The Relevance of the Winter of Love to the Entire LGBTIQ Community Today
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/
Guest Post: Marriage Equality And Maximizing Social Security Income
Under current federal law a spouse who has reached age 62 can claim a Social Security benefit based on his or her own earnings. That spouse could get a higher monthly payment if he or she waits to age 65 before claiming the benefit. Once the spouse submits the claim, he or she will start receiving monthly checks from Social Security.
There is a way that some same sex married couples can manage their Social Security to maximize their total household Social Security income.
Note: I am not an attorney or a qualified tax expert. No action should be taken based solely on the content of these memos. However, I hope the memos will help you ask the right questions of people who are qualified in these issues.
Here is how a same sex married couple might be able to maximize their Social Security income. Federal law allows someone (let’s call him Tom) to claim a Social Security benefit based on the earnings of his or her spouse. Let’s call him George. If George had much higher income than Tom, Tom’s Social Security check might be higher if he claimed as the spouse George instead of claiming the monthly amount due based on his own earnings.
The problem is that, in order for Tom to claim Social Security as George’s spouse, George must also claim his Social Security benefit. The problem with that is that locks in the amount that George can receive in each month from Social Security.
George could claim Social Security as early as when he reaches age 62. But that means he would be locked in to a relatively low Social Security monthly check. If he waited until he was 70 years old his monthly check would be higher. In fact each year beyond 62 that he continues working, and not claiming Social Security, (up until age 70) the amount of Social Security dollars he would qualify for goes up by 8%.
Then too, George’s salary, between his 62nd and 70th birthdays are likely to be the highest he earned during his work life. That salary increase would increase the amount he qualifies for in Social Security monthly checks.
It would be a shame for George to have to sacrifice that extra Social Security income just so Tom can claim Social Security based on George’s work history. But actually George does not have to make that sacrifice.
Under current law George can file for Social Security benefits, but then immediately suspend receipt of those benefits until some future date. By doing this, Tom can claim a spousal benefit and George can let his or her own retirement benefit grow at 8 percent per year. In this way some same sex couples can significantly increase the amount of monthly benefits they receive from Social Security.
Authored by Boyce Hinman, founder and director of the California Communities United Institute, and member of Marriage Equality USA. Hinman has been writing and posting a series, "Monday Morning Marriage Memo," as part of his Anatomy for Justice blog. This article was first published there, and is republished here with the author’s permission. Hinman resides in and serves California, therefore the posts sometimes have a California slant.
NOTE: Marriage Equality USA is not a legal firm or a tax/accounting firm. No action should be taken based solely on the content of our news blog or website.
Policy and Legal Update - January 27-February 2, 2014
Policy & Legal Updates
27 January – 2 February, 2014NATIONAL MAP
NATIONAL POLLS
NATIONAL LEGISLATION
LAWSUITS
VIRGINIA • On 31 January 2014, in Joanne Harris, et al. v. Staunton, VA Court Clerk, et al., a lawsuit for two couples seeking full marriage equality for all VA residents, including couples married elsewhere, the court granted class-action status, so the case now affects all same-gender couples. • MEUSA Summary • News Source NEVADA • On 27 January 2014, in Beverly Sevcik, et al., v. Governor Brian Sandoval, et al., a lawsuit seeking full marriage equality for 8 couples, the Carson City, NV Clerk-Record Alan Glover withdrew his Answering Brief in the appeal case, and no longer opposes the Plaintiffs. • MEUSA Summary • News Source VIRGINIA • On 27 Januar y2014, in Joanne Harris, et al. v. Staunton, VA Court Clerk, et al., a federal class action lawsuit for two couples seeking full marriage equality for all VA residents, including couples married elsewhere, VA Attorney General Mark Herring notified the court that VA’s state laws banning same-gender civil marriage are unconstitutional, that VA is reversing its position in the case, that he will not defend them, and that he will argue that they are unconstitutional. • MEUSA Summary • News Source OKLAHOMA • On 28 January 2014, in Mary Bishop, et al. v. United States and Tulsa County Court Clerk, et al., a case challenging the state constitution for denying the right to marry the person of one’s own choice, and for refusing to recognize same-gender marriages performed in other states, the Tenth Cicuit U.S. Court of Appeals decided to review the OK and UT appeals (a) on a fast-track schedule, and (b) by the same panel of judges. The appeals will be briefed separately and argued separately. The OK appeal schedule is: cross-appeal 1st brief by 24 February, 2nd/supplemental briefs by 17 March, 3rd brief by 1 April, optional reply brief by 7 April, and oral arguments after 7 April. • MEUSA Summary • News Source UTAH • On 28 January 2014, in Kitchen, et al. v. Utah Governor Gary Herbert, et al., a federal lawsuit challenging UT’s constitutional amendment banning same-gender civil marriage, the Tenth Cicuit U.S. Court of Appeals decided to review both the UT and OK cases (a) on a fast-track schedule, and (b) by the same panel of judges. The UT and OK appeals will be briefed separately and argued separately. The UT appeal schedule is: last filings 4 March; oral arguments 10 April. • MEUSA Summary • News Source UTAH • On 28 January 2014, in Jonell Evans, et al. v. Utah, an ACLU suit to force UT to recognize about 1360 marriages performed from 20 December 2013 through 2 January 2014, the case was moved from state court to a federal court. • MEUSA Summary • News Source VIRGINIA • On 28 January 2014, in Timothy Bostic, et al. vs. VA State Registrar Janet Rainey, et al., a federal lawsuit challenging VA’s 2006 ban on in-stateand out-of-state same-gender marriage, VA Governor Terry McAuliffe (D) told dozens of Republican lawmakers