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

28 October – 3 November, 2013

---

NATIONAL MAP

---

NATIONAL POLLS

---

NATIONAL LEGISLATION

---

LAWSUITS

PENNSYLVANIA  •  On 25 October 2013, in Barbara Baus v. Pennsylvania, Ms. Baus objected to paying a 15% tax of about $11,000 for inheriting the estate of her wife Catherine Burgi-Rios.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source PENNSYLVANIA  •  On 30 October 2013, in Nancy Nixon v. PA Department of Revenue, Ms. Nixon sought to overturn a $21,000 inheritance tax bill on the estate of her partner Jeanne Schwartz.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source VIRGINIA  •  On 29 October 2013, in Joanne Harris, et al. v. Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell et al., federal judge Michael Urbanski considered whether:  (1) to certify the case of two couples as a class action representing all same-gender couples in VA; and (2) whether to dismiss the governor and a circuit court clerk as defendants, leaving only the state vital records registrar.  Merits of the case are scheduled for argument on 3 January 2014.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source TEXAS  •  On 28 October 2013, in Marc Pharris, et al., v. Texas, two same-gender couples filed a federal class action lawsuit for all TX couples, challenging the 2005 TX constitutional ban on marriage inside and outsdie TX.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source VIRGINIA  •  On 29 October 2013, in Joanne Harris, et al. v. Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell et al., the original date for arguing the merits of this federal class action case (3 January 2014) was canceled, and it may be re-scheduled.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source MISSOURI  •  On 29 October 2013, in Kelly Glossip v. MO Highway Patrol, in a 5-to-2 ruling, the MO Supreme Court decided that deceased Highway Patrolman Dennis Engelhard’s same-gender partner, Kelly Glossip, is ineligible for spouse survivor benefits because MO’s constitution and laws ban same-gender spouses.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source COLORADO  •  On 30 October 2013, in Rebecca Brinkman and Margaret Burd v. Colorado, a same-gender couple represented by attorney Ralph Ogden, sued in state court to challenge CO’s 2006 constitutional ban on same-gender civil marriage and statutory ban offering only civil union.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source TEXAS  •  On 31 October 2013, in Alicia Butler & Judith Chedville vs. Texas, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel directed Army National Guard units nationwide to process benefit applications for all personnel with same-gender spouses, regardless of local marriage laws, especially at the 114 bases in FL, GA, IN, LA, MS, OK, SC, TX, and WV.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source HAWAII  •  On 31 October 2013, Republican state Representative Bob McDermott filed a lawsuit in state circuit court to get a judge to:  (1) declare that a 1998 constitutional amendment restricted marriage to mixed-gender couples only, and (2) halt the special legislative session ordered by the governor for the purpose of passing a marriage equality bill.  But the governor, attorney general, and most lawmakers say that the amendment gave lawmakers control over all possible decisions on both mixed-gender and same-gender civil marriage.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source PENNSYLVANIA  •  On 1 November 2013, in Deb & Susan Whitewood v. PA Governor Tom Corbett,Washington County, PA Attorney General Kathleen Kane, and PA Governor Tom Corbett all were dismissed as defendants, and Revenue Secretary Dan Meuser and Health Secreatary Michael Wolf were added.  • MEUSA Summary  •  News Source OHIO  •  On 1 November 2013, in Jim Obergefell & John Arthur v. Ohio, a federal judge ruled that a suit seeking to recognize same-gender marriages on OH death certificates can proceed, and that OH funeral director Robert Grunn can remain one of the plaintiffs, which will ensure that the outcome (expected in December 2013) applies to every OH same-gender couple married outside of OH.  •  MEUSA Summary  • News Source TEXAS  •  On 1 November 2013, in Alicia Butler & Judith Chedville vs. Texas, the Indiana Army National Guard confirmed that it has been processing benefits for same-gender couples since 1 October, and that even though some applications were temporarily delayed, no benefits were ever denied, and no federal law was broken.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source INDIANA  •  On 31 October 2013, in A.C. vs. N.J., the IN Court of Appeals classified non-biological mothers the same as former stepparents/grandparents, and repeated a 2004 recommendation that new child custody laws are needed (over 75% of IN families are non-traditional, but the law does not recognize their existence, and it bans same-gender couples).  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source KENTUCKY  •  On 25 October 2013, in Romero v. Romero, Alysha Romero filed suit in KY Family Court to be divorced from Rebecca Sue Romero, whom she legally married in MA in 2009.  •  MEUSA Summary  • News Source

---

STATE LEGISLATION & POLLS

VIRGINIA  •  On 28 October 2013, Richmond, VA City Council voted to extend benefits to the spouses of city employees in same-gender couples, as soon as same-gender civil marriage is legalized statewide.  • MEUSA Summary  •  News Source HAWAII  •  On 29 October 2013, the HI Senate Judiciary & Labor Committee held hearings and voted, 5-to-2, to advance the same-gender civil marriage bill to the full Senate, which passed it on a 20-to-4 vote, after which it went to the House Judicicary and Finance Committee for hearings, committee votes, and a House vote the week of 3 November.  If approved, the proposed law could allow nuptials to begin by 18 November 2013.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source ILLINOIS  •  As of 29 October 2013, every major IL newspaper had endorsed the same-gender civil marriage bill, and 17 IL mayors had written to lawmakers urging passage.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source

---

STATE BALLOTS & POLLS

ARKANSAS  •  On 29 October 2013, the AR Attorney General rejected the fourth version of a proposed ballot measure which could repeal the 2004 ban on same-gender civil marriage and also legalize it.  • MEUSA Summary  •  News Source

---

Send questions and comments to:  [email protected].

