More Analysis Of Zombie Anti-Gay Sodomy Laws

Sodomy laws, or state statutes which criminalized sexual contact between people of the same sex were some of the most pernicious aspects of anti-LGBT discriminatory practices that negatively impacted the civil rights of LGBT Americans.

The 2003 Supreme Court decision Lawrence v Texas basically ended the era of legal gay apartheid but there are 18 states which, today, 8 years later, still have sodomy laws on their books.

MadProfessah noted that Mother Jones discussed this curiosity last April and now Equality Matters and other LGBT media outlets are starting to take notice.

Williams Institute Estimates 581,300 U.S. Same-Sex Couples

Yesterday was an historic day in which the United States Senate held a hearing on a pro-LGBT piece of legislation, the Respect for Marriages Act, which would repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

The Williams Institute at UCLA Law School, an LGBT public policy think tank, submitted written testimony for the hearing.

Included in the testimony are the following findings from Williams Institute research  about same-sex couples:

• There are 581,300 same-sex couples in the United States, including 50,000 to 80,000 legally married same-sex and another 85,000 who are in civil unions or registered domestic partnerships.

• Approximately 20% of same-sex couples are raising nearly 250,000 children.

• Almost one-fourth of same-sex partners are people of color.

• Over 7% of individuals in same-sex couples are veterans of the U.S. armed forces.

• Same-sex couples live in every congressional district and in almost every county in the United States.

In addition, the testimony summarizes Williams Institute research documenting a number of ways that DOMA results in legal, financial, social, and psychological hardships for many same-sex couples and their families.  These include:

• Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) Benefits.  Nearly 430,000 same-sex partners remain barred from taking leave to care for a same-sex spouse under the FMLA, even if they marry.

• Benefits for Spouses of Federal Employees.  The same-sex spouses and partners of over 30,000 federal employees are ineligible for important benefits available to different-sex married spouses.

• Veteran Partner Benefits.  Same-sex spouses and partners of nearly 68,000 veterans are barred from a variety of benefits including pensions, educational assistance, and vocational training available to different-sex spouses.

• Taxation of Employee Health Benefits for a Same-Sex Spouse.  When private employers offer health insurance to same-sex spouses and domestic partners, federal law taxes these benefits. Approximately 41,000 employees with a same-sex spouse or domestic partner pay, on average, over $1,000 more in taxes per year than an employee receiving the same health benefits for a different-sex spouse.

• Spousal Impoverishment Protections for Medicaid Long Term Care (LTC).  Medicaid LTC beneficiaries may have to use some of their spouse’s income and assets to pay for LTC. Federal law requires states to allow different-sex spouses to retain income and assets to protect them from destitution. However, about 1,700-3,000 individuals whose same-sex spouses or partners receive Medicaid-financed LTC are not protected by these spousal impoverishment provisions.

• Estate Tax.  Over the next two years, members of same-sex couples who will pay the federal estate tax, will pay, on average, more than $4 million more than a survivor of a different-sex spouse because they do not qualify for the federal estate tax spousal exemption.

• Social Security Survivor Benefits.  Unlike different-sex spouses, same-sex spouses cannot continue receiving their spouse’s social security payments after their spouse’s death. This results in a loss, on average, of over $5,700 for a same-sex spouse that receives lower social security payments than the deceased spouse. 

• Immigration for Bi-National Couples.  Nearly 26,000 same-sex couples in the United States are bi-national couples who could be forced to separate because they cannot participate in green-card and accelerated citizenship mechanisms offered to non-citizen spouses of American citizens. 

• Social Stigma.  Research shows that laws such as DOMA produce stigma that has serious adverse impacts on the health of LGBT people by causing stress and disease. A Williams Institute survey of people married to a same-sex spouse in Massachusetts found that couples gain social support from their families and have a greater level of mutual commitment when they are allowed to marry.  

The Williams Institute testimony concludes that DOMA has also impaired the ability of researchers to assess its impact on same-sex couples and their families. Although the U.S. Census Bureau has begun to reevaluate its policy of not counting married same-sex couples as such, a legacy of DOMAis evident in a general resistance on the part of federal statistical agencies to collect detailed, accurate, and reliable data on same-sex couples and their families. This means that, in spite of the efforts of the Institute, policy debates on laws like DOMA have too often been driven as much by anecdote and stereotype as by sound social science research and facts.

It's great that we can get the factual and actual impact of anti-LGBT public policy like DOMA in to the Congressional Record so that this will increase the momentum to pass legislation to end the discrimination. Apparently all 10 members of the Senate Judiciary Committee support repealing DOMA, so they could vote to move it to the Senate floor, where it will almost certainly be killed by a Republican filibuster.