he would not appoint any special prosecutor to defend the VA same-gender civil marriage ban. • MEUSA Summary • News Source VIRGINIA • On 28 January 2014, in Joanne Harris, et al. v. Staunton, VA Court Clerk, et al.,a federal class action lawsuit for two couples seeking full marriage equality for all VA residents, including couples married elsewhere, VA Governor Terry McAuliffe (D) told dozens of Republican lawmakers he would not appoint any special prosecutor to defend the VA same-gender civil marriage ban. • MEUSA Summary • News Source HAWAII • On 29 January 2014, in McDermott v. Abercrombie, a state judge ruled that the HI Marriage Equality Act of 2013 violates neither the state nor the federal constitutions. • MEUSA Summary • News Source WEST VIRGINIA • On 28 January 2014, in Casie Jo McGee, et al. v. Cabell County Clerk Karen Cole, et al., a federal lawsuit for three couples challenging the state law that bans marriage equality, the judge denied WV’s motion to dismiss the suit, but dismissed the complaint about recognizing out-of-state marriage licenses, unless additional plaintiffs are added. • MEUSA Summary • News Source UTAH • On 30 January 2014, in Kate Doe & Beth Roe v. Utah, a lesbian couple sued UT for refusing to recognize their 2010 marriage in another state. • MEUSA Summary • News SourceSTATE LEGISLATION & POLLS
KANSAS • On 24 January 2014, KS state Representative Charles Macheers introduced a bill to legalize discrimination against same-gender couples whenever a person, group, or business claims that their discrimination is religiously based. The KS House Federal and State Affairs Committee scheduled a hearing for 28 January 2014. • MEUSA Summary • News Source SOUTH DAKOTA • On 21 January 2014, SD state Senator Ernie Otten proposed SB-67, which would legalize discrimination against same-gender couples whenever the perpetrator claims religions as the excuse. • MEUSA Summary • News Source SOUTH DAKOTA • On 21 January 2014, SD state Senator Ernie Otten proposed SB-66, which would prevent clergy and religions from being sued for not performing a same-gender civil weddings. • MEUSA Summary • News Source SOUTH DAKOTA • On 30 January 2014, SD SB-67 was withdrawn, and replaced by SB-128, which would legalize religion-based discrimination against LGBT people in 4 settings: (1) employment; (2) public accommodation; (3) commercial services; and (4) state courts. • MEUSA Summary • News Source IDAHO • On 28 January 2014, ID state Representative Lynn Luker proposed a bill to legalize discrimination by people in 28 licensed professions who use religion as their excuse for the discrimination. • MEUSA Summary • News Source NEBRASKA • On 28 January 2014, Sarpy County, NE commissioners extended health insurance benefits to spouses of county employees with same-gender spouses who got legally married in another state. • MEUSA Summary • News SourceSTATE BALLOTS & POLLS
INDIANA • On 27 January 2014, by 57 to 40, the IN House approved HJR-3, a proposal to revise the IN constitution to ban same-gender civil marriage, after revising it to delete a ban on civil union, domestic partnership, and worker spouse benefits, but whether same-gender civil marriage goes before voters, and in what year, remains undecided. • MEUSA Summary • News Source PENNSYLVANIA • On 29 January 2014, Franklin & Marshall College surveyed 580 PA voters about same-gener civil marriage, and reported 56% in favor, 39% opposed, and 6% don't know. • MEUSA Summary • News SourceSend questions and comments to: [email protected].
Guest Post: California Married Individuals May Qualify for Paid Time Off for Family Leave
Because Proposition 8 was overturned by the US Supreme Court, if you are in a same sex marriage, you may qualify to take paid time off from work if your husband or wife is seriously ill.
Note: I am not an attorney or a qualified tax expert. No action should be taken based solely on the content of these memos. However, I hope the memos will help you ask the right questions of people who are qualified in these issues.
Now that same sex couples can marry in California, they may qualify for paid family leave under California law. They may also qualify for family leave under federal law. However the federal law does not provide income during the period of the leave.
Here is how the state law works.
California law allows people who work for most private employers to take up to 6 weeks (per 12 month period) of paid time off of work to care for a seriously ill child, spouse, parent, or registered domestic partner, or to bond with a new born child. People may also take paid time off to bond with a newly adopted child or with a child who is new to the home as a foster child.
In addition, self employed workers can qualify for the benefit if they have enrolled in the State Disability Income Elective Coverage Program.
Since same sex couples are now allowed to marry in California, workers can now qualify for paid time off to care for a seriously ill same sex spouse.
This paid time off program is a part of the California Disability Insurance (SDI) program, and those who qualify for SDI generally qualify for paid family leave as well.
Generally employees of the state of California do not qualify for this benefit. However they do qualify if their union has successfully bargained for the right to the coverage.
There is a federal family leave law that does require employers to re-hire workers who have taken time off under that law to care for a sick family member. However, that federal law does not provide any income during the leave period. Also, to qualify for the federal program, the worker must be employed by a company that has at least 50 employees within 75 miles of where the person seeking leave time works.
By contrast, the California Paid Family Leave Program provides income during the leave time, but employers are not required to take the worker back.
The weekly benefit amount (provided by the California Paid Family Leave Program) is approximately 55 percent of the earnings shown in the highest quarter of the employee’s base period. But the total will not exceed $266 per week. The payments come from the state. The employer is not required to pay the employee during the leave period.
Sometimes workers can take adequate care of their spouse, or other family member while working part time. In that case they can get paid part time by their employer and get a partial payment from the California Paid Family Leave Program as well.
