My mother, who is Chinese American, was only able to marry my father, who is English and Irish American, because in 1948 the California Supreme Court became the first state supreme court in the nation to overturn a ban on interracial couples marrying. My mother still remembers the day when one of her friends in the Chinese Students Club at U.C. Berkeley had to leave the state to marry her white fiancée a few years before the Court’s decision. My mom's friend literally had to run from the law to marry the person she loved, simply because they were of different races.

In its historic 1948 decision, Perez v. Sharp, the California Supreme Court held that each citizen’s fundamental constitutional right to marry was really no right at all, unless it meant the freedom to “marry the person of one’s choice.” My parents married in the International House at Berkeley, the very same place they'd met. But as they moved to other states, they found that each state’s laws treated their marriage differently simply because of their races. While looking for a house in Missouri, they learned that Missouri law prohibited marriage between whites and “negroes” or “Mongolians,” the term then used for most Asian Americans.

When I was growing up, my parents didn't discuss these discriminatory laws over the dinner table. But it wasn’t until 1967 that the US Supreme Court overturned all such laws nationwide in the landmark Loving v. Virginia case. The court declared marriage is one of the “basic rights of man.”

My mother, John, and I flew to Washington, DC together as a family for events commemorating the 40th anniversary of the Loving decision. My mother spoke out at the Capitol for the rights of all loving couples to wed, including her own son and son-in-law. Mildred Loving, who brought the historic lawsuit before the United States Supreme Court, stated that “I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry.”

When John and I were able to legally marry in 2008, surrounded by our family and friends, it was a dream come true. As we exchanged vows and were pronounced spouses for life, we felt that for the first time in our lives that our government was treating us equally under the law, and treating our relationship with full dignity and respect. The day was so transformative that we have committed to do everything we can to secure the freedom to marry for all.

Having my mom and dad there beside us, witnessing the next generation in our family achieving marriage equality, was the best wedding gift of all. Marriage equality is a family tradition.

---

Stuart Gaffney is the MEUSA Communications Director, and his husband John Lewis is the MEUSA Director of Legal & Policy.

The photo displayed is from Stuart and John's legal wedding in June 2013, following the SOCTUS decision that upheld a lower court's ruling that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional, thus renewing marriage equality in California. The couple is shown here with their respective parents in the rotunda of San Francisco City Hall.

 

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

March 17 – 23, 2014

---

NATIONAL MAP

---

NATIONAL POLLS

---

STATE POLLS

• PENNSYLVANIA  •  On 3 March 2014, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,405 registered PA voters regarding same-gender civil marriage, and reported that 57% support it, 37% oppose it, and 6% don’t know or don’t answer.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source

---

NATIONAL LEGISLATION PENDING

• On 26 April 2013, U.S. Representative Aaron Schock (R-IL) introduced the Equitable Access to Care and Health Act (HR-1814), which would excuse a citizen from the federal law requiring the purchase of health insurance whenever that citizen claims a religious belief, and on 6 May 2013, U.S. Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) introduced the Senate version (S. 862).  On 11 March 2014, the U.S. House of Representatives skipped Committee review, and passed HR-1814 on a voice-only vote.  Lawmakers favoring it include 226 Representatives (145 Republican, 81 Democrat), and 32 Senators (16 Republican, 15 Democrat, 1 Independent).  Based on history, the chance of enactment is 24%.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source