By MEUSA National Media Director Stuart Gaffney and MEUSA Director of Legal & Policy John Lewis This article originally appeared in SF Bay Times, October 31, 2013: http://www.sfbaytimes.com/?sec=article&article_id=18103 October brought marriage equality to state #14 – New Jersey. As attention now turns to the race between New Mexico, Hawaii and Illinois to see which state will become #15, we are also taking it to another level: Our momentum is going global. In November, we are traveling to Japan to give a series of public lectures and seminars on marriage equality and LGBT rights, and to meet with Japanese LGBT leaders. And while marriage is in the air in Japan – Kanako Otsuji, the first openly lesbian member of the Japanese legislature, held a personal wedding ceremony with her partner Maki Kimura; and Tokyo Disneyland hosted its first same-sex wedding ceremony this year – currently same-sex couples cannot marry legally in any Asian country. But just as we are seeing progress at home state by state, we are seeing signs of progress in countries across Asia, ranging from proposed legislation in Thailand for civil unions to a recent poll showing majority support for marriage equality in Taiwan. In the last week of October alone, historic rallies for marriage equality took place both in Vietnam and in Taiwan. In the words of Le Quang Binh, organizer of the Hanoi rally: “I believe in people and I think that when everybody speaks out, everyone has to listen whoever you are. So that’s why we do it this way. We mobilize public opinion, LGBT, students, young people so when people speak their opinion, politicians will have to listen. And I believe that politicians are also human beings. They need time to understand.” One of the messages we will bring to Japan is that we can be proud that Asian Americans have been very active in the marriage equality movement, and organizations like API Equality have played a prominent role here in California. When API organizations filed an amicus brief in the California Supreme Court case that established marriage equality in California prior to the passage of Prop 8, over 60 API civil rights and community organizations signed on. Among the very first was the Japanese American Citizens League (JACL), noting that one of the lessons from the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II must be to uphold the civil rights of all groups, including LGBT Americans. In the words of former U.S. Transportation Secretary and Congressman Norman Mineta, “a threat to anybody’s civil rights is a threat to the civil rights of all Americans.” We look forward to reporting back in the coming weeks on our trip to Japan, and the lessons learned as we continue to make progress across all borders and boundaries.

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

October 21 – 27, 2013

---

NATIONAL MAP

---

NATIONAL POLLS

• On 24 October 2013, Harris Interactive surveyed 2,577 adults (representatively chosen by age, sex, race, education, region, income) regarding public attitudes toward LGBT people, and regarding marriage equality 67% say it’s inevitable (34% strongly, 34% somewhat), 25% say it isn’t (11% somewhat, 14% strongly), and 8% declined to answer.  •  Survey Details

---

NATIONAL LEGISLATION

---

LAWSUITS

NEW JERSEY  •  On 21 October 2013, in Garden State Equality, et al. v. NJ Attorney General Paula Dow, et al., Governor Christie withdrew his appeal of the Superior Court decision to start issuing same-gender civil marriage licenses, and in doing so he removed the last possible obstacle to marriage equality in NJ.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source TENNESSEE  •  On 21 October 2013, in Valerica Tanco, et al. v. TN Governor William Haslam, et al.,four legally married same-gender couples filed suit in U.S. District Court in Nashville, in a constitutional challenge to the TN law that bans recognition of their marriages.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source OHIO  •  On 22 October 2013, in Jim Obergefell & John Arthur v. Ohio, John Arthur passed away, after he and husband Jim Obergefell flew to Maryland, married, and then won a temporary order from a federal judge which forced OH to recognize their out-of-state marriage on Mr. Arthur’s death certificate.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source WEST VIRGINIA  •  On 23 October 2013, in Casie Jo McGee, et al. v. Cabell County Clerk Karen Cole, et al., a challenge to the state law that bans marriage equality, the U.S. District court gave clerks from Kanawha and Cabell counties up to 60 extra days to respond to the suit, so that WV Attorney General Patrick Morrisey can decide whether to intervene.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source WISCONSIN  •  On 23 September 2012, in Julaine Appling, et al., v. WI Governor Scott Walker, et al., 7 WI Supreme Court justices heard arguments, considered altering the existing domestic partner law, and adjourned without a decision, which is expected by summer 2014.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source HAWAII  •  On 25 October 2013, 12 of the first 15 states with marriage equality (CA, CT, DC, DE, IA, MA, MD, ME, NH, NY, VT, WA) plus IL, NM, and OR filed a brief urging the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to strike down gay marriage bans in HI and NV.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source NEVADA  •  On 25 October 2013, 12 of the first 15 states with marriage equality (CA, CT, DC, DE, IA, MA, MD, ME, NH, NY, VT, WA) plus IL, NM, and OR filed a brief urging the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to strike down gay marriage bans in HI and NV.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source