Employers can require their workers to take up to 2 weeks of accrued vacation time before leaving on paid family leave. However, they can’t require workers to use accrued sick leave before starting paid family leave.
A medical certificate from a doctor is required when the time off is requested in order to care for a seriously ill family member. That certificate must include a diagnosis of the family member’s illness, the beginning date and probable duration of the illness, along with a statement that care by the person seeking time off is appropriate.
If the request is for bonding the time off requested must be within one year of the arrival of the child.
Workers can apply on line for California paid family leave.
Or they can order a paper copy of form DE 2501F by calling 1-877-238-4373. Hearing impaired people can order the form by Teletypewriter (TTY) 1-800-445-1312. The form also is available to be downloaded.
Authored by Boyce Hinman, founder and director of the California Communities United Institute, and member of Marriage Equality USA. Hinman has been writing and posting a series, "Monday Morning Marriage Memo," as part of his Anatomy for Justice blog. This article was first published there, and is republished here with the author’s permission. Hinman resides in and serves California, therefore the posts sometimes have a California slant.
NOTE: Marriage Equality USA is not a legal firm or a tax/accounting firm. No action should be taken based solely on the content of our news blog or website.
Policy and Legal Update - January 20-26, 2014
Policy & Legal Updates
January 20 – 26, 2014NATIONAL MAP
NATIONAL POLLS
- On 8 December 2013, Anzalone Liszt Grove Research surveyed 800 registered voters in states where same-gender couples could not marry about whether they should be able to marry, and reported that51% said yes, 41% said no, with 8% unaccounted for. Among non-equality states, support is strongest in central states (59% to 36%), then western states (53% to 34%), then southern states (46% to 46%). Among non-equality states nationwide, 56% of voters expect same-gender civil marriage to be legal within 2 years, and 78% expect minimal or a positive impact. • News Source
NATIONAL LEGISLATION
LAWSUITS
UTAH • On 16 January 2014, in Kitchen, et al. v. Utah Governor Gary Herbert, et al., a federal lawsuit challenging UT’s constitutional amendment banning same-gender civil marriage, UT decided to pay $300,000 to the 3 attorneys who, with help from 2 UT attorney general staff attorneys, will argue to ban same-gender civil marriage before the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. Their fee for the U.S. Supreme Court appeal would be similar. • MEUSA Summary • News Source FLORIDA • On 21 January 2014, in Catherina Pareto, et al., v. Miami-Dade County Court Clerk Harvey Ruvin, 6 same-gender couples, represented by National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) and Equality Florida Institute, sued FL for marriage rights. • MEUSA Summary • News Source UTAH • On 21 January 2014, in Kitchen, et al. v. Utah Governor Gary Herbert, et al., a federal challenge to UT’s constitutional amendment banning same-gender civil marriage, the Appeals Court allowed UT 7 extra days to prepare, so the opening brief is due 3 February, the response brief 25 February, and any reply brief 4 March, with oral arguments in March or April. • MEUSA Summary • News Source UTAH • On 21 January 2014, in Jonell Evans, et al. v. State of Utah, ACLU sued UT in state court (a) for ignoring the marriages of 2,600 people who were legally married as same-gender couples in UT, and (b) for harming their childen. • MEUSA Summary • News Source IDAHO • On 22 January 2014, in Sue Latta, et al. v. ID Governor C. L. Butch Otter, a federal lawsuit challenging the 2006 state constitutional amendment, and Idaho laws, banning same-gender civil marriage and civil union, the judge allowed the ID attorney general to intervene. • MEUSA Summary • News Source NEVADA • On 22 January 2014, in Beverly Sevcik, et al., v. Governor Brian Sandoval, et al., a lawsuit seeking full marriage equality, NV’s brief argued that same-gender civil marriage should be banned because mixed-gender marriage should be promoted. • MEUSA Summary • News Source OREGON #2 & #4 • On 23 January 2014, the federal court combined the cases of Deanna Geiger et al. v. OR Governor John Kitzhaber et al., two women challenging OR’s constitutional ban on same-gender civil marriage, and OR’s refusal to recognize legal marriages from other jurisdictions with the case of Paul Rummell, et al. v. OR Governor John Kitzhaber, et al., two Portland couples challenging OR’s ban on same-gender civil marriage. • MEUSA Summary • News Source MICHIGAN • On 3 January 2014, in April DeBoer & Jayne Rowse v. MI Governor Rick Snyder, et al., a federal case challenging the constitutionality of the MI’s 2004 ban on same-gender marriage, civil union, domestic partnership, and joint adoption, lawyers from ACLU and G&LA&D joined the plaintiff legal team. • MEUSA Summary • News Source VIRGINIA • On 21 January 2014, in Timothy Bostic, et al. vs. VA State Registrar Janet Rainey, et al., a federal case challenging VA’s 2006 ban on same-gender marriage, the plaintiffs’ attorneys asked the court to follow the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals recent ruling, and apply heightened scrutiny (the assumption that a law is probably discriminatory) when evaluating VA’s marriage ban. • MEUSA Summary • News Source OKLAHOMA • On 24 January 2014, 2 of the 4 plaintiffs appealed the district court’s ruling that they don’t have standing to challenge: (1) OK’s refusal to recognize their CA marriage, (2) part B of the Oklahoma constitutional amendment, and (3) Defense of Marriage Act, Section 2. • MEUSA Summary • News Source VIRGINIA • On 23 January 2014, in Timothy Bostic, et al. vs. VA State Registrar Janet Rainey, et al., a federal lawsuit challenging VA’s 2006 ban on same-gender marriage in VA or elsewhere, VA’s new attorney general, Mark Herring, said that VA’s ban on same-gender civil marriage violates the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment (equal protection, due process), and that instead of defending the ban, he will join plaintiffs in two lawsuits arguing that it be struck down. • MEUSA Summary • News SourceSTATE LEGISLATION & POLLS
