As we commemorate the 35th anniversary of the assassination of Harvey Milk, our recent trip to Japan to speak about marriage equality made clear how Harvey’s call to come out is just as important as ever.

Significantly fewer LGBT Japanese have come out than their American counterparts, and LGBT Japanese are a much less visible part of society and the media than in the U.S. The Japanese people we met gave us insight into how coming out in Japan is similar to, and different from, America.

One Japanese activist told us that he came out to his parents in high school after his first date with a boy, because he did not want to keep a secret within himself and wanted his parents to know him as he really was. His parents were very accepting. But another activist described how 20 years ago, his father and brother beat him when he came out and threw him out of the house. He found his way to the office of a Tokyo LGBT activist organization that let him sleep on their floor until he could get on his feet. He has now worked for that organization for over 10 years and is a leading advocate for people with HIV/AIDS in Japan.

We met a bisexual student who wants to design LGBT manga cartoons to support the movement, but was afraid to come out to her father. We encouraged her to come out if it was safe, so that she could lead a life that was true to who she was and contribute her creativity and talent to help others.

Coming out appears to be particularly difficult for many Japanese LGBT people because of the importance of social conformity in Japan. Many college students told us that they had known perhaps only one openly LGBT person in their entire lives. We were the first openly LGBT people some had ever met. Activists told us that the pressure for conformity can lead to greater internalized homophobia, and that coming out can lead to significant social isolation and loneliness.

However, our speaking about Harvey Milk’s call to come out – both for one’s personal well being and for the benefit of the movement – seemed to resonate everywhere we went. Activists believed that more Japanese LGBT people coming out was critical to advancing legal, social, and political change, including marriage equality.

After hearing our marriage and coming-out stories, one student decided it was time for him to come out, too — but not as LGBT (he was straight) but as a Japanese person of Korean ethnicity, a group that faces significant discrimination. When he came out as Korean-Japanese and told his personal story of exclusion and discrimination, he received enormous support from his classmates.  In so doing, we hope he made his own life better and, at the same time, took an important step to help the movement for human dignity and equality for all – an act with which we believe Harvey would have been very pleased.

By MEUSA National Media Director Stuart Gaffney and MEUSA Director of Legal & Policy John Lewis 

This article originally appeared in SF Bay Times, November 28, 2013: http://sfbaytimes.com/coming-out-for-marriage-equality-in-japan/ 

Marriage Equality USA Projects Manager Ned Flaherty closely monitors marriage equality polls, ballots, laws, and lawsuits nationwide, and keeps the MEUSA website updated with changes in these areas on a near-daily basis. Every Monday we update you via our blog with policy and legal updates covering the preceding week. You may always find the most up-to-date information, including changes that have taken place between these weekly posts, on the Current Policy & Legal Status page on the MEUSA website.