Gov. Cuomo Introduces Marriage Equality Act

As I mentioned yesterday, today Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York introduced the Marriage Equality Act (pdf) which would end discrimination in the issuance of civil marriage licenses on the basis of the gender of the couples.

The Office of the Governor's press release:

Albany, NY (June 14, 2011)

Governor Andrew M. Cuomo today submitted a program bill to bring marriage equality to New York state. The Marriage Equality Act permits all couples to enter into marriage in New York state, thereby removing the current barrier same-sex couples face in recognizing their relationships, protecting their families and obtaining essential benefits.

Specifically, the Act grants same-sex couples who seek to marry equal status under the law as well as hundreds of rights, benefits and protections that are currently limited to married couples of the opposite sex.

"From the fight for women's suffrage to the struggle for civil rights, New Yorkers have been on the right side of history. But on the issue of marriage equality, our state has fallen behind," Governor Cuomo said. "For too long, same-sex couples have been denied the freedom to marry, as well as hundreds of rights that other New Yorkers take for granted. Marriage Equality is a matter of fairness and legal security for thousands of families in this state – not of religion or culture. When it comes to fighting for what's right, New Yorkers wrote the book, and Marriage Equality is the next chapter of our civil rights story."

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the freedom to marry is "one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free people." Further, the state assigns hundreds of protections, benefits and mutual responsibilities in a variety of areas to couples who marry, including health care and hospital visitation rights, child custody issues and financial matters.

However, in New York, many individuals who currently seek to exercise the freedom to marry their partners may not do so solely because they are of the same sex.

The Marriage Equality Act would remove these barriers by amending New York's Domestic Relations Law to state:

• A marriage that is otherwise valid shall be valid regardless of whether the parties to the marriage are of the same or different sex
• No government treatment or legal status, effect, right, benefit, privilege, protection or responsibility relating to marriage shall differ based on the parties to the marriage being the same sex or a different sex
• All relevant gender-specific language set forth in or referenced by New York law shall be construed in a gender-neutral manner
• No application for a marriage license shall be denied on the ground that the parties are of the same or a different sex

To ensure that the bill does not intrude into matters of religious belief, the Marriage Equality Act affirms that no member of the clergy can be compelled to solemnize any marriage. This bill grants equal access to the government-created legal institution of civil marriage while leaving the religious institution of marriage to its own separate and fully autonomous sphere. The bill also guarantees that religious institutions and benevolent organizations such as the Knights of Columbus remain free to choose who may use their facilities for marriage ceremonies and celebrations or to whom they provide religious services, consistent with their religious principles.

New York has always been at the forefront in advancing equal rights. In 1983, New York banned discrimination based on sexual orientation in state employment. In 2002, the state extended the same principle to the private sector by enacting the Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act. That same year, the state recognized same-sex relationships by extending workers' compensation benefits to all those who lost a partner on 9/11. Passage of the Marriage Equality Act represents yet another significant step in granting full and equal rights to all citizens of New York state.

The Marriage Equality Act bill memo is available here. The bill text is available here.

This action is significant because Governor Cuomo had earlier said that he would not introduce a bill this session (which ends next Monday) unless it would pass.

There are currently 30 declared supporters  (29 Democrats and 1 Republican) of marriage equality legislation in the 62-member State Senate, which has passed the state Assembly 3 times. More announcements by Republican supporters are expected prior to a decision on whether a vote will occur on the bill by the Republican caucus on Wednesday June 15.

TN Groups File Lawsuit Against Anti-Gay Law

Excellent news! A coalition of LGBT Tennesseans have joined together to file a lawsuit challenging a recently enacted anti-gay law passed by the state Legislature which would repeal all existing local LGBT civil rights ordinances and prohibit the establishment of any ordinances which protect groups which are not currently protected in state law.

From the press release:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Tennesseans Challenge Discriminatory State Law
Councilmembers, Residents, Organizations File Suit Calling HB600 Unconstitutional

(Nashville, TN, June 13, 2011)—A group of local elected officials, individuals, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights organizations filed a lawsuit today in Davidson County Chancery Court, challenging the state’s recent passage of House Bill 600, which prohibits local municipalities and counties, including local school districts, from enacting local laws or school policies that protect gay and transgender people against discrimination. The bill was passed earlier this year, just weeks after Nashville added sexual orientation and gender identity to an existing local anti-discrimination law.  The new law also prohibits localities from protecting any other group that is not already protected under state law, which would include veterans and people with disabilities, among others.  

According to the complaint filed today: “HB600 embodies an animus toward gay and transgender people so strong that the Tennessee legislature was willing to repeal policies protecting students against bullying and harassment and to make other groups suffer as well, merely to prevent gay and transgender citizens from obtaining needed protections.”   