VIRGINIA • On 20 January 2014, VA lawmakers voted to table Bill 939, which would have repealed the statutory bans -- without legalizing -- same-gender civil marriage, civil union, and domestic partnership. The bills which would have repealed the constitutional ban are not being heard during this legislative session at all. The earliest that voters could vote to repeal the constitutional ban is in 2016, which may be unnecessary if either federal lawsuit prevails before then. • MEUSA Summary • News Source NEW HAMPSHIRE • On 15 January 2014, Public Policy Polling surveyed 1,354 NH voters on same-gender civil marriage, and reported that 60% support it, 29% oppose it, and 11% are unsure. Regarding the impact of equal marriage since 2010, 66% reported no impact, 20% positive impact, and 14% negative impact. • MEUSA Summary • News Source OKLAHOMA • On 20 January 2014, state Representative Mike Turner introduced House Joint Resolution 1076, to put same-gender civil marriage, civil union, and domestic partnerhsip on a statewide ballot so that all three can be re-banned via the state constitution in 2014, just the way they were in 2004. • MEUSA Summary • News Source OKLAHOMA • On 20 January 2014, state Representative Mike Turner introduced the Preservation of Marriage Act (H. 2466) to outlaw same-gender civil marriage. • MEUSA Summary • News Source ILLINOIS • On 21 January 2014, IL state Senator Kyle McCarter (R) proposed SB-2637, a law to repeal the equal marriage law enacted in November 2012. • MEUSA Summary • News Source COLORADO • On 21 January 2014, the CO state Senate preliminarily approved a bill letting same-gender couples married elsewhere file their CO state tax returns jointly. • MEUSA Summary • News Source SOUTH DAKOTA • On 21 January 2014, 28 lawmakers introduced SB-66 (which would exempt clergy, non-clergy, and organizations from performing same-gender civil marriages), and 26 lawmakers introduced SB-67 (which would legalize discrimination against commercial customers on the basis of religious beliefs). • MEUSA Summary • News Source OKLAHOMA • On 25 January 2014, OK state Representative Mike Turner proposed banning all marriage statewide as a way to prevent any same-gender civil marriages being mandated via the courts in the lawsuit over the 2004 voter-approved ban. • MEUSA Summary • News SourceSTATE BALLOTS & POLLS
INDIANA • On 21 January 2014, IN House Speaker Brian Bosma moved the proposed equal marriage ban constitutional amendment bill from the House Judiciary Committee, where 3 members were reluctant to pass it, to the Elections and Apportionment Committee, where it passed, 9-to-3 (two of the bill’s authors are members). A full House vote is next, then a Senate vote. • MEUSA Summary • News Source FLORIDA POLLS • On 22 January 2014, Public Policy Polling surveyed 591 FL voters on same-gender civil marriage, and reported that 47% approve, 44% disapprove, with 9% unsure. • MEUSA Summary • News Source OREGON • On 23 January 2014, Oregon United for Marriage launched a student campaign at 8 schools, targeted toward adults aged 18-29. • MEUSA Summary • News Source OREGON • On 22 January 2014, religious support for same-gender civil marriage reached 57 congregations and faith organizations, with the addition of the Oregon Board of Rabbis, Oregon Area Jewish Committee, and Jewish Federation of Greater Portland. • MEUSA Summary • News SourceSend questions and comments to: [email protected].
Keep on Keepin' On for Marriage Equality
One year ago I described the 2012 election as the turning point in the struggle for marriage equality, as three states won or protected the freedom to marry at the ballot box and another fought back a constitutional ban. But if 2012 marked a watershed, 2013 was the deluge over that divide, with a record number of states recognizing equal marriage, and more than half of those doing so legislatively. In one year, the number of marriage equality states effectively doubled. Sixteen states, the District of Columbia, and several Native American tribal councils – representing over 38% of the population – now recognize the freedom to marry (with decisions in Utah and Oklahoma, representing an additional 2%, currently stayed pending appeal).
The transition from 2013 to 2014 also marks a decade of equality, as the 2003 Massachusetts Supreme Court equal marriage decision went into effect in May 2004. 2004 also saw the celebration and tragic voiding of four thousand marriages in San Francisco, in some ways teeing off the long painful fight for marriage equality in California that resulted in In re Marriage Cases, Prop 8, Hollingsworth v. Perry, and, finally, the restoration of the freedom to marry. As critical as 2004 was in the movement, though, it’s important to remember that the struggle for legal recognition of our relationships began more than three decades earlier.
There are potential drawbacks to both the seemingly rapid rate of success we’ve seen recently, and the long hard work needed to make such successes possible. A sense that the tide is unstoppable risks making us complacent, while the long hard work necessary risks burning us out, especially once our own state has won equality.
For many of us, for example, the sense of euphoria we felt in 2013 as marriage equality was restored to California largely erased the pain of the five years while the Prop 8 case made its way through the courts, or at least seemed to offer a chance to try to catch our breath.
Still, over half of us live in states with statutes or constitutional amendments explicitly denying marriage to same-sex couples. And those of us who may legally marry at home shouldn’t have to fear becoming legal strangers to our spouses as we cross state borders. The work goes on, as long as even one of our lesbian and gay sisters and brothers still is denied the freedom to marry the person they love.
Though Marriage Equality USA has its roots and largest membership bases in states where marriage equality is now law, the organization is proud to be a strong and active player in the fight to win the freedom to marry for all Americans. Thanks to our NEAT (National Equality Action Team) coalition, MEUSA has played a key role in winning marriage equality in states like Delaware, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Rhode Island. This year we’ll be supporting efforts in Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Oregon, among others. Please help us help them win the same freedom and happiness we now have.