Policy & Legal Updates

November 18 – 24, 2013

---

NATIONAL MAP

---

NATIONAL POLLS

---

NATIONAL LEGISLATION

---

LAWSUITS

NEBRASKA  •  On 22 April 2013, in Harold Wilson & Gracy Sedlak v. State of Nebraska Correctional Services Department, et al., prison inmate Harold Wilson and his transgender partner and ex-prisoner Gracy Sedlak sued for visitation and marriage rights despite the 2000 NE constitutional ban on same-gender marriage.  On 7 November, a federal district court dismissed the suit.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source TENNESSEE  •  On 19 November 2013, in Valeria Tanco, et al. v. TN Governor William Haslam et al.,National Center for Lesbian Rights attorneys representing 4 legally married, same-gender couples asked a federal court for immediate protection of their families while their lawsuit challenging the TN marriage ban proceeds.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source HAWAII  •  On 15 November 2013, in McDermott v. Abercrombie, a state judge denied Republican state Representative Bob McDermott's request for a Temporary Restraining Order, allowed same-gender civil marriages to start on 2 December 2013, and did not rule on the underlying case about the meaning of a 15-year old, marriage-related constitutional amendment, which is proceeding.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source ARKANSAS  •  On 7 November 2013, in John Moix v. Libby Moix, the AR Supreme Court considered reversing a county judge’s restriction barring John Moix, represented by ACLU Arkansas, from letting his gay partner stay overnight when John’s son is visiting.  On 21 November 2013, the AR Supreme Court ruled in favor of John Moix, and halted the statewide policy of always banning child visitation with any parent who lives with an unmarried partner, regardless of individual circumstances.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source TEXAS  •  On 22 November 2013, Army National Guard Bureau General Frank Grass, under orders from Secretary of Defene Chuck Hagel, met with state generals and notified them that all service members and spouses must receive 100% of the federally funded ID cards and federally funded benefits that they have earned, regardless of any state-level bans on same-gender civil marriage.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source PENNSYLVANIA  •  On 22 November 2013, in Deb & Susan Whitewood v. PA Governor Tom Corbett et al., a federal lawsuit by 23 people challenging the 1996 PA law that bans same-gender marriage for residents, and that ignores out-of-state same-gender marriages, the judge rejected a request to delay the case, and set a trial date of 9 June 2014, but the former state Supreme Court justice defending the state said he is appealing the district court’s refusal to dismiss the case to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source WEST VIRGINIA  •  On 22 November 2013, 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 WV Attorney General announced that he will defend the WV ban on same-gender civil marriage.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source FLORIDA  •  On 22 November 2013, in John Becker v. University of Central Florida, FL hired former state Supreme Court Chief Justice Charles Wells to fight the release of over 50,000 public records related to the publication of a widely discredited, anti-LGBT parenting study.  Also, Judge Donald Grincewicz who had handled the case since its start in spring 2013, inexplicably recused himself from further involvement, and an appellate court granted a stay in the case until a replacement judge is appointed.  The study is cited more often than any other by anti-LGBT groups worldwide, and the author is scheduled to testify in February that children of same-gender parents are less successful than children of mixed-gender parents inApril DeBoer & Jayne Rowse v. MI Governor Rick Snyder, et al.   •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source

---

STATE LEGISLATION & POLLS

MINNESOTA  •  On 15 November 2013, the eighth federally recognized Native American tribe began marrying same-gender couples, as the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe, of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, witnessed its first such marriage, between native American Arnold Dahl and his new husband Matthew Wooley.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source ILLINOIS  •  On 20 November 2013, in Chicago, IL, at a desk once used by President Abraham Lincoln, Governor Quinn signed a bill that upgrades the civil union law to a full marriage equality law, while at a cathedral in Springfield, IL, Bishop Thomas Paprocki condemned equality, called same-gender marriage a grave, demonic, evil sin, and publicly performed an official Roman Catholic Exorcism (2004 Latin Edition) to cast Satan out of Illinois.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source TEXAS  •  On 20 November 2013, Houston, TX began issuing life/health insurance to legally married same-gender spouses of municipal employees, per the city attorney’s legal opinion that it is unconstitutional to deny equal protection under the law.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source GEORGIA  •  On 4 August 2013, Public Policy Polling surveyed 520 Georgia voters on same-gender civil marriage, and reported that 32% support it, 60% oppose it, and 9% are unsure.  Separately, 28% of voters support full marriage, 29% support civil unions only, 39% oppose all legal recognition, and 3% are unsure.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source GEORGIA  •  On 23 September 2013, Atlanta Journal-Constitution newspaper surveyed 801 Georgia adults about same-gender civil marriage, and reported that 48% favor it, 43% oppose it, and 9% don’t know or do not answer.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source KENTUCKY  •  On 21 November 2013, Lexington, KY joined Berea, Louisville, and Covington when the Urban County Council voted unanimously to offer domestic partner benefits to city employees.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source

---

STATE BALLOTS & POLLS

VIRGINIA  •  On 18 November 2013, VA state Senator Adam Ebbin and VA state Delegate Joseph Morrissey introduced bills to repeal the 2006 constitutional ban on same-gender civil marriage.  If lawmakers approve both bills during the 2014 and the 2016 sessions, a voter referendum would occur in November 2016.  • MEUSA Summary  •  News Source OREGON  •  On 19 November 2013, Nike created the Nike Equality Political Action Committee, a foundation that raises funds to help Oregon United For Marriage upgrade civil unions to full equality at the ballot box in November 2014.  The company and its executives already donated $280,000.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source OREGON  •  On 21 November 2013, two anti-LGBT organizations (Friends of Religious Freedom, Oregon Family Council) filed a ballot measure to legalize discrimination against same-gender couples seeking commercial wedding services whenever the discriminators use religion as their excuse.  If the wording is approved by state officials, the sponsors would have to gather 87,213 valid signatures to get the measure on the November 2014 ballot.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source

---

Send questions and comments to:  [email protected].

