Family Fairness thanks Harrah’s for their support of domestic partnerships
News came out yesterday that Harrah's Hotel and Casino penned a letter to Nevada lawmakers urging them to approve the state's domestic partnership bill. Governor Gibbons has already threatened to veto the measure. In the letter, Senior Vice President of Harrah's Jan Jones wrote:
Our state cannot afford to lose any more revenue to other destinations because of a reputation as a place which is not socially or politically the right place to do business or to vacation [. . . .] How can we say to them 'we want your business, but we don't care about your rights'?
In a letter to Harrah's thanking them for their support of our community, Family Fairness member Jacob Howa-Morrow writes:
I just wanted to write and express my thanks for your company's letter to Nevada lawmakers urging them to pass the domestic partnership bill because of the economic ramifications of not doing so. My husband and I have visited Las Vegas over 10 times and plan to go back much more in the future. We usually stay in Harrah's-owned hotels, but will definitely make more of an effort to support Harrah's on our future trips. We truly appreciate what you stand for. Thank you!
Harrah's letter shows the broad range of support the gay and lesbian community has received in our fight for equality. With the voices of not only individuals, but also businesses, legislatures, and leaders, we can know that we are truly making progress. Thank you, Harrah's, for understanding that prejudice should never come before good sense.
Have a question, comment, or response? Share your thoughts.DOMA Challenge in Federal Tax Court
Charles Merrill, millionaire and cousin of the co-founder of Merrill Lynch, joined by Kevin Boyle, his partner of 16 years, is making a challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), according to Pam's House Blend. DOMA, the 1996 statute permitting the federal government to ignore same-sex marriages performed by states, has been challenged in federal court before, but Merrill's case marks the first time the discriminatory law has been attacked in tax court.
Merrill has not paid federal income taxes since 2004 as part of an on-going protest against DOMA and the inequalities gay and lesbian couples face in the United States tax code. Merrill, who legally married his partner in California prior to the passage of Proposition 8, argues that DOMA is unconstitutional because states, not the federal government, have the power to define marriage. According to Merrill, "the government has no business in checking out the gender of two people who want to be married."
The litigation makes two points against DOMA: First, that federal tax benefits and obligations should not be restricted solely to opposite-sex couples to the exclusion of legally married same-sex couples, and second that DOMA's definition of marriage is based on religion, which violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Merrill's case has been referred to Washington D.C. for an en banc hearing before all 19 judges on the United States Tax Court. Though the court is formally a part of the legislative rather than judicial branch of government, it has previously resolved constitutional issues in other cases. The challenge may be appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and then to the US Supreme Court for final adjudication.
A court date has not yet been set.
Have a question, comment, or response? Share your thoughts.Professor Geoffrey Stone on Civil Unions and Religious Freedom
Illinois will soon begin to discuss the Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act, a bill with the dual purpose of providing legal recognition for same-sex couples and permitting religious organizations to choose not to solemnize or officiate civil union ceremonies. The bill would also recognize marriages and other legal relationships between members of the same-sex performed in other jurisdictions as civil unions. Illinois currently offers no recognition for gay and lesbian couples.
Professor Geoffrey Stone of the University of Chicago Law School, like 60% of Americans according to recent polls, supports the legislation and wrote a very interesting opinion piece in the Chicago Tribune. He opines:
There has been a transformation in our thinking on this issue over the past half-century. What would once have been regarded as nothing short of weird now seems perfectly sensible. This is the American story. It is, in part, what makes us great. Over time, we have gradually recognized the common humanity of blacks, women, Hispanics, Asians, Jews, Catholics and gays, all of whom have been the victims of cruel discrimination.
The rights for each of these groups have come incrementally. For instance, women won suffrage in 1920, employment nondiscrimination in 1964, and school nondiscrimination in 1972. Professor Stone believes the incremental approach to legalized same-sex marriage is appropriate as well, saying, "it is a reasonable compromise at this time in our history."
I disagree. 'Reasonable compromises' are what have led many people to believe that the fight for women's equality ended in 1970 with the Equal Pay Act when, in reality, women today are still paid 15-40 percent less than their male colleagues. By taking an incremental approach and settling for civil unions, we run the risk of fostering a perception that the problem has been fixed by a separate-but-equal institution. So why not go straight for full marriage equality? Professor Stone points to fears of losing religious liberty:
The most obvious tension arises out of the fact that some religious people believe same-sex relationships are inherently sinful and immoral. They therefore insist that the state should not legitimate such relationships. The problem, though, is that in a society that values the separation of church and state, religious doctrine cannot be the source of our secular law. The framers of our Constitution certainly embraced this principle. It is not a violation of religious liberty for the state not to impose one group's religious beliefs on other citizens who do not share them.