---

STATE LEGISLATION & POLLS

ILLINOIS  •  On 21 October 2013, Fako & Associates surveyed registered likely IL voters on marriage equality, and reported that 52% support it, including 66% of Roman Catholics, 55% of African Americans, and 63% of Latinos.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source HAWAII  •  On 21 October 2013, the Honolulu Civil Beat newspaper surveyed 819 registered HI voters on same-gender civil marriage, and reported that 44% support it, 44% oppose it, and 12% are undecided.  • MEUSA Summary  •  News Source NEW JERSEY  •  Even after the NJ Supreme Court decided to authorize same-gender civil marriages, NJ lawmakers still might revise statutes regarding:  (1) conversion of civil unions into marriages; (2) facility rentals from religious organizations; and (3) recognizing out-of-state marriages in NJ.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source OKLAHOMA  •  On 10 October 2013, the combined Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes of western Oklahoma issued their first same-gender civil marriage license to Jason Pickel and Darren Black Bear.  In 2004, such marriages were banned by statute and by constitution in the rest of OK.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source NEW JERSEY  •  On 21 October 2013, Rutgers-Eagleton surveyed 799 registered NJ voters regarding marriage equality, and reported that 61% support it, 27% oppose it, and 12% are unsure.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source

---

STATE BALLOTS & POLLS

IOWA  •  On 24 October 2013, the nonpartisan Brennan Center for Justice, National Institute on Money in Politics, and Justice at Stake reported that activists spent $833,000 ($466,000 anti-LGBT + $367,000 pro-LGBT) to persuade voters whether to retain an Iowa Supreme Court judge who in 2009 ruled in favor of same-gender civil marriage.  On 6 November 2012, voters retained Justice Wiggins by a 55%-to-45% margin.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source OREGON  •  On 6 November 2013, San Francico non-profit leader Mike Marshall takes over leadership of Oregon United for Marriage.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source

---

Send questions and comments to:  [email protected].

[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. Recently someone said she had heard that widows and widowers could only get Social Security survivor benefits if they have been married at least 10 years at the time of the death of their spouse. Same sex couples have only recently been allowed to marry. So, if there is a 10 year threshold, same sex couples would need to wait a long time before qualifying for Social Security 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. In fact, a couple must have been married for a minimum of only 9 months before the death of one of them for the widow or widower to qualify for Social Security survivor benefits based on the Social Security account of the deceased spouse. According to a representative of the Social Security Administration, that threshold period can be reduced. For example, if the spouse died in a tragic accident the 9 month rule might be reduced. People can also get certain Social Security spousal benefits when both of them are alive. To qualify for these benefits, the couple must have been married for a year prior to applying for the benefits. In the case of divorce, the former spouse of the deceased might also qualify for Social Security survivor benefits. However, in order for the divorced former spouse to qualify, the marriage must have lasted at least 10 years. As regards widows and widowers who were married to the deceased at the time of death, how much the survivor receives depends on several factors. The more earnings the deceased had prior to death, the higher the monthly payment the survivor may qualify for. The longer the deceased has been working, and paying Social Security taxes, the higher the amount the survivor will receive. However this factor does not increase the benefit beyond 10 years of working history of the deceased. The deceased’s having worked 11 years does not increase the benefit any more than 10 years of work does. Survivors get the full monthly payment if the worker worked and paid Social Security taxes for at least 10 years. However, if the deceased died young and had not yet worked 10 years, the widow or widower might still qualify for some portion of the full monthly payment. The age of the survivor, when he or she starts drawing the Social Security benefit, affects how large the monthly payments are. If he or she waits until full retirement age the survivor will get the full benefit. Full retirement age varies from age 66 to 67, depending on the date of birth of the survivor. However, in return for accepting reduced monthly payments, the survivor can start monthly payments as young as age 60. Also, if the survivor is caring for a child of the deceased, who is under age 16, the surviving spouse can start monthly payments at any age. In this case, the surviving spouse would get the full monthly payment. The amount would not be reduced because of the young age of the surviving spouse. You may read a brochure from the Social Security Administration, with more details on this issue, by directing your browser to the following  address: http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10084.pdf Note: This article was corrected from an earlier version that misstated the amount of time a couple must be married before being eligible for social security  spousal benefits.