Marriage Equality USA Projects Manager Ned Flaherty closely monitors marriage equality polls, ballots, laws, and lawsuits nationwide, and keeps the MEUSA website updated with changes in these areas on a near-daily basis. Every Monday we update you via our blog with policy and legal updates covering the preceding week. You may always find the most up-to-date information, including changes that have taken place between these weekly posts, on the Current Policy & Legal Status page on the MEUSA website.

Policy & Legal Updates

November 11 – 17, 2013

---

NATIONAL MAP

• On 12 November 2013, MEUSA’s National Marriage Map was updated to show:  (1) Over 37% of Americans live in 17 states that have adopted full, state-level equality (CA, CT, DC, DE, HI, IA, IL, MA, MD, ME, MN, NH, NJ, NY, RI, VT, WA); (2) another 12% live in cities, counties, or states with partial equality (mainly CO, NM, NV, OR, WI), but 51% live in 39 jurisdictions that still ban all types of unions except one-man-one-woman couples.  •  Map

---

NATIONAL POLLS

• On 13 November 2013, Public Policy Polling reported that in most states which adopt same-gender civil marriage, most voters later report that it has little or no effect on their lives, and also reported that after legalization, opposition declines.  •  Survey Details

---

NATIONAL LEGISLATION

---

LAWSUITS

HAWAII  •  On 14 November 2013, in McDermott v. Abercrombie, the court: (1) ruled that the HI same-gender civil marriage law is legal (thereby rejecting the new claim of some voters who now say that they misunderstood the constitutional amendment passed by voters 15 years ago), and (2) dismissed the complaint.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source ILLINOIS  •  On 14 November 2013, in Darby v. Orr, a county judge postponed action in the case of 25 same-gender couples seeking marriage until 2 June 2014 (one day after same-gender civil marriages are slated to begin), at which point the case is expected to be dismissed.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source SOUTH CAROLINA  •  On 14 November 2013, in Katherine Bradacs & Tracie Goodwin v. SC Governor Nimrata Haley, et al., Judge Joe Anderson of Columbia, SC recused himself from this same-gender civil marriage case because as an executive board member of a Boy Scouts of America council, he (1) voted to ban LGBT Scout leaders, and (2) voted to fire a Scoutmaster who (a) brought her partner to a BSA event, and (b) is one of the plaintiffs in the case.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source PENNSYLVANIA  •  On 15 November 2013, in Deb & Susan Whitewood v. PA Governor Tom Corbett et al., a lawsuit in which 23 people challenged the 1996 PA law that bans same-gender marriage for residents and that ignores out-of-state same-gender marriages, a federal judge rejected two separate efforts to dismiss the suit, and scheduled a conference for 22 November to discuss starting the trial.  • MEUSA Summary  •  News Source MICHIGAN  •  On 15 November 2013, in April DeBoer & Jayne Rowse v. MI Governor Rick Snyder, et al., (a same-gender civil marriage case), the state identified sociology Associate Professor Mark Regnerus and three other “expert” witnesses, whose testimony has been:  (1) that children of same-gender parents are less successful than children of mixed-gender parents, (2) that lesbian parents produce violent boys, (3) that children raised by same-gender couples are 35% less likely to progress normally in school, and that (4) there is no scientific evidence showing that children of same-gender parents do as well as children of mixed-gender parents.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source FLORIDA  •  On 7 November 2013, in John Becker v. University of Central Florida, a state judge ruled that FL must disclose records showing who approved Associate Professor Mark Regnerus’ anti-LGBT parenting study, how it got published immediately, and why no qualified peers reviewed it.  The Regnerus study is cited more often than any other by anti-LGBT groups worldwide, and Regnerus is scheduled to testify in February that children of same-gender parents are less successful than children of mixed-gender parents in April DeBoer & Jayne Rowse v. MI Governor Rick Snyder, et al.  •  MEUSA Summary  • News Source