By MEUSA Social Media Manager Thom Watson
Policy and Legal Update - January 13-19, 2014
Policy & Legal Updates
January 13 – 19, 2014NATIONAL MAP
NATIONAL POLLS
NATIONAL LEGISLATION
LAWSUITS
PENNSYLVANIA • On 13 January 2014, in Cara Palladino & Isabelle Barker v. PA Governor Corbett et al., a federal suit to force PA to recognize all out-of-state marriages equally, the plaintiffs asked the court for a summary judgment (without a full trial). • MEUSA Summary • News Source OKLAHOMA • On 14 January 2014, in Mary Bishop, et al. v. United States and Tulsa County Court Clerk, et al., a federal suit challenging the OK constitution for denying same-gender civil marriage rights and for refusing to recognize same-gender marriages performed elsewhere, the district court ruled that the marriage ban is unconstitutional. That ruling is stayed pending appeal(s). Of all the same-gender civil marriage cases nationwide, this one is the oldest unresolved case. • MEUSA Summary • News Source KENTUCKY • On 14 January 2014, in Gregory Bourke v. KY Governor Steve Beshear, et al., a challenge to the 2004 constitutional amendment banning same-gender civil marriage, the plaintiffs filed their final brief, and the court is about to decide whether to issue a final ruling without a trial. • MEUSA Summary • News Source OHIO • On 16 January 2014, in Jim Obergefell & John Arthur v. OH Public Health Director Theodore Wymyslo, about OH recognition of legal marriages from other states when issuing death certificates, OH attorney general Mike DeWine appealed the district court ruling to the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. • MEUSA Summary • News Source PENNSYLVANIA • On 13 January 2014, in Cara Palladino & Isabelle Barker v. PA Governor Corbett et al., rearding recognition by PA of legal marriages performed elsewhere, the plaintiffs asked the court to skip the trial and issue a final ruling. • MEUSA Summary • News Source OKLAHOMA • On 16 January 2014, in Mary Bishop, et al. v. United States and Tulsa County Court Clerk, et al., challenging the state constitution for denying the right to marry the person of one’s own choice, and for refusing to recognize same-gender marriages performed in other states, Tulsa County Clerk Sally Howe Smith, represented by the notorious anti-LGBT group Alliance Defending Freedom, appealed to the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. • MEUSA Summary • News Source UTAH • On 17 January 2014, in Kitchen, et al. v. Utah Governor Gary Herbert, et al., a federal lawsuit challenging UT’s constitutional amendment banning same-gender civil marriage, UT asked the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for 10 extra days to write its arguments opposing same-gender civil marriage, and the plaintiffs opposed that request. • MEUSA Summary • News Source OKLAHOMA • On 17 January 2014, in Mary Bishop, et al. v. United States and Tulsa County Court Clerk, et al., a challenge to the state constitution for denying the right to marry the person of one’s own choice, for refusing to recognize same-gender marriages performed in other states, and for other aspects of the federal Defense-of-Marriage Act, OK requested the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to: (1) set a fast briefing schedule; (2) assign this appeal to the same judges hearing the UT appeal; and (3) allow amicus briefs to be filed jointly covering both cases. • MEUSA Summary • News Source OREGON • On 17 January 2014, in Rachel Cryer & Laurel Bowman vs. Sweet Cakes by Melissa Bakery, the OR Bureau of Labor and Industries decided that a bakery violated the civil rights of a same-gender couple by refusing to bake a cake for the women’s wedding. If the state is unsuccessful helping the parties reach a settlement, the Bureau may pursue court charges. The bakers insist that their religion compels them to unlawfully discriminate against same-gender couples. Equality opponents often cite this case when arguing that marriage equality laws eliminate religious freedom. • MEUSA Summary • News Source UTAH • On 16 January 2014, in Kitchen, et al. v. Utah Governor Gary Herbert, et al., a federal lawsuit challenging UT’s constitutional amendment banning same-gender civil marriage, UT decided to pay $300,000 to the 3 attorneys who, with help from 2 UT state employees, will argue to ban same-gender civil marriage before the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in March. Their fee for the U.S. Supreme Court appeal would be similar. • MEUSA Summary • News SourceSTATE LEGISLATION & POLLS
VIRGINIA • On 9 January 2014, VA House Privileges and Elections Committee Chair Mark Cole (R) postponed all constitutional amendment hearings from 2014 to 2015. • MEUSA Summary • News Source UTAH • On 14 January 2014, the Salt Lake City Tribune surveyed 600 UT adults on same-gender civil marriage, and reported that 48% said yes, 48% said no, and 4% were unsure. • MEUSA Summary • News Source COLORADO • On 14 January 2014, CO Senate Bill 19 passed the Senate Finance Committee, which would allow same-gender couples who file federal tax returns as legally married to also file state tax returns using the same marital status. The bill now proceeds to a vote of the entire Senate. • MEUSA Summary • News Source IDAHO • On 14 January 2014, the ID House Revenue and Taxation Committee approved a rule denying legally married same-gender couples the right to file ID state tax returns jointly. If no lawmaker objects before the end of this legislative session, the tax rule becomes final. • MEUSA Summary • News Source ARIZONA • On 15 January 2014, AZ state Senator Steve Yarbrough (R) proposed SB-1062, a law that would legalize discrimination by any person, business, agency, or organization against anyone, whenever the perpetrator says the discrimination is related to religious beliefs. On 16 January 2014, the AZ Senate Government and Environment Committee approved it, 4 Republicans to 2 Democrats. The same law was passed by