---

NATIONAL LEGISLATION ENACTED

---

LAWSUITS PENDING

PENNSYLVANIA • 18 March 2014, in Cara Palladino & Isabelle Barker v. PA Governor Corbett et al.,a federal suit about marriage recognition, the court scheduled oral arguments for 28 May 2014.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source TEXAS • On 7 March 2014, in Cleopatra De Leon, et al., v. TX Governor Rick Perry et al.,a federal class action lawsuit for all TX couples challenging the 2003 law and the 2005 TX constitutional ban on marriage inside and outside TX, the preliminary injunction against the TX same-gender civil marriage bans while the district court case is proceeding was appealed by TX to the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, and the district court case proceedings were stayed pending the appeal ruling.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source TEXAS • On 12 March 2014, in Shannon Zahrn, et al. v. TX Governor Rick Perry, et al., a federal class action suit seeking equal marriage rights for all TX couples, and challenging the TX statutory and constitutional bans on same-gender civil marriage, TX asked the court to stay proceedings in this case pending the outcome at the 5th Circuit of Cleopatra De Leon, et al., v. TX Governor Rick Perry et al.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source TEXAS • On 12 March 2014, in Christopher McNosky, et al. v. TX Governor Rick Perry, et al., a federal class action suit seeking equal marriage rights for all TX couples, and challenging the TX statutory and constitutional bans on same-gender civil marriage, TX asked the court to stay proceedings in this case pending the outcome at the 5th Circuit of Cleopatra De Leon, et al., v. TX Governor Rick Perry et al.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source TEXAS  •  On 18 February 2014, In the Matter of the Marriage of A.L.F.L. and K.L.L., Allison Leona Flood Lesh and Kristi Lyn Lesh filed for divorce and child custody.  A hearing is scheduled for 20 March 2014.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source TENNESSEE • On 18 March 2014, in Valeria Tanco, et al. v. TN Governor William Haslam, et al., a constitutional challenge to the TN law that bans recognition of same-gender civil marriages, the TN attorney general:  (1) asked for a stay of the injunction requiring TN to recognize the civil marriages of 3 same-gender couples, and (2) notified the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that TN is appealing the order requiring recognition of marriages made elsewhere.  On 20 March 2014, the court denied the state’s request.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source KENTUCKY • On 20 March 2014, in Timothy Love, et al. v. Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear (formerly Gregory Bourke & Michael De Leon, et al. v. Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear), a federal lawsuit challenging KY’s ban on recognizing same-gender couples married elsewhere, the court stayed enforcement of its final order (requiring KY to recognize marriages performed elsewhere) pending the outcome from the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.  Briefing on the intervening couples’ claims is slated to finish by 28 May 2014.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source WISCONSIN • On 20 March 2014, in Virginia Wolf & Carol Schumacher, et al., v. WI Governor Scott Walker, et al., a federal lawsuit for 4 couples challenging the 2006 WI ban on same-gender civil marriage or civil union, and WI’s unique ban on marrying elsewhere, for which each spouse faces up to $10,000 in fines and 9 months in prison as soon as they return to WI, WI DoJ claimed that existing mixed-gender marriage rights don’t include same-gender marriage rights, and asked that the case be dismissed.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source ARKANSAS • The case of Kendall Wright, et al. v. AR Governor Michael Beebe, et al., in which 21 same-gender couples challenge the 2004 AR constitutional ban on same-gender civil marriage, the state law banning same-gender civil marriage, the federal law allowing states to ignore same-gender marriages from other states, and recognition of parental rights, birth certificate names, insurance, and other benefits, is scheduled for oral argument on 17 April 2014.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source VIRGINIA • On 20 March 2014, in Timothy Bostic, et al. vs. VA 4th Circuit Court Clerk George Schaefer, et al., a federal lawsuit challenging VA’s 2006 ban on same-gender marriage, and out-of-state marriage recognition, the 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals confirmed the hearing of oral arguments on 13 May 2014 from attorneys for the original plaintiffs, assisted by attorneys from Lambda Legal and ACLU (in Joanne Harris, et al. vs. VA State Registrar Janet Rainey, et al., a certified class action case).  • MEUSA Summary  •  News Source MICHIGAN • On 21 March 2014, in April DeBoer & Jayne Rowse v. MI Governor Rick Snyder, et al.,a challenge to the state’s 2004 ban on same-gender marriage, civil union, domestic partnership, and joint adoption, the court:  (1) overturned the law and constitutional amendment that banned same-gender civil marriage in MI, (2) said that MI testimony calling same-gender parents inferior was "entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration," and (3) said that no available science contradicts the consensus that same-gender and mixed-gender couples are equally good at parenting.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source MICHIGAN • On 22 March 2014, in April DeBoer & Jayne Rowse v. MI Governor Rick Snyder, et al.,a challenge to the state’s 2004 ban on same-gender marriage, civil union, domestic partnership, and joint adoption, officials in at least 5 counties married over 300 county-resident, same-gender couples until 5:00 p.m., when the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals issued a temporary stay, effective through Tuesday, 26 March 2014.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source HAWAI'I • On 19 March 2014, in Natasha Jackson, et al., v. Governor Neil Abercrombie, et al., a marriage rights case, the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals requested an opening brief by 25 April 2014, an answering brief by 27 May 2014, and an optional reply brief 14 days after delivery of the answering brief.  Lawamkers legalized same-gender civil marriage in 2013, but the court still wants to ensure an orderly disposition of the appeal for future reference.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source

