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].

[caption id="attachment_517" align="alignright" width="300"] Long-time MENY/MEUSA member and leader Elmer Lokkins[/caption] The Marriage Equality USA family lost a wonderful friend and powerful advocate this week in long-time member and leader Elmer Lokkins.  Elmer and his husband Gustavo (Gus) Archilla became for many symbols for our organization's marriage equality movement in New York State. They were together for over six decades before Gus's death in 2012. Elmer was a decorated Army veteran of World War II, earning multiple honors and acclamation before being honorably discharged and moving to New York City. There, in 1945, he met the love of his life and worked at the Graduate Center of The City University of New York. As the fight for the freedom to marry grew, friends and advocates at Marriage Equality New York (MENY) convinced them to become a face for our movement in New York.  They began to do interviews and make appearances.  They were the leaders of the MENY Pride contingent in 2007 - riding in a rented pedicab at the head of the march.  The image of them together that day was wonderful, especially watching them lead the march with a rainbow umbrella covering them from the Sun. In 2010, they moved to Marco Island, Florida, to be close to their niece and to enjoy the warm weather.  Gus died in November of 2012 and Elmer spent the last several months being cared for by his niece and several caring home health aides.  Even though he was suffering from a rare disease with no cure, he was always smiling, laughing, and treating friends and strangers kindly. All of us at MEUSA (and formerly MENY) owe Elmer and Gus a tremendous debt in bringing our movement to where it is today.

Marriage Equality USA and Marriage Equality for Pennsylvania (ME4PA) have formally united to enhance the work and reach of both organizations until full civil marriage equality is attained for all Pennsylvanians. Both organizations are volunteer-driven and working at the grassroots level.

Marriage Equality USA heartily congratulates same-sex couples in New Jersey who will be able to start marrying this coming Monday! The marriages follow the unanimous ruling publicized earlier today when the New Jersey Supreme Court refused to issue a stay of Judge Mary Jacobson’s Superior Court ruling requiring the state to permit and recognize such marriages beginning October 21, 2013. At the same time, MEUSA's National Equality Action Team (NEAT) continues to work to secure a legislative implementation of the freedom to marry in the state. In its 20-page opinion explaining why it would not grant the stay prior to the state’s appeal of Judge Jacobson’s ruling which will be heard next January, the Supreme Court wrote that the State of New Jersey has neither demonstrated that its underlying legal claim is settled nor that it has a reasonable probability of success on the merits. “The Court wrote that ‘[t]he State has presented no explanation for how it is tangibly or actually harmed by allowing same-sex couples to marry,’” explained MEUSA Legal & Policy Director John Lewis. “Rather, the Court determined that same-sex couples and their families suffer ‘immediate and concrete violations of [the] right to equal protection under the law’ and an ‘ongoing injury that … cannot be repaired … at a later time.’” The Court did note that marriages which take place between Monday and their ruling in the state’s appeal theoretically later could be nullified should it later find in favor of the state. While today’s strongly worded opinion bolsters our conviction that the Supreme Court will uphold the lower court’s ruling and let these marriages stand, the possibility of reversal illuminates why it is imperative for marriage equality supporters in New Jersey to continue calling and urging legislators to overturn Governor Christie’s veto of the marriage equality bill the legislature already passed. A favorable Supreme Court ruling, albeit likely, is not certain, and in any case is not expected before sometime in 2014; a legislative victory still could be accomplished first, as if the veto is to be overridden, this must be accomplished by the end of 2013. “Today’s decision provides tremendous momentum at a key moment in our movement,” said MEUSA Executive Director Brian Silva. “Meanwhile, Marriage Equality USA and our project, the National Equality Action Team (NEAT), are working every day to make the freedom to marry a reality in New Jersey, Hawaii, Illinois, and nationwide. From Marriage Equality USA’s National Map page Over 30% of Americans live in states with full, state-level equality, and 50% of Americans live in 22 states (or counties or cities) that recognize various forms of same- gender relationships: 15 with full marriage (CA, CT, DC, DE, IA, MA, MD, ME, MN, NH, NJ, NY, RI, VT, WA); 03 with civil union (CO, HI, IL); 04 with domestic partnership (NV, NM, OR, WI). __ 22 states (or counties or cities) that recognize various forms of same- gender relationships. From Marriage Equality USA’s Current Status pages Since 1993, every American state has taken some position on marriage equality.  Each state allows — or bans — various forms of marriage via the state constitution and/or state laws.  Some states have full marriage equality, some have restricted equality, and the rest ban all unions except one-man-one-woman couples.  About 70 federal and state marriage-related lawsuits are underway nationwide. In 2013, lawmakers, judges, and voters in most states, as well as federal judges and Congress, are deciding whether to allow — or ban — various levels of equality.