the legislature in 2012, but vetoed by Governor Jan Brewer, not for any reason related to the law, but in retaliation over a fiscal dispute with lawmakers. • MEUSA Summary • News Source UTAH • On 15 January 2014, the UT Tax Commission reversed an earlier UT decision, and confirmed that same-gender couples who got legally married in UT or elsewhere may file UT income tax returns jointly. • MEUSA Summary • News Source UTAH POLLS • On 17 January 2014, after surveying 746 UT residents, the Deseret News (owned and operated by the Mormon clergy) reported that 57% oppose it, 36% support it, and 6% are undecided; that 51% want to legalize religion-based discrimination by individuals and businesses, 40% don’t, and 9% are undecided; and that among active Mormons, 89% oppose same-gender civil marriage for anybody (people of all faiths, and people of no faith). • MEUSA Summary • News Source SOUTH CAROLINA • On 15 January 2014, SC House Minority Leader Todd Rutherford (D) filed a bill that would let same-gender couples who are legally married elsewhere file SC state income taxes jointly. • MEUSA Summary • News Source SOUTH CAROLINA • On 15 January 2014, SC House Minority Leader Todd Rutherford (D) filed a bill to repeal the 2006 constitutional amendment that banned same-gender civil marriage. • MEUSA Summary • News SourceSTATE BALLOTS & POLLS
INDIANA • On 14 January 2014, two IN city councils (Muncie, South Bend) joined three others (Indianapolis, Evansville, Bloomington) and voted to oppose any constitutional amendment that would ban same-gender civil marriage. • MEUSA Summary • News Source ARKANSAS • On 18 January 2014, Arkansas Initiative for Marriage Equality began petitioning to repeal the 2004 constitutional ban against same-gender civil marriage, via the 2016 ballot. Valid signatures are needed from at least 10% of all 2014 voters and 5% of the voters in 15 counties. • MEUSA Summary • News SourceSend questions and comments to: [email protected].
Policy and Legal Update - January 6-12, 2014
Policy & Legal Updates
January 6 – 12, 2014NATIONAL MAP
- On 7 January 2014, the David Pakman TV-radio show reported on national marriage equality progress provided by MEUSA’s Ned Flaherty. • News Source
NATIONAL POLLS
NATIONAL LEGISLATION
- On 9 January 2014, U.S. Representative Randy Weber (R-TX) introduced the State Marriage Defense Act of 2014 (H.R. #3829), which would: (1) force the federal government to ignore the legal civil marriages of same-gender couples who reside in any state that ignores such marriages; and (2) always dissolve or restore the legal civil marriage of every same-gender couple whenever one or both spouses cross a state border, and the state of entry treats same-gender couples differently than the state of exit. Lawmakers favoring it include 28 Representatives (all Republicans, 11 from TX). Based on history, the chance of enactment is 2%. • MEUSA Summary • News Source
LAWSUITS
MICHIGAN • On 3 January 2014, in April DeBoer & Jayne Rowse v. MI Governor Rick Snyder, et al., a case challenging the constitutionality of the state’s 2004 ban on same-gender marriage, civil union, domestic partnership, and joint adoption, the judge granted the plaintiffs’ request to split the trial into 2 parts. • MEUSA Summary • News Source UTAH • On 6 January 2014, in Kitchen, et al. v. Utah Governor Gary Herbert, et al., a case challenging Utah’s constitutional amendment banning same-gender civil marriage, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed the district court ruling until the Tenth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is finished with the case. • MEUSA Summary • News Source ARIZONA • On 6 January 2014, in Joseph Connolly, et. al., v. AZ Governor Jan Brewer, et al., four couples filed a class action lawsuit in federal court challenging the AZ’s 1996 statutory marriage ban and its 2004 constitutional marriage ban. • MEUSA Summary • News Source COLORADO • On 6 January 2014, in Charlie Craig & David Mullins v. Masterpiece Cakeshop et al.,the baker’s attorneys, Alliance Defending Freedom, filed an appeal of the court order to stop discriminating against same-gender couples. Equality opponents often cite this famous case when they argue that marriage equality ends religious freedom and free speech. • MEUSA Summary • News Source TEXAS • On 7 January 2014, in Cleopatra De Leon, et al., v. TX Governor Rick Perry et al., a federal class action challenge to the 2005 TX constitutional ban on marriage inside and outside TX, the judge denied permission for anti-LGBT group Texas Values to file a friend-of-the-court brief (which cited work by discredited University of Texas assistant professor Dr. Mark Regnerus) because the brief cited no legal authority, and did nothing to resolve the legal issues. Texas Values wrote that same-gender couples are inferior to mixed-gender couples, and that the American Psychological Association wrongly concluded that LGBT parents raise well-adjusted children. • MEUSA Summary • News Source UTAH • On 8 January 2014, in Kitchen, et al. v. Utah Governor Gary Herbert, et al., a challenge to UT’s constitutional amendment banning same-gender civil marriage, National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) joined as co-counsel for the plaintiffs. • MEUSA Summary • News Source UTAH • On 8 January 2014, in Kitchen, et al. v. Utah Governor Gary Herbert, et al., a challenge to UT’s constitutional amendment banning same-gender civil marriage, the UT Attorney General said that for the 2,720 people who married a same-gender spouse from 20 December through 6 January, those marriages are doubtful, and their validity will be determined after appeals to the Tenth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in 2014 and possibly the U.S. Supreme Court in 2015. In the meantime, recognition and benefits for those 2,720 citizens will be decided by a special review team, on a case-by-case basis. • MEUSA Summary • News Source UTAH • On 9 January 