---

LAWSUITS RESOLVED

---

STATE LEGISLATION PENDING

GEORGIA  •  On 3 March 2014, SB-377, which would allow religious belief to excuse violating federal health care laws, died in the GA legislature for 2014.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source SOUTH DAKOTA  •  By 14 March 2014, SB-128 (which would legalize religion-based discrimination against LGBT people in 4 settings:  (1) employment; (2) public accommodation; (3) commercial services; and (4) state courts) died in the 2014 SD legislature, after a 5-to-2 vote by the SD Senate Judiciary Committee defeated it.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source CALIFORNIA • On 14 March 2014, CA initiative #13-0014 (which would exempt a citizen from any law that conflicts with that citizen’s religious bible-based beliefs, and would modify the CA constitution to protect religious expression even when it violates peace and safety) failed to collect 807,615 valid signatures for the November 2014 ballot.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source

---

STATE LEGISLATION ENACTED

---

STATE BALLOT MEASURES

---

Send questions and comments to:  [email protected].

This week marks the ten-year anniversary of the beginning of San Francisco’s “Winter of Love,” in which 4,037 same-sex couples married at San Francisco City Hall from February 12 to March 11, 2004.  Those extraordinary days took the movement for marriage equality in California to a whole new level and inspired thousands of people to get involved.  We now have the freedom to marry in our state.  What the “Winter of Love” sparked remains highly significant as we continue the struggle for full LGBTIQ equality.

We began our involvement with the marriage equality movement on February 12, 2004, when we got married at City Hall. The experience was especially profound for us because it gave us the feeling of equality as members of the LGBTIQ community.  From the beginning, we have always considered the movement for the freedom to marry to be linked inextricably to the struggle for LGBTIQ equality in all aspects of our lives.

The Winter of Love ultimately led to the California Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in In Re Marriage Cases, establishing marriage equality in California before Proposition 8 and recognizing that commonality of purpose. It established that any California law discriminating against lesbian and gay people in any aspect of their lives, not just marriage, was presumptively unconstitutional unless the government could provide the most compelling of reasons for the law. The decision protects lesbian and gay people in myriad aspects of their lives from education to employment to the criminal justice system.

As public attention and opponents’ efforts focused on marriage, the California Legislature also quietly enacted laws establishing many important rights and protections other than marriage for LGBTIQ people. The 2010 Proposition 8 trial presented testimony about the gross harm that so-called gay “conversion” therapy exacts on lesbian and gay people, and the California Legislature went on to ban such therapy for minors.

Soon we may be faced with another challenge at the ballot box in California regarding LGBTIQ rights. On January 1, 2014, the School Success and Opportunity Act (Assembly Bill 1266) took effect. It requires that all California public schools respect students’ gender identity and ensures that students can fully participate in all school activities and facilities that match their gender identity. Opponents (many of whom backed Prop. 8) collected petition signatures to attempt to repeal the law on the November 2014 statewide ballot.

The state is now conducting a full count of signatures, and the referendum may or may not qualify for the ballot. If it does, we must share our lives and tell our personal stories to show the world, as we did during the Winter of Love, that laws excluding LGBTIQ people harm real people – in this case, transgender students.

We must remember that discrimination in any aspect of our lives and against any members of the community affects us all. And we must invoke the spirit and enthusiasm that the Winter of Love evoked to defeat the referendum if it appears on the ballot, or prevail in whatever challenge lies ahead for our community.

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

This article originally appeared in SF Bay Times, February 6, 2014: http://sfbaytimes.com/the-relevance-of-the-winter-of-love-to-the-entire-lgbtiq-community-today/

Because Proposition 8 was overturned by the US Supreme Court, if you are in a same sex marriage, you may qualify to take paid time off from work if your husband or wife is seriously ill.

