Same-Sex Marriage Comes to Washington D.C.
A bill legalizing same-sex marriage in Washington D.C. was signed into law by D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty in December last year. D.C., being a federal district, has its laws reviewed by Congress before they go into effect. The period of time Congress had to review the same-sex marriage legislation expired yesterday, and so today was the first day marriage licenses were issued to gay and lesbian couples.
Washington D.C. also permits voters to block legislation pending a referendum on the issue, but anything that violates the D.C. Human Rights Act is exempted from this policy. The United States Supreme Court decided today in a three-page ruling that the same-sex marriage law was covered by the Human Rights Act exemption. Therefore, the Court refused to grant the petitioners' request to stay the new legislation.
While the life of legal same-sex marriage in Washington D.C. is dependent on the eventual referendum vote, marriage licenses are now available to D.C. couples.
[Via The Associated Press]
Have a question, comment, or response? 1 person does.Maryland Now Recognizes Out-of-State Same-Sex Marriages
Maryland Attorney General Douglas Gansler has announced that Maryland will immediately begin recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states. While this does not mean that Maryland same-sex couples will be able to wed in the state, it does mean that couples who are married in other jurisdictions — such as New England neighbors Massachusetts, New Hampshire, or Vermont — will receive all of the state rights and privileges associated with marriage in Maryland.
New York's highest court reached a similar decision in late 2009.
Have a question, comment, or response? Share your thoughts.CA Gubernatorial Candidate Meg Whitman on Same-Sex Rights
Meg Whitman, former eBay CEO and 2010 Republican gubernatorial candidate in California, has been the subject of numerous recent headlines for her political ambitions in the nation's most populous state. California, still reeling from the effects of Proposition 8 that stopped the state from performing same-sex marriages, will be replacing current Republican governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Schwarzenegger vetoed the California legislature's attempts to enact same-sex marriage in the state, citing constitutional issues with the attempt, but also opposed Proposition 8.
Meg Whitman granted two interviews, one with Silicon Valley's Mercury News and one with the Los Angeles Times, to discuss her political positions. Describing her political lean as "moderate to conservative" on social issues, Whitman believes that same-sex couples should be permitted to enter into civil unions and adopt children, but that the word "marriage" should be restricted to opposite-sex couples. Whitman supported Proposition 8, calling it a "matter of personal conscience and my faith." Whitman stood out, however, for her belief that Proposition 8 should not apply retroactively, and that the same-sex marriages legally performed before Proposition 8 should still be recognized and valid in the state.
While Family Fairness takes no position on whether Whitman would be a worthy governor for the state of California, it believes that California voters — especially those who believe strongly in the rights of same-sex couples — should be informed about the candidates' stances toward the LGBT community. For more on Meg Whitman's political positions, consult her Meg Whitman for Governor homepage.
Have a question, comment, or response? Share your thoughts.What Will the Affordable Health Care for America Act do for LGBT Families?
The House of Representatives yesterday passed the health reform bill, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, by a vote of 220-215. The Wall Street Journal reports the several key provisions of the bill including capping health insurance costs for low- and middle-income families, creating a program for individuals to find policies—including a government-run public option—disallowing insurance companies to drop coverage for pre-existing conditions, and requiring certain employers to provide more comprehensive coverage. The bill also includes a few provisions designed to help gay and lesbian individuals and their families.
The Human Rights Campaign has identified several important, new benefits for LGBT Americans. The two most key among them:
Unequal Taxation of Domestic Partner Benefits – the bill ends the unfair taxation of employer-provided domestic partner health benefits, incorporating the language of the Tax Equity for Health Plan Beneficiaries Act. Without this tax penalty, more people will be able to afford employer-provided coverage for their families, and more companies will be able to offer these important benefits.
Non-discrimination – the bill prohibits consideration of personal characteristics unrelated to the provision of health care. HRC worked with a coalition of civil rights groups to develop and lobby for this language and we believe it will help protect LGBT people from discrimination in the health care system, where there are currently no federal protections for our community.
The Tax Equity for Health Plan Beneficiaries Act addresses the problem that, although employer-provided health insurance coverage for spouses is tax exempt, domestic partners must pay income tax on the benefits they receive from their partner's employer. If the bill becomes law, domestic partners will no longer pay this additional, inequitable tax.