2014, in Kitchen, et al. v. Utah Governor Gary Herbert, et al., a challenge to UT’s constitutional amendment banning same-gender civil marriage, the UT Attorney General confirmed that a marriage certificate can be completed for each marriage that was performed prior to the decision to issue a stay. • MEUSA Summary • News Source IDAHO • On 9 January 2014, in Sue Latta, et al. v. ID Governor C. L. Butch Otter, a federal lawsuit challenging the 2006 state constitutional amendment, and Idaho laws, banning same-gender civil marriage and civil union, the ID attorney general filed motions seeking (1) to dismiss the case on the premise that marriage is not a fundamental right, and (2) to intervene in the case. • MEUSA Summary • News Source UTAH • On 9 January 2014, in Kitchen, et al. v. Utah Governor Gary Herbert, et al., Human Rights Campaign asked the U.S. government to recognize all same-gender couples who were legally married in UT between 20 December 2013 and 6 January 2014. • MEUSA Summary • News Source MISSOURI • On 8 January 2014, in MO Baptist Convention, et al. v. MO Governor Jay Nixon, et al.,anti-LGBT groups sued MO for accepting jointly filed tax returns from same-gender couples who were legally married in other states. • MEUSA Summary • News Source TEXAS • On 9 January 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 2005 TX constitutional ban on marriage inside and outside TX, the judge rejected an effort by the TX attorney general to consolidate two other suits (Shannon Zahrn, et al. v. TX Governor Rick Perry, et al., and Christopher McNosky, et al. v. TX Governor Rick Perry, et al.) into this one. On 12 February 2014, the court will hear a motion for a preliminary injunction to stop the state from enforcing the ban during the litigation. • MEUSA Summary • News Source TEXAS • On 31 October 2013, in Shannon Zahrn, et al. v. TX Governor Rick Perry, et al., two same-gender couples filed a class action suit seeking equal marriage rights for all TX couples, and challenging the TX statutory and constitutional bans on same-gender civil marriage. On 9 January 2014, the judge forCleopatra De Leon, et al., v. TX Governor Rick Perry et al. rejected an effort by the TX attorney general to consolidate this case and Christopher McNosky, et al. v. TX Governor Rick Perry, et al. into the De Leon case. • MEUSA Summary • News Source TEXAS • On 29 July 2013, in Christopher McNosky, et al. v. TX Governor Rick Perry, et al., a same-gender couple representing themselves sued for equal marriage rights, challenging the TX statutory and constitutional bans on same-gender civil marriage. On 9 January 2014, the judge for Cleopatra De Leon, et al., v. TX Governor Rick Perry et al. rejected an effort by the TX attorney general to consolidate this case and Shannon Zahrn, et al. v. TX Governor Rick Perry, et al. into the De Leon case. • MEUSA Summary • News Source UTAH • On 10 January 2014, in Kitchen, et al. v. Utah Governor Gary Herbert, et al., a federal lawsuit challenging UT’s constitutional amendment banning same-gender civil marriage, the U.S. government confirmed that it recognizes all same-gender civil marriages performed in UT from 20 December 2013 through 6 January 2014. • MEUSA Summary • News SourceSTATE LEGISLATION & POLLS
COLORADO • On 10 January 2014, state Senator Pat Steadman proposed a law allowing same-gender couples who file federal tax returns as legally married to also file state tax returns using the same marital status. • MEUSA Summary • News Source VIRGINIA #3 • On 8 January 2014, 9 state lawmakers (6 delegates, 3 senators) sponsored resolutions to repeal VA's 2006 constitutional ban on same-gender civil marriage. • MEUSA Summary • News Source UTAH POLLS • On 3 January 2014, Google Consumer Surveys polled 500 adult Internet users in Utah (selected to match the U.S. Census Bureau’s monthly Current Population Survey based on gender, age, urbanicity, and income) regarding views on same-gender civil marriage, and reported that 42% approve, 31% want no recognition at all, 24% approve only of civil unions, and 3% have other opinions. • MEUSA Summary • News Source PENNSYLVANIA • On 9 January 2014, spouse benefits for employees of Lehigh County, PA were canceled by new county executive Tom Muller because such benefits must be first approved by county commissioners, which he will ask them to do later this year. • MEUSA Summary • News Source MISSOURI • On 9 January 2014, MO Governor Jay Nixon (D) said that legally married couples (including same-gender couples legally married elsewhere) who file federal tax returns jointly now must also file MO tax returns jointly. • MEUSA Summary • News SourceSTATE BALLOTS & POLLS
INDIANA • On 9 January 2014, four Republican Representatives re-proposed HRJ-6 renamed as HJR-3, which would ban same-gender civil marriage, other unions, and related benefits via the state constitution. If approved by the House Judiciary Committee, and then by the House and by the Senate, it would appear on the November 2014 ballot. • MEUSA Summary • News SourceSend questions and comments to: [email protected].
In-Lawful Marriage
When Jeff and I married this past September, we expected that we would recognize a difference in our lives and in our relationship after tying the knot.
There are tangible differences, of course, as with our health insurance coverage and taxation. The differences most often have been subtler, but they clearly exist. Marriage matters.
Even in silly little ways we notice it. We delight in referring to each other as “husband,” and it feels more truly descriptive and honest to do so now. And, though we’d been living together a decade before our marriage, and had a registered domestic partnership for nearly half that time, we recently began only half-jokingly commemorating “our firsts,” though they were firsts only in a qualified sense: our first Thanksgiving “as a married couple,” our first Christmas “as husbands,” our first New Year “as legal spouses.”