---

STATE LEGISLATION & POLLS

HAWAII  •  On 12 November, the Senate gave final approval to the same-gender civil marriage bill.  On 13 November, the governor enacted it, ensuring the start of same-gender civil marriages on 2 December 2013.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source MAINE  •  On 13 November 2013, Public Policy Polling surveyed 964 ME voters on the same-gender civil marriage law passed in 2012, and reported that 72% felt no impact, 15% felt positive impact, and 13% felt negative impact.  Separately, same-gender civil marriage is now supported by 54%, and opposed by 37%, with 9% unaccounted for.  Even among the 37% who oppose it, 70% of those admit that it has had no negative impact.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source MISSOURI  •  On 14 November 2013, Governor Jay Nixon announced that he supports same-gender civil marriage for MO, and that same-gender couples who pay MO income taxes may file combined returns if they wish.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source

---

STATE BALLOTS & POLLS

OHIO  •  On 12 November 2013, Freedom to Marry Ohio said it had gathered the minimum 385,245 signatures needed to put equal marriage on the November 2014 ballot, but would continue trying to collect a total of 1 million signatures from OH’s 12 million residents.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source INDIANA  •  On 14 November 2013, WISH-TV surveyed IN residents regarding a constitutional ban on same-gender civil marriage, and reported that 58% oppose it, and 38% support it.  Separately, regarding marriage equality itself, 48% support it, 46% oppose it, and 6% have no opinion.  •  MEUSA Summary  • News Source

---

Send questions and comments to:  [email protected].

By Kinna Crocker With marriage equality now coming to Illinois and Hawaii, nearly 40% of the country lives in a marriage equality state. But just how federal and state governments will navigate the still-unsettled reality (and consequences) of marriage equality remains an open question. The Supreme Court’s decisions in U.S. v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry vastly expanded the rights of the LGBT community by mandating same gender married couples have access to the over 1,000 federal rights and benefits (Windsor) associated with marriage. In Windsor, the Court held that Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), defining marriage as between a man and a woman, violates basic due process and equal protection rights. As a result of the Court’s decision invalidating this definition, the federal government must treat same gender married couples the same as opposite gender married couples for purposes of access to federal benefits. In Perry, the Court held the sponsors of Proposition 8, California’s constitutional ban on same gender marriage, did not have standing to appeal favorable lower court rulings on behalf of the state of California, effectively allowing same gender marriages to resume in California. In August, the Supreme Court denied Proposition 8 sponsors a final petition for review. Although Windsor invalidated Section 3 of DOMA, it left Section 2 in place, which allows states to refuse to recognize same gender marriages performed in other states. Marriages are not judgments or orders, and are therefore not entitled to equality under constitutional principles of full faith and credit among the states. If a same gender couple legally marries in a “marriage equality state” and moves or travels to a “non-equality state” (a state that does not recognize same gender marriage), the marriage has no legal meaning and ceases to exist as a matter of law in the non-equality state. This lack of uniformity in marriage equality among the states creates many questions regarding the availability of federal benefits for same gender married couples. By statute, certain federal benefits are available only if the couple is validly married under the laws of the state in which they reside, the so-called “place of residence” rule. Other federal benefits are available if the couple is considered to be validly married where the marriage license was obtained, the so-called “place of celebration” rule. The “place of celebration” rule is more expansive because the couple can obtain benefits regardless of the laws of the state in which they live. Although President Obama acted swiftly in calling on federal agencies to adopt the “place of celebration” rule to provide uniformity in the treatment of benefits for same gender couples, some federal agencies have not yet declared official positions and some have implemented the “place of residence” rule. For example, the Social Security Administration indicated Social Security benefits are available to same gender married couples if they live in a state that recognizes their legal union (the “place of residence” rule). It is unclear whether Social Security benefits will be available to same gender couples who were married in a marriage equality state and now live in a non-equality state; those applications are currently being held and not processed. Until further notice from the Social Security Administration, some same gender couples are waiting anxiously to learn whether they are entitled to benefits. Alternatively, some federal agencies clearly provide certain benefits to same gender married couples regardless of where they reside, endorsing the “place of celebration” rule. The Department of Defense, for instance, announced its plan to extend spousal and family benefits to same gender spouses of uniformed service members. Because some service members live in or are stationed in non-equality states, the Department of Defense is allowing military personnel ten days of non-chargeable leave for the purpose of traveling to a jurisdiction where same gender marriage is available in order to marry. Although six states have withheld issuing spousal cards to same gender spouses of national guard troops, the others (whether equality states or not) have begun issuing them. The Treasury Department recognizes marriages of same gender couples, regardless of where the couple lives. This adoption of the “place of celebration” rule provides for uniform treatment of all same gender married couples with respect to the filing of federal tax returns. These same gender couples can use the status of "married" on their federal returns and all federal tax provisions where marriage is a factor, including employee benefits, IRA contributions, earned income, child tax credits, and gift and estate taxes, will apply to same gender married couples. The policy explicitly does not apply to couples who are registered as domestic partners or who are in civil unions. Although the “place of celebration” rule provides uniformity in federal filing status for same gender married couples, it highlights the conflict present in non-equality states. Couples living in non-equality states must use the single filing status for state tax returns and the married filing status for federal tax returns. Since the information on federal and state returns is interconnected, these couples expend more in accountant fees in order to file tax returns correctly. The Supreme Court decisions also greatly affect the practice of family law. For example, a bizarre phenomenon now occurs where same gender couples legally married in marriage equality states, but living in non-equality states, are unable to divorce in their state of residence. This unusual circumstance has been dubbed “wedlocked” and is clearly causing problems for many couples. For example, a same gender couple married in California cannot obtain a divorce in Alaska without some creative legal maneuvering. Some Alaska attorneys are requesting annulments of these marriages, since neither marriage nor divorce is available to same gender couples, despite the fact that the elements of annulment are not satisfied. An annulment is objectionable to many same gender couples because, in effect, they are agreeing and representing to the court they were never married. Further, any federal spousal benefits to which those spouses may have been entitled after divorce are lost. For some couples, the state of domicile can resolve property division issues through property laws (although the applicability of community property laws becomes an issue) and custody disputes through laws applicable to unmarried parents. However, these couples are forced to maintain their marital status for federal purposes. The lack of uniformity among the states causes confusion and the potential for married couples to be stuck in their legal relationships with no apparent recourse. In California, the Perry decision grants legal marriage rights to same gender couples in the state. Same gender couples who were married in another state or country do not have to remarry in California to avail themselves of California spousal benefits and protections. Proposition 8 is deemed to be unconstitutional so all marriages validly performed in any marriage equality state or country, are recognized as valid marriages in California. Although parentage presumptions will apply equally to same and opposite gender married couples in California, post-Perry, it remains advisable for a non-biological parent to adopt the children of the marriage or domestic partnership. If LGBT families intend to travel across state lines, or decide to move to a non-equality state, there is no guarantee that parentage would be recognized based solely on the couple’s marital status as defined by a marriage equality state. As compared to a marriage license, a formal adoption order is a stronger legal document to possess should parentage be challenged in a non-equality state or in a state that refuses to recognize any and all rights flowing from a same gender relationship. As the law changes and government agencies provide guidance with respect to rights and responsibilities of individuals in same gender marriages, domestic partnerships and civil unions, it is important for LGBT families to continue to educate themselves. The uncertainty over when we will achieve marriage equality in all 50-states only makes this more imperative. Edited and reprinted with permission from the Bar Journal of the Sonoma County Bar Association.