By MEUSA Social Media Director Thom Watson In my previous column I noted I was about to get married. I hope you’ll forgive my ongoing self-indulgence as I write about my nuptials once more. One’s own wedding, after all, doesn’t happen every day. Admittedly, given California’s rollercoaster history regarding marriage equality, some of us have been married multiple times to the same person. Jeff and I even had a post-Prop 8 commitment ceremony that we called a wedding, in defiance of the amendment’s unconstitutional claim that we weren’t legally entitled to the term. But Jeff and I legally wed just once.  At 2:00 p.m., Thursday, September 26 – three weeks ago today and four years to the day from that non-legal commitment ceremony – we made our vows to one another at San Francisco City Hall. Originally, our congresswoman Jackie Speier was slated to officiate. However, due to the ongoing budget crisis in the federal government, the House of Representatives was called back from their recess originally scheduled for the week we were to marry, and Rep. Speier regretfully had to cancel. [caption id="attachment_447" align="alignleft" width="300"] Jeff and Thom with Stuart and John at the Cliff House, September 28. ©2013 Levi Smith Photography[/caption] With one week to go before the wedding, our very dear friends and my fellow Bay Times columnists John Lewis and Stuart Gaffney generously agreed to step in as co-officiants. Actually, knowing that John had officiated other weddings, and that he and Stuart were going to be there at our wedding – just as they’d been with us at City Hall after Judge Walker’s decision in August, 2010, when we hoped the stay would be lifted and we would be able to marry; on Valentine’s Day earlier this year when we spoke to a crowd at City Hall about the pain of still not being able to wed; and again at City Hall that joyful day this past June when we finally got our marriage license – we already had asked if he would be willing to officiate in the event the congresswoman were called back to D.C. We had planned to ask Stuart to be our witness. When John and Stuart arrived at City Hall on the 26^th, however, they surprised us  by asking if we’d mind if they performed the wedding together. We were touched by the suggestion, thrilled by the possibility, and particularly moved by the symbolism of having these two men stand together to pronounce the words that would make Jeff and me husbands. Four years ago we knew John and Stuart largely only as fellow marriage equality activists, heroes of the California marriage equality movement, and plaintiffs in the court case that first established the freedom to marry in California and set the stage for our own wedding this year. In the intervening time, though, they’d become our mentors, our comrades-in-arms, and our brothers. John and Stuart brought a deeply personal touch to the ceremony, and Jeff and I consider ourselves to be so very fortunate that in the end our two friends were the ones facing us on the balcony at City Hall. [caption id="attachment_448" align="alignright" width="300"] Thom and Jeff with friends at their Cliff House reception. ©2013 Levi Smith Photography[/caption] Two days later we hosted a reception at the Cliff House, the location of our 2009 commitment ceremony. Four years ago we’d been joined by about 65 friends and family members. Last month over 110 of our friends and family were present; there were several dozen more people, including at least a half-dozen more kids, who might have been there but for other commitments, distance, or last-minute illness. Four years ago, there was one teenager present and no younger children. Last month nearly a dozen infants, toddlers, and pre-teens, along with a couple of teenagers, attended our reception. Several of these children call us “Uncle Thom” and “Uncle Jeff,” even though we have no biological connection, just a loving one that recognizes family ties beyond those of blood. We live in a world where love and legal marriage between two men or two women increasingly is not something to hide or to “protect” kids from, but rather something to celebrate, truly a family affair. We live in a world where these kids will grow up to be able to marry whomever they love, regardless of sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity. Honestly, not too many years ago I would have said I wouldn’t expect to see that world in my lifetime. But at the Cliff House last month, I saw that it’s already arrived. [caption id="attachment_451" align="alignleft" width="300"] Just a few of the friends Thom & Jeff have made within the marriage equality movement. ©2013 Levi Smith Photography[/caption] The increase in the number of people celebrating with us was due almost entirely to the new friends and allies we’ve made in the past four years through our marriage equality advocacy; we considered our reception, in fact, to be as much a day of celebration for the hard work of so many to return the freedom to marry to California as it was specifically for the two of us. To that end, we asked that in lieu of gifts attendees consider making a donation to Marriage Equality USA; I’m overwhelmed by our friends’ generosity and very proud to note that our equality registry to date has raised nearly $2,700 to help MEUSA in its efforts to win the freedom to marry for the 37 remaining states where couples like Jeff and me still are denied this important civil right. That includes states like Virginia, my birthplace and my home for over 35 years. Jeff and I left Virginia for California, his home, in no small part due to the extreme homophobia of Virginia’s government and the absolute lack of any protections there for LGBT people in public accommodations, housing, employment, or relationship status. It remains legal in Virginia to fire an employee, even a state government employee, to refuse service at your place of business, or to refuse to rent or sell a home, for no reason other than that you disapprove of someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity. The current attorney general, once (though thankfully no longer) the front-runner to be the next governor, has called LGBT  people “destructive” and “soulless,” while the GOP candidate for lieutenant governor has made homophobic comments that make “destructive” and “soulless” sound almost like compliments in comparison. Still, things are getting better, even back there in the Commonwealth, if more slowly than we might wish. [caption id="attachment_453" align="alignright" width="300"] I say, old chap, it's time to bring marriage equality to the Old Dominion, what? ©2013 Levi Smith Photography[/caption] Recent news that the legal team headed by David Boies and Ted Olson that defeated Prop 8 is now challenging Virginia’s refusal to treat loving gay couples as anything more than strangers under the law is particularly welcome and heartening. Someday Jeff and I may be able to visit my birth family – his in-laws – with pride and optimism rather than the worry and dread based on the state considering our marriage invalid that so often accompanies our visits back there now. Thousands of couples like us, we hope, will before long have their own relationships treated with the legal recognition that is their human and civil right. It would be fitting, certainly, if the state that in Loving v. Virginia fought anti-miscegenation laws all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, and lost, thereby resulting in bans on interracial marriage being overturned nationwide, were to provide same-sex couples our own version of Loving and the same end to all laws banning same-sex marriages. It’s long past time for the Commonwealth fully to live up to its motto, “Virginia is for lovers,” without the invisible disclaimer, “Void where gay.”

