FL voters on same-gender civil marriage, and reported that 47% approve, 44% disapprove, with 9% unsure. • MEUSA Summary • News Source OREGON • On 23 January 2014, Oregon United for Marriage launched a student campaign at 8 schools, targeted toward adults aged 18-29. • MEUSA Summary • News Source OREGON • On 22 January 2014, religious support for same-gender civil marriage reached 57 congregations and faith organizations, with the addition of the Oregon Board of Rabbis, Oregon Area Jewish Committee, and Jewish Federation of Greater Portland. • MEUSA Summary • News SourceSend questions and comments to: [email protected].