[caption id="attachment_368" align="alignleft" width="112"] Boyce Hinman[/caption] 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. For a long time, when a US citizen married a foreign national of the opposite sex (such as a citizen of England), the foreign national could emigrate to this nation on the basis of that marriage. However, until Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act was struck down by the US Supreme Court, the same was not true when a US citizen married a foreign national of the same sex. Now same sex married international couples have the same immigration rights as do heterosexual couples. A foreign national, married to a US citizen of the same sex, now has the right to emigrate to this country. 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. There are two processes by which the foreign national can gain legal residency in this country. 1. If the foreign national is already in this country legally – In this case, the U.S. citizen may file an immigration petition (I-130) and the alien spouse may file an application to adjust his or her status to permanent resident (I-485) at the same time. The I-130 petition must be filed with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS). The USCIS is part of the US Department of Homeland Security. 2. If the foreign national is in another country – In this case, the U.S. citizen needs to file an immigration petition (I-130) and request that the USCIS notify a U.S. Consulate in the country where his or her spouse lives. Once the immigration petition is approved, the National Visa Center of the U.S. State Department sends a “Packet 3″ to the U.S. citizen. After the necessary forms are completed, the alien spouse goes to the U.S. Consulate abroad to apply for an immigrant visa. On the day that the alien spouse enters the United States on an immigrant visa, he or she becomes a U.S. permanent resident. People entering this process need to be patient. Recent reports indicate that it takes an average of 13 months for approval of an I-130 request where the foreign national is legally in the US. (Option 1. above) Option 2. Above will probably take longer. However, when the alien spouse is living abroad, that spouse can apply for a K-3 visa. This visa allows the alien spouse to live in this country while the alien’s application for permanent residency in this country is being processed. People with a K – 3 visa are also allowed to work in this country while awaiting approval of permanent residency.