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

[caption id="attachment_368" align="alignleft" width="112"] Boyce Hinman[/caption] Authored by Boyce Hinman, founder and director of the California Communities United Institute, and member of Marriage Equality USA. Hinman has been writing and posting a series, "Monday Morning Marriage Memo," as part of his  Anatomy for Justice blog. This article was first published there, and is republished here with the author’s permission. Hinman resides in and serves California, therefore the posts sometimes have a California slant. NOTE: Marriage Equality USA is not a legal firm or a tax/accounting firm. No action should be taken based solely on the content of our news blog or website. People who are thinking of getting married, and who are receiving assistance from Medi-Cal, or may want to apply for it, should carefully consider their marriage plans. In some cases, getting married might disqualify them for Medi-Cal. Medi-Cal is a program which provides health insurance to those with very low income in California. It can help people pay for doctor’s visits, medications, lab tests and xrays, hospital care and surgery charges and skilled nursing home care. Note: I am not an attorney or a qualified tax expert. No action should be taken based solely on the content of these memos. However, I hope the memos will help you ask the right questions of people who are qualified in these issues. Medi-Cal has income limits for qualifying for the program. To qualify for Medi-Cal the applicant’s income must be less than 138% of the federal poverty level. For calendar year 2014, that means a single person must make less than $1,322 per month, or a couple must earn less than $1,784 per month, to be eligible. As you can see, the income limit for a couple is considerably less than for two single people. So, the income limits mean that two people on limited income might consider not getting married so they both will remain eligible for Medi-Cal. Medi-Cal also has property limits. That is, the value of property owned by a person or couple applying for Medi-Cal must not be worth more than a certain amount. For one person that value limit is $3,000. For two people (such as a married couple) the amount is the same. So here is an example of how these property limits might hurt a couple that gets married. Suppose two individuals each own $2,900 worth of property. If each of them were single, each of them would meet the asset test. Neither of them would be disqualified for owning too much property. If they married, each of them would fail that test and be disqualified. There are other requirements that people must meet to qualify for Medi-Cal. But the income and asset tests should be considered when people on limited income are considering getting married. To see a list of the other requirements,direct your browser to the following address. http://www.dhcs.ca.gov/formsandpubs/forms/Forms/mc002info0907.pdf

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

Policy & Legal Updates

October 7 – 13, 2013

---

NATIONAL MAP

---

NATIONAL POLLS

---

NATIONAL LEGISLATION

---

LAWSUITS

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

---

STATE LEGISLATION & POLLS

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

---

STATE BALLOTS & POLLS

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

---

Send questions and comments to:  [email protected].

[caption id="attachment_443" align="alignleft" width="300"] Volunteers and staff from MEUSA pose with New Jersey United for Marriage staff before spending time canvassing[/caption] Marriage Equality USA Executive Director Brian Silva and eight other volunteers spent October 5th in Summit, New Jersey, canvassing in support of New Jersey United for Marriage (NJUM) - the campaign to win marriage in that state. This action was part of the National Equality Action Team (NEAT), MEUSA's newest initiative to draw together winning coalitions of marriage equality supporters. As New Jersey moves toward marriage equality, Gov. Chris Christie continues to oppose full equality for all citizens of the state. "Gov. Christie's aggressive style will only strengthen our resolve," says Silva. MEUSA's NYC-ROC will be back in Northern New Jersey on Oct. 16th and 26th. According to Silva, "This was our first time canvassing in New Jersey and we had quite a positive response." MEUSA also is looking forward to its Philadelphia ROC hosting a similar event November 10th as part of the NEAT initiative. Bob Sullivan, Philadelphia ROC local organizer said, "We expect the same positive reaction in South Jersey. The Philadelphia ROC is getting involved because South Jersey is suburban Philadelphia and most people do as much business down the shore or across the Delaware River as they do here in Philadelphia. We're fighting for marriage equality here in Pennsylvania and it's important to us that our marriages be recognized whether we live, travel do, or do business in Pennsylvania, Delaware, or New Jersey. We're going to fight for the support we need to override Gov. Christie's veto." More information can be found at www.theneat.org.