[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. People who are thinking of getting married, and who are receiving assistance from Medi-Cal, or may want to apply for it, should carefully consider their marriage plans. In some cases, getting married might disqualify them for Medi-Cal. Medi-Cal is a program which provides health insurance to those with very low income in California. It can help people pay for doctor’s visits, medications, lab tests and xrays, hospital care and surgery charges and skilled nursing home care. 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. Medi-Cal has income limits for qualifying for the program. To qualify for Medi-Cal the applicant’s income must be less than 138% of the federal poverty level. For calendar year 2014, that means a single person must make less than $1,322 per month, or a couple must earn less than $1,784 per month, to be eligible. As you can see, the income limit for a couple is considerably less than for two single people. So, the income limits mean that two people on limited income might consider not getting married so they both will remain eligible for Medi-Cal. Medi-Cal also has property limits. That is, the value of property owned by a person or couple applying for Medi-Cal must not be worth more than a certain amount. For one person that value limit is $3,000. For two people (such as a married couple) the amount is the same. So here is an example of how these property limits might hurt a couple that gets married. Suppose two individuals each own $2,900 worth of property. If each of them were single, each of them would meet the asset test. Neither of them would be disqualified for owning too much property. If they married, each of them would fail that test and be disqualified. There are other requirements that people must meet to qualify for Medi-Cal. But the income and asset tests should be considered when people on limited income are considering getting married. To see a list of the other requirements,direct your browser to the following address. http://www.dhcs.ca.gov/formsandpubs/forms/Forms/mc002info0907.pdf

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

October 7 – 13, 2013

---

NATIONAL MAP

---

NATIONAL POLLS

---

NATIONAL LEGISLATION

---

LAWSUITS

PENNSYLVANIA  •  On 7 October 2013, in Deb & Susan Whitewood v. PA Governor Tom Corbett et al., a federal lawsuit challenging the 1996 PA law that bans same-gender marriage for residents, and that ignores out-of-state same-gender marriages, the governor, chief legal officer, and health secretary asked to be released as defendants, and lawyers for PA Attorney General Kathleen Kane argued that she also should not be a defendant, which would leave only two county officials as defendants.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source IOWA  •  On 7 October 2013, in Betty Ann & Richard Odgaard v. Iowa Civil Rights Commission et al., two bistro owners (the Odgaards) sued IA, claiming that:  (1) their religious beliefs compel them to discriminate against same-gender couples, (2) the IA anti-discrimination law violates their religious beliefs by outlawing discrimination, and (3) their bistro business qualifies as a religious institution.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source ILLINOIS  •  On 8 October 2013, in Darby v. Orr, opponents of marriage equality challenged the county judge’s decision (to allow the case to proceed) by appealing to a higher court, where arguments are scheduled to be heard on 14 November 2013.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source NEW JERSEY  •  On 10 October 2013, in Garden State Equality, et al. v. NJ Attorney General Paula Dow, et al., Justice Jacobson denied NJ’s request to delay same-gender civil marriages (scheduled to start on 21 October 2013) until Governor Christie’s appeal is concluded in 2014.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source NEW JERSEY  •  On 11 October 2013, in Garden State Equality, et al. v. NJ Attorney General Paula Dow, et al., the NJ Supreme Court announced it will rule on:  (1) marriage equality, and (2) the 21 October start date for same-gender civil marriage licenses.  Plaintiffs have until 15 October to file objections.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source UTAH  •  On 11 October 2013, in Kitchen, et al. v. Utah Attorney General John Swallow, et al., UT Governor Herbert requested a summary judgment favoring the state, and argued that:  (1) marriage is not a right; (2) states can exclude some citizens from marriage; (3) “responsible procreation” is a reason to exclude same-gender couples, and (4) raising children with mixed-gender parents is better.  Plaintiffs also requested a summary judgment in their favor, and argued that UT’s constitutional ban restricts rights and liberties.  The court will hear both of these motions on 4 December 2013.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source