Marriage Equality USA Projects Manager Ned Flaherty closely monitors marriage equality polls, ballots, laws, and lawsuits nationwide, and keeps the MEUSA website updated with changes in these areas on a near-daily basis. Every Monday we update you via our blog with policy and legal updates covering the preceding week. You may always find the most up-to-date information, including changes that have taken place between these weekly posts, on the Current Policy & Legal Status page on the MEUSA website.

Policy & Legal Updates

November 4 – 10, 2013

---

NATIONAL MAP

---

NATIONAL POLLS

---

NATIONAL LEGISLATION

---

LAWSUITS

WEST VIRGINIA & TEXAS  •  On 1 November 2013, the WV Army National Guard confirmed that it is now processing ID cards at state facilities for same-gender couples.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source FLORIDA & TEXAS  •  On 5 November 2013, the FL Army National Guard began issuing full benefits to same-gender couples by using only federal facilities to process benefit applications.  •  MEUSA Summary  • News Source CALIFORNIA  •  On 4 November 2013, in Michael Dragovich v. U.S. Treasury, U.S. IRS and CalPERS,the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated part of an earlier decision, and sent the case back to U.S. district court to reconsider recent legal changes affecting same-gender domestic couples who:  live out of CA, can’t marry because of impairment, can’t marry because one partner died, delay marriage, don’t marry, or who want remedies because they were denied marriage in the past.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source HAWAII  •  On 7 November 2013, in McDermott v. Abercrombie, an Oahu, HI circuit judge refused to stop the HI legislature from passing a same-gender civil marriage bill, and told Republican state Representative Bob McDermott that he could return to court once the legislation is passed to pursue his case.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source ARKANSAS  •  On 7 November 2013, in John Moix v. Libby Moix, the AR Supreme Court considered reversing a county judge’s restriction barring John Moix from letting his gay partner stay overnight when John’s son is visiting.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source FLORIDA  •  On 7 November 2013, in D.M.T. v. T.M.H., the FL Supreme Court ruled that a woman who donated an egg to her lesbian partner now has parental rights regarding the 8-year old child, including custody and visitation.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source IDAHO  •  On 7 November 2013, in Sue Latta, et al. v. ID Governor Butch Otter, four lesbian couples, represented by National Center for Lesbian Rights and Boise, ID attorneys Deborah Ferguson and Craig Durham, filed a federal lawsuit challenging the 2006 state constitutional amendment and multiple Idaho laws which ban same-gender civil marriage and civil union.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source NEW MEXICO  •  On 8 November 2013, in Elane Photography v. Vanessa Willock, a photographer asked the U.S. Supreme Court: (1) to reverse prior decisions (NM Civil Rights Commission, NM district court, NM appeals court, NM Supreme Court) that fined her for violating the NM Human Rights Act and refusing to photograph a lesbian wedding, and (2) to approve commercial discrimination against same-gender couples as a religious practice.  Equality opponents cite this case more than any other case when arguing that marriage equality reduces religious freedom.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source

---

STATE LEGISLATION & POLLS

MONTANA  •  On 24 October 2013, Montana State University surveyed 410 adult residents regarding same-gender civil marriage, and reported that 46% support, 42% oppose, and 11% are undecided.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source ILLINOIS  •  On 4 November 2013, 300 clergy members and faith leaders wrote to IL House members and urged passage of the same-gender civil marriage bill.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source SOUTH CAROLINA  •  On 3 November 2013, Winthrop University surveyed 887 SC adults on same-gender civil marriage, and reported that 52% oppose it, 39% support it, 6% are unsure, and 3 refuse to answer.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source ILLINOIS  •  On 5 November 2013, the IL House approved the equal marriage bill, the Senate concurred, the Governor said he will sign it on 20 November 2013, which would allow marriages to start on 1 June 2014.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source HAWAII  •  On 5 November 2013, a HI state House committee finished hearing testimonty from over 5,184 citizens, and voted to advance the equal marriage bill for a full House vote.  On 8 November 2013, the HI House of Representatives passed the equal marriage bill, 30-to-19.  The Senate’s approval of changes made in the House is expected in a 21-to-4 vote on 12 November, followed by the governor’s promised signature, and the start of same-gender civil marriages on 2 December 2013.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source