Marriage Equality USA has launched a new project – the National Equality Action Team (NEAT).  According to MEUSA Program Manager Tracy Hollister, the new project was conceived by the organization’s executive director, Brian Silva. Chaired by Marriage Equality USA, NEAT is envisioned as a vehicle for national, state, local, and grassroots organizations, as well as individual organizers, to mobilize out­-of-state marriage equality supporters in states with active marriage campaigns. These actions are done in coordination with, and with the support of, the local state campaigns. “Thousands of Americans who passionately support the cause of marriage equality find themselves living in a state without an active campaign and their passion lies dormant,” says Holister. NEAT now provides the opportunity for these advocates to connect with and support organizations in states like New Jersey and Illinois that have ongoing campaigns for marriage equality. Silva adds, “NEAT is a continuation of our work in winning campaigns in Minnesota, Maine, Maryland, Washington, Rhode Island, and Delaware.” In 2012, MEUSA mobilized many local, state, and national organizations to support the victorious efforts in those states and paved the way for the formation of NEAT. NEAT organizations are asked to support ongoing campaigns by recruiting volunteers from their own ranks and beyond via at-home phone banks, in-person phone banks such as those in New York City and Raleigh, and through canvassing – knocking on doors. These volunteers are then enlisted to support any ongoing marriage equality campaign as devised and run by the state-based organization. NEAT member benefits include e-mail alerts with details on how marriage equality supporters can get involved, resources to participate in campaigns, training for those who want to organize local events, such as phone banks, and the opportunity to be part of the national effort to win marriage equality nationwide. Christine Allen, MEUSA’s IT director, sums up the NEAT project as follows – “The National Equality Action Team epitomizes MEUSA’s commitment to working in cooperative coalition. Forget struggling in isolation or reinventing the wheel for the four hundredth time! It makes so much more sense for a variety of organizations and individuals to pool our resources, our brains, our experiences, and to enjoy each other’s company while accomplishing needed work. The other thing that is unique about NEAT is that it makes it possible for people to do remote phone banking from home. Do you have any idea how important that is to LGBT/allied folks who may not have a local community? Or, to people who are unable to get out of their homes to events and actions?  Or to busy folks who are juggling full-time jobs and parenting? NEAT provides a way for everyone to get involved – people who are often not included can contribute and be a part of creating history.” The almost 50 NEAT coalition members include faith-based groups like Adat Shalom Reconstructionist Congregation in Bethesda, Maryland, the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Raleigh, North Carolina, and the United Church of Christ; national and local chapters of LGBTQ organizations such as PFLAG, GLAAD, and HRC; and political groups like the Log Cabin Republicans, the Lesbian and Gay Democratic Club of Queens, and Lambda Independent Democrats – Brooklyn. “NEAT integrates MEUSA’s whole vision of empowering all advocates of marriage equality with its own mission of recruiting advocates to execute specific actions in ongoing campaigns,” says Hollister. Adds Silva, "This puts us on the path toward winning full marriage equality in all 50 states." Visit the National Equality Action Team website to learn more and to sign up to help bring marriage equality to all fifty states.

[caption id="attachment_368" align="alignleft" width="112"] Boyce Hinman[/caption] Authored by Boyce Hinman, founder and director of the California Communities United Institute, and member of Marriage Equality USA. Hinman has been writing and posting a series, "Monday Morning Marriage Memo," as part of his  Anatomy for Justice blog. This article was first published there, and is republished here with the author’s permission. Hinman resides in and serves California, therefore the posts sometimes have a California slant. NOTE: Marriage Equality USA is not a legal firm or a tax/accounting firm. No action should be taken based solely on the content of our news blog or website. The spouses and children of veterans (or active service members in some circumstances) qualify for certain education and housing benefits. And, now that DOMA has been overturned, the same sex spouses of veterans qualify for those benefits. Note: I am not an attorney or a qualified tax expert. No action should be taken based solely on the content of these memos. However, I hope the memos will help you ask the right questions of people who are qualified in these issues. Under current law, veterans qualify for a number of benefits which relate to getting a college education or other training for work. Under certain circumstances, those benefits may be transferred to, and used by, their spouses and children. The benefits are as follows:

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

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