I agree with Professor Stone on this point and I believe he has articulated it beautifully. However, we diverge in opinion on the appropriateness of the "Religious Freedom Protection" part of the Act. While he regards the language as "a respectful and very substantial acknowledgment of legitimate religious liberty interests," I see it as a merely symbolic and unnecessary inclusion simply for political appeasement.
The case that has spawned the fervor over religious liberty took place in New Jersey, where a religious organization refused to allow a lesbian couple to use a pavilion it owned. As a result of their decision, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection took away a tax break given to the organization for opening the pavilion to public use. This was a case involving not religious freedom, but a bland and straightforward taxation principle: you may not receive a public accommodation tax exemption on a location that is not actually accommodating the public.
I do not believe that the Illinois provision would have affected this outcome. Section 15 provides only that the law does not "interfere with or regulate the religious practice of any religious body" and that an organization "is free to choose whether or not to solemnize or officiate a civil union." However, this is already the state of the law in all 50 jurisdictions; no religious institution is forced to recognize any marriage it does not want to. Many Catholic churches, for instance, do not perform marriage ceremonies for divorcees, while Orthodox Jewish temples may refuse to join a jew and a gentile. No provision of law could be read to force religious organizations to conduct same-sex civil union ceremonies.
What an organization cannot do, however — and what they still cannot do even with Illinois's provision — is accept a public accommodations tax credit for a building that is not a public accommodation.
We are left, then, with a component of the Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act that is superfluous and merely symbolic. I do not assert that religious organizations should be denied the ability to observe whatever tenants it wishes, I simply do not believe that Section 15 is necessary to achieve this end. I also fear what the law may be implying. If the legislature specifically exempts organizations from being forced to perform civil union ceremonies, is the implication that they can be required to perform marriages between divorcees or between jew and gentile? Why codify only a single exception while leaving other exceptions up to mere 'common understanding'?
Finally, I believe Section 15 reinforces the misunderstanding that civil rights are zero sum. The truth is that we can make one group — gays and lesbians — equal without making a second group — the religious — unequal. Equality is not a limited resource, but rather something we all can and should share.
In the end, both Professor Stone and I support the Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act, albeit I with less gusto. I believe the Act is a step above nothing and is certainly a welcome relief for Illinoisan same-sex couples, but is absolutely not where Illinois should stop. A "compromise," as Professor Stone calls this bill, is not equality; equality is equality.
Have a question, comment, or response? 3 people do.The ‘Marriage is for Procreation’ Myth: The Futility of Marriage Exclusionist Studies and Statistics
Research has shown that children raised by homosexuals were more dissatisfied with their own gender, had homosexual experiences more frequently, and suffered a greater rate of molestation by members of their families
Arguments like these are being used increasingly to justify the denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples. The New York and Washington courts — among others — agreed with the assertion that marriage is for procreation, evoking the same denial of liberties from the era of anti-miscegenation law. However, even if the above quotation is based in truth (we, of course, believe that it is not), it still does not satisfactorily justify the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage. There is no compelling State interest to justify marriage exclusion, and laws that effect such exclusion create a policy that is unjustly and intolerably overinclusive and underinclusive.
Read more about the 'marriage is for procreation' myth and its refutation here.
Have a question, comment, or response? Share your thoughts.West Virginia Senate Approves Bill Protecting LGBs from Housing Discrimination
One out of every three people who identify as gay or lesbian report that they or someone they know has been unable to rent or buy a home because of their sexuality, according to a survey conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation. Even more have experienced discrimination in other forms, including being denied the ability to list both partners' names on their home's deed or lease, or facing insurance companies who refuse claims or cancel policies because they are "unrelated".
There is federal protection against housing discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, family status, or disability, but not sexual orientation or gender identity. To date, only twenty states protect gays and lesbians seeking a home, fifteen of which also extend protections to transgender individuals.
The West Virginia Senate approved a bill last week that would make it the twenty-first state to disallow discrimination in housing on the basis of sexuality. The bill also protects gay employees from being fired for their sexual orientation. It must still be approved by the state's House, where similar legislation failed to pass last year.
Family Fairness recognizes the importance of laws protecting LGBT families from discrimination in housing, and so we will be adding information about your state's policies in our State of the Law section.
Have a question, comment, or response? Share your thoughts.Florida’s Amendment 2; FL Constitution, Article 1, Section 27, Marriage Defined and Domestic Partnership Rights
In Florida, statutory language was adopted mandating the proscription of same-sex marriage creation and recognition. In 2008, a ballot initiative sought to inject the statutory provisions within the constitution. With a vote of 4,890,883, 61.9% of voters, the amendment passed. The language of the amendment states, "Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized." The implication of the "substantial equivalent thereof" language causes concern for existing domestic partnerships.
Read more about marriage and domestic partnership rights in Florida here.
Have a question, comment, or response? Share your thoughts.