Note: I am not an attorney or a qualified tax expert. No action should be taken based solely on the content of these memos. However, I hope the memos will help you ask the right questions of people who are qualified in these issues.

Now that same sex couples can marry in California, they may qualify for paid family leave under California law. They may also qualify for family leave under federal law. However the federal law does not provide income during the period of the leave.

Here is how the state law works.

California law allows people who work for most private employers to take up to 6 weeks (per 12 month period) of paid time off of work to care for a seriously ill child, spouse, parent, or registered domestic partner, or to bond with a new born child. People may also take paid time off to bond with a newly adopted child or with a child who is new to the home as a foster child.

In addition, self employed workers can qualify for the benefit if they have enrolled in the State Disability Income Elective Coverage Program.

Since same sex couples are now allowed to marry in California, workers can now qualify for paid time off to care for a seriously ill same sex spouse.

This paid time off program is a part of the California Disability Insurance (SDI) program, and those who qualify for SDI generally qualify for paid family leave as well.

Generally employees of the state of California do not qualify for this benefit. However they do qualify if their union has successfully bargained for the right to the coverage.

There is a federal family leave law that does require employers to re-hire workers who have taken time off under that law to care for a sick family member. However, that federal law does not provide any income during the leave period. Also, to qualify for the federal program, the worker must be employed by a company that has at least 50 employees within 75 miles of where the person seeking leave time works.

By contrast, the California Paid Family Leave Program provides income during the leave time, but employers are not required to take the worker back.

The weekly benefit amount (provided by the California Paid Family Leave Program) is approximately 55 percent of the earnings shown in the highest quarter of the employee’s base period. But the total will not exceed $266 per week. The payments come from the state. The employer is not required to pay the employee during the leave period.

Sometimes workers can take adequate care of their spouse, or other family member while working part time. In that case they can get paid part time by their employer and get a partial payment from the California Paid Family Leave Program as well.

Employers can require their workers to take up to 2 weeks of accrued vacation time before leaving on paid family leave. However, they can’t require workers to use accrued sick leave before starting paid family leave.

A medical certificate from a doctor is required when the time off is requested in order to care for a seriously ill family member. That certificate must include a diagnosis of the family member’s illness, the beginning date and probable duration of the illness, along with a statement that care by the person seeking time off is appropriate.

If the request is for bonding the time off requested must be within one year of the arrival of the child.

Workers can apply on line for California paid family leave.

Or they can order a paper copy of form DE 2501F by calling 1-877-238-4373. Hearing impaired people can order the form by Teletypewriter (TTY) 1-800-445-1312. The form also is available to be downloaded.

Authored by Boyce Hinman, founder and director of the California Communities United Institute, and member of Marriage Equality USA. Hinman has been writing and posting a series, "Monday Morning Marriage Memo," as part of his  Anatomy for Justice blog. This article was first published there, and is republished here with the author’s permission. Hinman resides in and serves California, therefore the posts sometimes have a California slant. 

NOTE: Marriage Equality USA is not a legal firm or a tax/accounting firm. No action should be taken based solely on the content of our news blog or website. 

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.

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].

[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.

[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.

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 14 – 20, 2013

---

NATIONAL MAP

• On 18 October 2013, the NJ Supreme Court decided to start same-gender civil marriages on 21 October 2013, so MEUSA updated its National Marriage Map to reflect that 33% of Americans live in 15 states with full, state-level equality (CA, CT, DC, DE, IA, MA, MD, ME, MN, NH, NJ, NY, RI, VT, WA), and 17% live in cities, counties, or states with partial equality (mainly CO, HI, IL, NM, NV, OR, WI), but 50% live in 29 states that still ban all types of unions except one-man-one-woman couples.  •  Map

---

NATIONAL POLLS

• On 11 October 2013, Pew Research Center surveyed earlier polls, and reported that from 2001 to 2013, support for same-gender civil marriage grew from 35% to 50%, and opposition declined from 57% to 43%.  Opposition is strongest among evangelical Protestants, Republicans, and political conservatives, but even in those groups is rising, as older voters die off and younger people reach voting age.  •  Survey Details