What I don’t think we fully expected, though, was just how much our marriage meant to other people, and how it would change the way even our friends and families relate to and about us. Those changes run the gamut from trivial to significant. A great many of our friends, for example, have congratulated us on our first Christmas as a married couple.
More subtly, friends and family members who treated us with respect before we were married, who saw us as a committed couple even without a license, nevertheless seem to see and speak of us differently now. Our mothers provide perhaps the most poignant examples. Early in December, Jeff introduced me at a party to an old friend of his mother’s as his husband. Jeff’s mom jumped right in and said, “Yes, I now have two sons.” Our Christmas card from her reflected the same sentiment, as she had used a pen to change the card’s pre-printed “My Son” to read “My Sons.” Similarly, my mother addressed Jeff’s Christmas card this year to “My Son-in-Law.”
Friends and family who rarely, if ever, intruded into the particulars of our relationship now ask when or if we’re planning to have kids; yep, just like opposite-sex couples, that’s now the expectation for what follows marriage. My mother told my nephew’s new fiancées that they have Jeff as an example of how to survive marrying into my loud, overwhelming, overly protective family, and how to deal with one’s in-laws.
Marriages matter, not just for spouses, but for their families and indeed for the larger society in which they live and move. When we marry, our families, friends, and neighbors more clearly understand – and, what’s most troubling to our opponents, increasingly respect and embrace – that families, communities, and societies benefit, and are strengthened, when marriage makes possible the time-honored and express relationship not just with your daughter and son-in-law, but with your son and son-in-law, too.
Mothers-in-law may be fodder for comedians, but understanding that Jeff’s mom is my honest-to-goodness mother-in-law – and that she believes it, too – is about as serious as it gets.
By MEUSA Social Media Director Thom Watson
Policy and Legal Update - December 30, 2013 - January 5, 2014
Policy & Legal Updates
30 December 2013 – 5 January 2014NATIONAL MAP
On 25 December 2013, a National Public Radio broadcast on marriage equality reviewed 2013 and previewed 2014 with MEUSA’s Ned Flaherty. • MEUSA Summary • News SourceNATIONAL POLLS
On 7 October 2013, Associated Press-GfK Public Affairs surveyed 1,227 American adults (demographically balanced by age, sex, education, race, phone type) on same-gender civil marriage, and reported that 36%support it, 33% do not, and 29% are undecided, and 3% did not answer. • News SourceNATIONAL LEGISLATION
LAWSUITS
ARIZONA • On 23 December 2010, in Joseph Diaz, et al., v. Janice Brewer, et al., a federal judge certified the worker benefits case as a class action lawsuit representing all state workers with same-gender partners. • MEUSA Summary • News Source UTAH • On 30 December 2013, in Kitchen, et al. v. Utah Attorney General John Swallow, et al., a federal case challenging Utah’s constitutional amendment banning same-gender civil marriage, the Appeals Court set an expedited 2014 schedule: state’s appeal brief by 27 January, couples’ response brief by 18 February, state’s reply brief by 25 February, oral arguments in March. • MEUSA Summary • News Source UTAH • UTAH - On 31 December 2013, in Kitchen, et al. v. Utah Attorney Governor Gary Herbert, et al., UT asked the U.S. Supreme Court to stay the original ruling and suspend same-gender civil marriages while appeals go through the U.S. Tenth Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court. A reply from the same-gender couples is expected on 3 January, with a decision on the stay request the following week. • MEUSA Summary • News Source TEXAS • On 31 December 2013, in Jack Pidegon & Larry Hicks vs. Houston Mayor Annise Parker, et al., a case about worker same-gender spouse benefits, Houston’s attorney got the case moved from state district family court into federal court, where the next court date is 6 January 2014. • MEUSA Summary • News Source WEST VIRGINIA • On 31 December 2013, in Casie Jo McGee, et al. v. Cabell County Clerk Karen Cole, et al., in this suit challenging the WV law that bans marriage equality, the plaintiffs asked for a summary judgment. • MEUSA Summary • News Source KANSAS • On 31 December 2013, in Michael Nelson, et al. v. KS Department of Revenue, two legally married same-gender couples sued for the right to file joint state income tax returns. • MEUSA Summary • News Source TEXAS • On 2 January 2014, in Jack Pidegon & Larry Hicks vs. Houston Mayor Annise Parker, et al.,the federal judge denied the Houston Republican Party’s request for a stay against the city policy, and reversed the district court approval of that stay, thereby restoring equal worker benefits for same-gender spouses. Republican plaintiffs said they will try to move the case back to state court on 21 January 2014. • MEUSA Summary • News Source UTAH • On 3 January 2014, in Kitchen, et al. v. Utah Governor Gary Herbert, et al., the same-gender couples filed a reply arguing why marriages should continue during the state's appeal of the district court ruling. • MEUSA Summary • News SourceSTATE LEGISLATION & POLLS
STATE BALLOTS & POLLS
TEXAS • On 1 January 2014, Equality Texas and Freedom to Marry launched Why Marriage Matters Texas, a campaign to increase TX support for marriage equality. • MEUSA Summary • News Source UTAH • On 19 December 2013, UT state Representative Jacob Anderegg introduced H.J.R.-1, Joint Resolution on Religious Liberty, which would amend the UT constitution to excuse religious organizations from having to recognize any marriage in violation of conscience of faith. • MEUSA Summary • News Source UTAH POLLS • On 3 January 2014, Salt Lake City’s Fox-13 TV surveyed readers on same-gender civil marriages, and reported that 73% support, 21% don’t, 5% want government not involved, and 1% don’t know/don’t care. • MEUSA Summary • News SourceSend questions and comments to: [email protected].