---

STATE BALLOTS & POLLS

WISCONSIN  •  On 30 October 2013, Marquette Law School surveyed 400 WI voters, and reported that53% support same-gender civil marriage, 24% favor civil union, 19% oppose any legal recognition at all, and 4% are unaccounted for.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source ARKANSAS  •  On 7 November 2013, the AR attorney general approved the Arkansas Initiative for Marriage Equaliy ballot measure to repeal the existing 2004 ban on same-gender civil marriage, and also to legalize such unions, via the 2016 ballot.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source

---

Send questions and comments to:  [email protected].

By MEUSA News Manager John Mattras Rarely do I find anything about technology or the internet to be as easy as advertised. When MEUSA Executive Director Brian Silva asked me to check out Igive.com so I could write a story about how easy it is to sign up and start donating to MEUSA for free every time I make a qualifying online purchase, I could envision nothing more than headaches and hassles trying to figure it out. But that didn't happen. Literally, I clicked the link he sent me, filled in my name and email address and created a password. A 30-second download later, my work was finished. I was also notified that by making a purchase prior to November 12, MEUSA would receive an additional bonus of $5. The next step was to test it to see if it worked. Thousands of online retailers purportedly participate. Some require confirmation, while others do not. Sure enough, logging on to the Staples website (who doesn't need office supplies?), I was prompted to confirm my participation in Igive. Next thing you know, I was shopping and giving to MEUSA -- without spending an extra cent on anything. Chances are, I will not know just how much of my online Christmas shopping will translate into donations to MEUSA. I could go to the Igive website and search the list of participating retailers. But for now, it's enough to know that I am, or probably am, giving with each online purchase I make. And in a few months time, I'll still be giving -- long after I stopped even thinking about it. Sign up for iGive, 

On Monday, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act passed a Senate cloture vote. This bill has been floating around Congress for decades, and needs to be passed — workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity remains one of the biggest hurdles that LGBT Americans face, and nearly 90 percent of the American public supports workplace equality. However, there are fundamental problems with this version of the bill that give us pause. Though LGBT workers desperately need workplace protections, the current version of ENDA includes broader religious carve-outs than have ever been granted in civil rights legislation, allowing opponents of full LGBT equality a powerful tool to discriminate in ways they have never been allowed before with any other protected class of Americans. We agree that religious institutions should continue to be afforded the same exemptions they have had since the 1964 Civil Rights Act — but creating special rights for religious institutions to discriminate more broadly against LGBT Americans than against others is simply un-American. In the past, employers like hospitals and universities were required to have a religious reason to deny someone a job, i.e. there might be a religious requirement to be a hospital chaplain. Those exemptions were sensible in order to preserve religious liberty. This version of ENDA, however, creates such broad religious exemptions that even a nurse at a Catholic hospital or a secretary at a Baptist university would be subject to discrimination for no other reason than being LGBT. Imagine if we allowed that type of exemption for other protected classes from the Civil Rights Act. Would it be acceptable to fire a janitor at a Catholic hospital just because he was Jewish? Would we allow a Baptist university to deny a woman a job solely because of her gender? Given that religiously affiliated institutions are often the largest employer in many towns across the country, these special discriminatory rights will leave behind all of those non-clergy employees who are currently forced to live in the closet in order to take care of themselves and their families. The legislative process is always a matter of compromise — but our core values should never be up for negotiation. And these special rights to discriminate will set a negative precedent for future work on LGBT equality, potentially creating questions around sheltering homeless LGBT youth or marriage equality. Earlier this month, Tippi McCullough was fired after 15 years of outstanding teaching at Mount St. Mary Academy, a Catholic school in Arkansas. Was it because the quality of her work had dropped? No. The leadership of the school said that because she was a lesbian and chose to marry her partner in a civil marriage ceremony, she had been terminated. With such broad religious exemptions in the latest ENDA proposal, Tippi and thousands of other LGBT Americans will have to choose between marrying the person they love, or staying in the closet in order to keep their job. We believe that legislation ending LGBT workplace discrimination should pass the Senate and the House and be signed into law by the president. And we certainly won’t stand in the way of this bill moving through the Senate because we know that, if passed by the House, it could offer much-needed protections to millions of LGBT workers. However, we believe there is still time to work with and educate those legislators who are still evolving as to why LGBT Americans deserve the same protections granted to others under the 1964 Civil Rights Act — no more, no less. In that spirit, we cannot stand by silently as this bill compromises our ability to gain full workplace equality for LGBT Americans. This article originally appeared in the Washington Blade. Brian Silva is executive director of Marriage Equality USA. Heather Cronk is co-director of GetEQUAL.