---

NATIONAL LEGISLATION

---

LAWSUITS

CALIFORNIA  •  In 2008, the authors of CA Proposition 8 (NOM, Protect Marriage.com) filed a federal lawsuit claiming that because they suffered boycotts, hate mail, phone calls, and unreported “death threats” they should be forever exempt from compliance with CA campaign disclosure laws, and their donors should stay secret.  The U.S. Supreme Court does make exceptions for small, persecuted groups who need anonymity to survive, but the Proposition 8 authors don’t qualify because they raised over $43 million and got 52% of the votes cast.  On 20 October 2011, the district court ruled against them.  On 11 October 2013, they argued their case in the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source VIRGINIA  •  On 3 Ocober 2013, in National Organization for Marriage v. U.S. Internal Revenue Service, NOM filed a federal lawsuit claiming that IRS unlawfully released its confidential tax data.  • MEUSA Summary  •  News Source NORTH CAROLINA  •  On 15 October 2013, in preparation for a lawsuit, Buncombe County, NC Register of Deeds Drew Reisinger began accepting marriage license applications from same-gender couples, and he asked NC Attorney General Roy Cooper to decide whether the NC statutory and constitutional bans on same-gender civil marriage violate the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection clause.  •  MEUSA Summary  • News Source ALASKA  •  On 14 October 2013, in Debra Harris v. Millennium Hotel, et al., Lambda Legal appealed to the AK Supreme Court to obtain survivor benefits for same-gender couples, for whom marriage is banned by AK’s law and its constitution.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source OREGON  •  On 15 October 2013, in Deanna Geiger et al. v. OR Governor John Kitzhaber et al., two couples filed a federal lawsuit challenging OR’s constitutional ban on same-gender civil marriage, and OR’s refusal to recognize legal marriages from other jurisdictions.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source MICHIGAN  •  On 16 October 2013, in April DeBoer & Jayne Rowse v. MI Governor Rick Snyder, et al., U.S. District Court Judge Bernard Friedman denied both sides’ petitions for summary judgment, saying that he will expedite completion of the case, witness lists will be exchanged in October 2013, and expert testimony will be heard during a trial starting on 25 February 2014.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source ARKANSAS  •  On 12 December 2013, in Kendall Wright et al. v. AR Governor Michael Beebe et al.,11 same-gender couples who are seeking to overturn the AR constitutional ban on same-gender civil marriage, the state law banning same-gender civil marriage, and the federal law allowing states to ignore same-gender marriages from other states, and also seeking parental rights, birth certificate names, insurance, and other benefits, will request a preliminary injunction and a declaratory judgment.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source NEW JERSEY  •   On 18 Octobner 2013, in Garden State Equality, et al. v. NJ Attorney General Paula Dow, et al., the NJ Supreme Court ended a 12-year legal battle when it unanimously affirmed a Superior Court ruling that same-gender civil marriages may begin on 21 October 2013.  Despite the governor’s appeal which will get decided in 2014, the court concluded that starting marriages now benefits the couples, without harming the state.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source NEW MEXICO  •  By 18 October 2013, NM county clerks had issued over 1,000 civil marriage licenses to same-gender couples, in advance of the NM Supreme Court hearing on 23 October 2013.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source

---

STATE LEGISLATION & POLLS

OREGON  •  On 16 October 2013, the OR Department of Justice announced that all same-gender couples with legal marriages from elsewhere (and all common-law marriages from elsewhere) are fully eligible for marriage-related benefits in OR.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source VIRGINIA  •  On 16 Ocober 2013, Christopher Newport University surveyed 944 registered VA voters including 753 likely voters, and reported that 56% oppose VA’s 2006 constitutional ban on same-gender civil marriage, and 36% favor it.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source TENNESSEE  •  On 16 October 2013, Knoxville, TN expanded employee benefits coverage to include same-gender and opposite-gender domestic partners, effective 1 January 2014.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source

---

STATE BALLOTS & POLLS

OREGON  •  On 19 October 2013, Intel Corporation, OR’s largest employer, joined Nike, Portland General Electric, Portland Trail Blazers, Oregon Business Association, and Oregon Business Coalition to support marriage equality.  •  MEUSA Summary  •  News Source

---

Send questions and comments to:  [email protected].