HRC further reports that the bill "designates LGBT people as a health disparities population" giving our community data collection and grant programs that focus on the health issues related to sexual orientation and gender identity. It also extends Medicaid coverage to early HIV treatment, and funds comprehensive sex education.
The future is uncertain, with the vote of the Senate still required on their version of the bill, approval of both chambers on a final, synthesized version, and President Obama's signature. While the President has indicated his intent to sign, and is "absolutely confident" that the bill will pass the Senate, according to CNN, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid remains uncertain, while Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut promises a filibuster of any bill containing a public option.
Have a question, comment, or response? 1 person does.This Week in Gay News Roundup: 11/1 - 11/6
The week that brought us the one year anniversary of California's Proposition 8 and the passage of Maine's Proposition 1 was certainly not a celebratory one. Here is what happened this week in LGBT law in case you missed it. For for up-to-the-minute news stories, follow FamilyFairness on Twitter.
- Proposition 1, the Maine bill allowing voters to overturn the legislature's earlier passage of marriage equality, passed with a margin of 53-47. Same-sex marriage was supposed to come to Maine on September 14 this year, but was put on hold pending the results of the veto vote. Maine was the fifth state to legalize gay marriage, and the first to successfully do so legislatively (California's legislature also twice passed a marriage bill that was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger).
- On the same election day, voters in Washington affirmed the expanded domestic partnership law that had been passed earlier this year. Referendum 71, the voter initiative seeking to affirm legislatively expanded domestic partnerships, was approved on a margin of 52-48. Washington retains its "everything but the name" version of marriage.
- Basic Rights Oregon announced that it was seeking to repeal the state's Constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in 2012. The amendment has existed since 2004, and was passed in response to Oregon's Multnomah County movement to give marriage licenses to same-sex couples. 3,000 licenses were issued until a judge found no right to gay marriage under Oregon laws and invalidated them all. Oregon has had expanded domestic partnership laws since 2007.
- A United States Department of Justice answered Massachusetts's petition to find the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional in that it deprives Massachusetts's married citizens of federal spousal benefits. While the DoJ agreed that DOMA was discriminatory and wanted it overturned, it said that "[t]here is, however, no fundamental right to marriage-based federal benefits." Massachusetts is the first state to issue a challenge to DOMA.
- Tena Callahan, the Texas trial court judge who ruled that her state's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional explained her ruling. In reference to popular support in Texas for keeping gay marriage illegal, Callahan said: "My dad always used to tell me that a billion people can believe in a bad idea, and it's still a bad idea. And that man taught me to have the courage of my convictions and to do what's right." Her opinion is expected to be overruled on appeal.
I hope voters in California, Maine, and any other state in which the people try to turn back civil equality remember Callahan's words.
Have a question, comment, or response? Share your thoughts.Brazilian Man Denied Ability to Live with US Partner
Family Fairness discussed in March how same-sex couples were hurt by anti-gay immigration policies. Because of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a gay or lesbian United States citizen is unable to sponsor his or her partner for residency. Hope was on the horizon in May, when the Senate held a hearing on the Uniting American Families Act, a bill designed to give committed same-sex couples the ability to reside together in the country.
Unfortunately, the wheels of progress turn slowly. Last week, a Brazilian man was denied asylum to live in the United States with his Massachusetts partner, despite the couple's Massachusetts marriage license and co-ownership of a home. Because same-sex partners are not eligible for automatic citizenship when one partner is a US citizen, the couple was required to file a special asylum application. Rather than respond to their request, US Attorney General Eric Holder ignored it. The application has now lapsed, and the couple's request effectively denied.
The couple plans to initiate a legal challenge to DOMA for its violation of immigration and humanitarian laws. However, they have already spent approximately $250,000 in legal bills over the course of their forced separation, which has lasted more than two years. Until the passage of the Uniting American Families Act or the repeal of DOMA, this story will repeat. Couples should not be denied their basic human right to be together simply because of the sex of their partner. Shame on Attorney General Holder for dragging his feet on this important issue.
Have a question, comment, or response? Share your thoughts.