[caption id="attachment_368" align="alignleft" width="112"] Boyce Hinman[/caption] 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. It’s wonderful that same sex couples can now marry in California. But couples shouldn’t rush into marriage without considering the pluses and minuses. The purpose of this Monday Morning Marriage Memo is to advise you of some of the possible minuses that result from community property law in California. For one thing, if the marriage does not work out, couples would have to go to divorce court to end the marriage. That can be a long, painful, expensive process. And, in such cases, the divorce court could require the spouse with the greater income to pay a substantial amount in alimony each month to the spouse with the lower income. These monthly payments would not be due if the couple had not married in the first place. Many financial advisors suggest you settle who gets what in case of a divorce by signing a pre-nuptial agreement prior to marrying Note: These facts about divorce court and possible alimony payments already apply to registered domestic partners in California. Note: I am not an attorney or a qualified tax expert. No action should be taken based solely on the content of this memo. However, I hope this memo will help you ask the right questions of people who are qualified in these issues. Another issue to consider is the fact that California is a “Community Property” state. That fact has significant consequences for those California residents who marry. For example, under community property law, all the earnings of both spouses during the marriage are considered community property. Each spouse in the marriage has the right to spend all of that income if he or she chooses to do so. And the debts of either spouse can be charged against community property by debtors. Conceivably, if you marry, your spouse could rack up debts that would wipe you out financially. However some property is not considered community property and would be protected in the above situation. The following types of property remain the separate party of one spouse or the other:

• Any property owned separately prior to the marriage,
• Any property inherited or received as a gift during the marriage by either party
• The proceeds from the rent or sale of separate property
• Items and money earned while legally or physically separated from the spouse
• Any items conveyed from one spouse to the other with the intention of designating it as separate property

As noted, a house owned by one spouse prior to the marriage remains his or her separate property. If the marriage sours the spouse who owns the home could evict the one who doesn’t. That would leave the evicted spouse without a place to live, and perhaps without enough income to pay for housing.

[caption id="attachment_368" align="alignleft" width="112"] Boyce Hinman[/caption] 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. It’s wonderful that same sex couples can now marry in California. But couples shouldn’t rush into marriage without considering the pluses and minuses. The purpose of this Monday Morning Marriage Memo is to advise you of some of the possible minuses that result from community property law in California. For one thing, if the marriage does not work out, couples would have to go to divorce court to end the marriage. That can be a long, painful, expensive process. And, in such cases, the divorce court could require the spouse with the greater income to pay a substantial amount in alimony each month to the spouse with the lower income. These monthly payments would not be due if the couple had not married in the first place. Many financial advisors suggest you settle who gets what in case of a divorce by signing a pre-nuptial agreement prior to marrying Note: These facts about divorce court and possible alimony payments already apply to registered domestic partners in California. Note: I am not an attorney or a qualified tax expert. No action should be taken based solely on the content of this memo. However, I hope this memo will help you ask the right questions of people who are qualified in these issues. Another issue to consider is the fact that California is a “Community Property” state. That fact has significant consequences for those California residents who marry. For example, under community property law, all the earnings of both spouses during the marriage are considered community property. Each spouse in the marriage has the right to spend all of that income if he or she chooses to do so. And the debts of either spouse can be charged against community property by debtors. Conceivably, if you marry, your spouse could rack up debts that would wipe you out financially. However some property is not considered community property and would be protected in the above situation. The following types of property remain the separate party of one spouse or the other:

• Any property owned separately prior to the marriage,
• Any property inherited or received as a gift during the marriage by either party
• The proceeds from the rent or sale of separate property
• Items and money earned while legally or physically separated from the spouse
• Any items conveyed from one spouse to the other with the intention of designating it as separate property

As noted, a house owned by one spouse prior to the marriage remains his or her separate property. If the marriage sours the spouse who owns the home could evict the one who doesn’t. That would leave the evicted spouse without a place to live, and perhaps without enough income to pay for housing.