---

STATE LEGISLATION & POLLS

WASHINGTON  •  On 4 October 2013, the WA Judicial Conduct Commission firmly reprimanded Thurston County Superior Court Judge Gary Tabor for refusing to perform civil wedding ceremonies for same-gender couples for what he said were “philosophical and religious reasons.”  WA law prohibits such discrimination, so Judge Tabor no longer performs weddings for anyone.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source TEXAS  •  On 8 October 2013, the Dallas Area Rapid Transit Board voted 9-3 to adopt a domestic partner employee benefits plan.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source NEW JERSEY  •  On 8 October 2013, Fairleigh Dickinson University surveyed 702 registered voters, and reported that 62% support the NJ court’s ruling in favor of same-gender civil marriage, 30% oppose it, and 8% don’t know or refused to answer.  Also, 62% oppose NJ’s appeal of the court’s ruling, 29% support it, and 9% don’t know or refused to answer.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source

---

STATE BALLOTS & POLLS

ARKANSAS  •  On 7 October 2013, AR Attorney Genderal Dustin McDaniel rejected the wording of two ballot measures to legalize same-gender civil marriage, after approving a third ballot measure to repeal the 2004 constitutional ban on same-gender marriage.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source INDIANA  •  On 9 October 2013, the anti-LGBT Indiana Family Institute surveyed 504 likely IN voters, and reported that 62% support a constitutional ban on same-gender civil marriage, 33% oppose a ban, and 6% are undecided.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source

---

Send questions and comments to:  [email protected].

[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. The spouses and children of veterans (or active service members in some circumstances) qualify for certain education and housing benefits. And, now that DOMA has been overturned, the same sex spouses of veterans qualify for those 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. Under current law, veterans qualify for a number of benefits which relate to getting a college education or other training for work. Under certain circumstances, those benefits may be transferred to, and used by, their spouses and children. The benefits are as follows:

• College tuition and fee payments paid to the school on the student’s behalf.
• A monthly housing allowance.
• A books and supplies stipend of up to $1,000 per year.

The percentage of these benefits paid depends on how many months the veteran served on active duty in the military. Service members who served for at least 36 months qualify for 100% of the maximum benefits payable. Service members with at least 90 days, but less than 6 months, of active duty qualify for 40% of the maximum benefits available. The percentage of benefits available goes up in steps with increasing numbers of months served, but topping out at 100%. Veterans are eligible for 36 months worth of these benefits. They can use the benefits for up to 15 years after their last period of active duty of at least 90 consecutive days. They can use the benefits at colleges, universities, trade schools, and for on-the-job training, apprenticeships, and flight schools. The amount of the housing allowance varies with the ZIP code of the college and with whether the veteran is living at the college or taking courses over the internet or in some other way not actually attending classes in person. Whatever of these benefits have not been used up by the veterans can be transferred to, and used by, the spouses and children of the veterans. These benefits are administrated by the US Veteran’s Administration (VA). And whether or not that agency recognizes a same sex marriage depends on where the couple was married and where they live when the benefits are being requested. Basically, the VA recognizes a same sex marriages in almost all situations. The one exception is as follows: At the time of the marriage the couple lived in a state that does not recognize marriage (but they got married in a state that allows such marriages) and still live in a state that does not recognize same sex marriage at the time of application for veteran’s benefits. The rules determining when a spouse or child may use the veteran’s education and housing benefits are stricter than the rules saying when a veteran qualifies to use them. In order for the transfer of benefits to become possible, the military service member must have served 6 years in the military and must agree to serve an additional 4 years, or has already completed 10 years of service, or has not completed 10 years of service but is prevented from doing so as the result of Department of Defense policy or because of some law (but agrees to serve as long as he or she is allowed to). The transfer of benefits would also be allowed if the service member has retired from the military or is eligible to do so. Spouses are eligible to use the transferred benefits even while the service member is still on active duty. The spouse may use the benefit for up to 15 years from the last separation of the service member from active duty. The children must wait until the service member has completed the required 10 years of service and may use the benefit without the 15 year limit. However the child’s eligibility ends at age 26.

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

September 30 - October 6, 2013

---

NATIONAL MAP

---

NATIONAL POLLS

• On 27 September 2013, Public Religion Research Institute surveyed 1,563 Hispanic Americans from a representative sample of U.S. adults regarding same-gender civil marriage, and reported that 55% favor it, 43% do not, with 2% unaccounted for. Also, regarding candidate preferences, likely Hispanic voters prefer Democrats 58%, Republicans 28%, and others 12%, with 2% unaccounted for.  •  Survey Details
• On 4 October 2013, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,776 American adults on same-gender civil marriage, and reported that among registered voters, 57% support it, 36% do not, and 6% do not know or give no answer.  Among Roman Catholics (where no clergy support same-gender civil marriage at all), 60% of churchgoers support it, 31% don't, and 9% do not know or give no answer.  •  Survey Details

---

NATIONAL LEGISLATION

• On 30 September 2013, U.S. Representative Adam Smith (D- Washington) and Senator Carl Levin (D-Michigan), the top Democrats on the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, told the U.S. Department of Defense to ensure that military spouse benefits are issued to all armed forces personnel in same-gender civil marriages, including states which have denied some benefits applications, such as IN, LA, MS, OK, SC, and TX.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  Survey Details

---

LAWSUITS

MASSACHUSETTS  •  On 2 October 2013, in Shannon McLaughlin, et al. v. Chuck Hagel, et al., a Federal district court ruled in favor of 8 same-gender couples and awarded them equal pay/benefits for active/veteran military personnel, retroactively to 2011.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source PENNSYLVANIA  •  On 1 October 2013, in Pennsylvania Health Department v. Montgomery County Court Clerk Bruce Hanes, the county appealed to the PA Supreme Court a lower court ruling that halted the issuance of same-gender civil marriage licenses after 174 licenses were issued.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source PENNSYLVANIA  •  On 26 September 2013, in Cara Palladino & Isabelle Barker v. PA Governor Corbett et al., a couple filed a federal suit to force PA to recognize their 2005 MA marriage.  The Equality Forum suit raises two new federal constitutional questions:  whether states must respect laws from other states, and whether citizens can travel between states without losing rights.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source WEST VIRGINIA  •  On 1 October 2013, in Casie Jo McGee, et al. v. Cabell County Clerk Karen Cole, et al., Fairness WV and Lambda Legal filed a federal lawsuit for three couples challenging the state law that bans marriage equality.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source NEW JERSEY  •  On 30 September 2013, in Garden State Equality, et al. v. NJ Attorney General Paula Dow, et al., Lambertville, NJ mayor David DelVecchio committed to performing NJ’s first same-gender civil marriage as soon as the ruling goes into effect on 21 October 2013.  •  MEUSA Summary  • News Source NEW JERSEY  •  On 1 October 2013, in Garden State Equality, et al. v. NJ Attorney General Paula Dow, et al., NJ Acting Attorney General John Hoffman appealed directly to the NJ Supreme Court (bypassing the NJ appeals court), and asked for expedited review.  Hoffman also asked the Superior Court to delay implementation of its ruling until after the Supreme Court review, which Lambda Legal opposes.  • MEUSA Summary  •  News Source VIRGINIA  •  On 30 September 2013, in Joanne Harris, et al. v. Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell et al., the ACLU, ACLU Virginia, and Lambda Legal filed a federal class action lawsuit for two couples seeking full marriage equality for all VA residents, including couples married elsewhere.  On 30 September 2013, ACLU and Lambda Legal asked for a summary judgment.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source KENTUCKY  •  On 1 October 2013, in Gregory Bourke & Michael Deleon v. Kentucky, KY Attorney General Clay Barkley asked a federal court to dismiss the case, claiming that the plaintiffs have no standing to bring this lawsuit.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source TEXAS  •  On 9 September 2013, 16 TX state representatives told the TX Military Forces to:  (1) stop denying equal pay and benefits to all same-gender married military couples at all TX National Guard facilities, (2) stop denying membership in family readiness groups, and (3) stop denying participation in marriage enrichment retreats.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source TEXAS  •  On 13 September 2013, in Alicia Butler & Judith Chedville vs. Texas, Lambda Legal told the TX Military Forces that since 3 September 2013 it has been unlawful to deny equal federal pay and benefits to any same-gender married military couple, and the TX ban on same-gender civil marriage does not exempt TX from compliance.  Chedville is an Army nurse and Iraq war veteran, and a 1st Lieutenant in the Army National Guard.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source VIRGINIA  •  On 18 July 2013, in Timothy Bostic, et al. vs. VA State Registrar Janet Rainey, et al., a gay couple filed a federal lawsuit challenging VA’s 2006 ban on same-gender marriage, joined by a lesbian couple seeking to have their 2008 CA marriage recognized in VA.  On 30 September 2013, AFER (American Foundation for Equal Rights), the sole sponsor of the lawsuit which defeated CA Proposition 8, joined this lawsuit to win full federal marriage equality nationwide.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source VIRGINIA  •  On 3 October 2013, in Timothy Bostic, et al. vs. VA State Registrar Janet Rainey, et al., VA Attorney General (and candidate for governor) Ken Cucinelli filed a brief in federal court arguing that same-gender civil marriage should be banned because:  (1) some religious beliefs from the 1500s also ban it; (2) some dictionaries still describe marriage as only between mixed-gender couples; and (3) some mixed-gender couples procreate.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source NEW JERSEY  •  On 4 October 2013, in Garden State Equality, et al. v. NJ Attorney General Paula Dow, et al., plaintiffs told the court that NJ has failed to prove it risks any irreparable harm if it issues licenses, and has failed to prove that it is likely to win its appeal, and therefore asked the court to not delay the implementation of its ruling.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source

---

STATE LEGISLATION & POLLS

NEW MEXICO  •  On 1 October 2013, Anzalone Liszt Grove Research surveyed 502 registered NM voters regarding same-gender civil marriage, and reported that 51% support it (35% strongly; 16% somewhat), 42% oppose it (34% strongly, 8% somewhat) and 7% do not know or refused to answer.  Regarding a constitutional ban on same-gender civil marriage, 54% oppose it (42% strongly, 12% somewhat), 38% support it (32% strongly, 6% somewhat), and 8% do not know or refused to answer.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source PENNSYLVANIA  •  On 3 October 2013, state Representative Brian Sims (D) introduced House Bill 1686, the Pennsylvania Marriage Equality Act, to legalize same-gender civil marriage.  The bill is supported by 32 lawmakers (31 Democrats, 1 Republican).  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source NEW JERSEY  •  On 2 October 2013, Assemblyman Chris Brown (R) reversed his 2012 vote, and now supports marriage equality.  To override the governor’s 2012 veto by mid-January 2014, only 10 more lawmakers are needed (3 Senators to reach 27 out of 40 and 7 Assemblymen to reach 54 out of 80).  • MEUSA Summary  •  News Source

---

STATE BALLOTS & POLLS

NEVADA  •  On 2 October 2013, Retail Association of Nevada surveyed 500 likely NV voters regarding repeal of the constitutional ban on same-gender civil marriage, and reported that 57% favor repeal, and 36% do not, with 7% unaccounted for.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source   OREGON  •  On 4 October 2013, the Oregon Business Association, which represents over 300 businesses, endorsed the Freedom-to-Marry & Religious Protection Initiative, following the Portland Business Alliance.  Volunteers have collected over 90,000 signatures toward placing the issue on the November 2014 ballot.  • MEUSA Summary  •  News Source

---

Send questions and comments to:  [email protected].

By MEUSA Director of Legal & Policy John Lewis and MEUSA National Media Director Stuart Gaffney An edited version of this article originally appeared in SF Bay Times, October 3, 2013: http://www.sfbaytimes.com/index.php?sec=article&article_id=18035 The latest California public opinion poll shows record support for marriage equality — 64% of likely voters and 61% percent of all adults. This news made us realize how wonderful it is when dreams really do come true, and when political goals that once seemed impossible are actually achieved. When the U.S. Supreme Court rulings ended Prop 8 and Section 3 of DOMA this summer, we wrote a press release for Marriage Equality USA saying that there would now be “more love and more marriage” than ever before. Yet we didn’t anticipate fully just how it would feel, landing somewhere over the rainbow — where instead of rallying for marriage equality in front of City Hall, we were getting invited to weddings inside City Hall. And for the first time we started having a whole new relationship to these weddings – in addition to getting wedding invitations, we started being invited to officiate. There truly is no better reward for a marriage equality activist! “By the power vested in me by the State of California, I pronounce you lawfully married spouses for life.” Those words have always held great meaning for us, not just because of the emotions we associate with weddings, but because they represent the first time we felt our government treating us as equal human beings, worthy of the full dignity and respect of the law. To be able now to say those words as officiants for couples saying “I do” is an amazing experience. No two couples are alike, and no two weddings are alike. We remember how the thousands of couples and families who lined up all day and even overnight in the rain outside San Francisco City Hall in February 2004 represented one of the most diverse gatherings of our community we had ever seen. And the couples we have been lucky enough to marry have been young and old, rich and poor, sick and healthy – just like the words in the wedding vows they recite. And now, without the deadline pressure couples felt in 2004 and again in 2008, couples are planning their happily ever afters with the greatest of love, care and creativity. One couple designed their own avatars. Another couple planned a fairytale honeymoon  literally — at Disneyland. Yet another couple had feminist wedding cake toppers – “Sisterhood is Powerful” and “Viva La Revolucion.” And another had no money for rings, but still shared a very personal moment of commitment and equality. And so on — the creativity is endless, and the only constant is the joy — and tears of joy — in the eyes of couples who may have been together for 5 years or 50 years, but weren’t sure they would live to see the day when they could finally hear wedding bells ring out for them. As we perform marriages for dear friends and total strangers alike, it’s hard to imagine a political cause with a “happier” ending than the movement for equal marriage rights in California. But much remains to be done as we work to achieve marriage equality nationwide, to attain full equality in all aspects of our lives, and to stop homophobia and transphobia in all their manifestations. We were reminded of the work ahead when we recently performed a same-sex couple’s “confidential” marriage ceremony, a legal marriage with no traceable public record of the names of the couple. The couple needed the confidential marriage because they had very real fears for their safety in their community if it became known they were married. But the love and affection they felt for each other, their joy at marrying, and their sense of dignity at being treated equally under the law was palpable as their eyes locked on each other as they said “I do.” The substantive legal benefits of marriage were also very important to this couple with very limited income and financial resources. The world is changing right before our eyes — one wedding at a time. The movement for full equality has been filled with an enormous array of emotions and will undoubtedly involve many more successes and challenges. As we move forward, experiencing and sharing the joy of success inspires us as a diverse community to reach even greater heights. As we celebrate with the newlyweds in San Francisco City Hall, there’s truly no place on earth we’d rather be.