“This law is contrary to core Tennessee values,” said Abby R. Rubenfeld, the suit’s lead attorney. “Tennessee is the volunteer state—we help each other, we don’t single out certain Tennesseans who are deemed unworthy of help. Our legislators abused their power by preventing localities from assisting their own citizens. Rather than considering what is best for our state, they passed a law based on disapproval of gay and transgender people, which the Tennessee and U.S. Constitutions do not permit.”    

“Fifteen years ago, in fact—in a case quite similar to this one—the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that, ‘if the constitutional conception of ‘equal protection of the laws’ means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare … desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest’,” said Rubenfeld, citing Romer v. Evans, which struck down a Colorado constitutional amendment that barred localities or the state from passing laws to prohibit discrimination against gay people.

The suit’s plaintiffs, represented by Nashville attorney Rubenfeld, the law firm of Morrison & Foerster, and the National Center for Lesbian Rights, include:

•    Lisa Howe, the extremely successful Belmont University soccer coach who made a “mutual decision” to leave her coaching position unexpectedly and despite a highly successful career, immediately after sharing with her team that she and her same-sex partner were having a baby.

•    Metro Councilmembers Erik Cole, Erica Gilmore, and Mike Jameson, representing District 7, District 19, and District 6, respectively. Councilmembers Gilmore and Jameson were co-sponsors of BL2011-838, the Metro ordinance which extended existing anti-discrimination protections to gay and transgender employees of Metro government contractors.

•    Shirit Pankowsky, a rising senior at Martin Luther King, Jr. High School (MLK) and founder and president of MLK’s Gay/Straight Alliance. By stripping Metro’s ability to protect its citizens from discrimination, HB600 also strips protections from Metro Nashville Public Schools’ LGBT students who face discrimination.

•    Dr. Marisa Richmond, president of the Tennessee Transgender Political Coalition and longtime advocate for gay and transgender equality at the federal, state and local level.

•    Wesley Roberts, a teacher at Hume-Fogg Academic Magnet School and a co-sponsor of the school’s Gay/Straight Alliance.

•    The Tennessee Equality Project, a statewide non-profit organization dedicated to promoting and sustaining the equality of gay and transgender Tennesseans.

•    The Tennessee Transgender Political Coalition, a statewide organization which advocates for transgender-related legislation at the federal, state and local levels.

“I want my daughter to grow up in a state that treats everyone equally,” said Lisa Howe. “This lawsuit is necessary because the legislation is discriminatory and unconstitutional. Unfortunately, the majority of the legislature didn’t read the bill carefully and think through its consequences. But that’s why we have the Constitution and the courts to interpret it—so that the rights of everyone can be protected.”

“The state legislation was disguised as an effort to ensure consistent business regulations across Tennessee counties. But that was a Trojan horse pretext for getting this passed. Every county has unique zoning regulations, unique employment regulations, and so forth. Why is it only now, and only on the issue of discrimination, that we suddenly need uniformity? If every county now needs to be identical, should we abolish city councils across the state?” said Metro Councilmember and suit plaintiff Mike Jameson.
 
No individual businesses went on record in support of HB600, and some of Tennessee’s largest employers, including Nissan, Alcoa, FedEx, AT&T, Whirlpool and Comcast, opposed the bill. In addition, the Tennessee Chamber of Commerce issued a public statement in opposition to the bill on the day it was signed into law by Gov. Bill Haslam.

“Under the very thin guise of protecting businesses and commerce, Tennessee passed a law specifically intended to encourage discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender members of the community,” said Shannon Minter, Legal Director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights. “This law is part of a larger, national strategy to attack cities and counties that attempt to protect their citizens from discrimination based on characteristics that bear no relationship to job performance, talent, or one’s ability to contribute to society.”

Plaintiffs’ claims are based on the equal protection guarantees of the United States and Tennessee Constitutions. The lawsuit, which will proceed in state court, seeks injunctive relief to stop the enforcement of HB600 and an order from the Court declaring the law unconstitutional.  

Media Contacts:

Erik Olvera
NCLR Communications Director 
Office: 415.392.6257 x324
Mobile: 415.994.3242
EOlvera@NCLRights.org

Abby R. Rubenfeld 
Rubenfeld Law Office 
Office: 615.386.9077 
ARubenfeld@RubenfeldLaw.com

Catholic Charities Sue Ill. For Right To Anti-Gay Discrimination

Today in religious hubris news, three chapters of Catholic Charities (based in Peoria, Joliet and Springfield) have decided to sue Illinois in order to gain the right to take state money (as much as $30 million) but discriminate in who they provide adoption and foster care services to. As you may recall, on June 1, Illinois' civil unions law went into effect. In response, some local Catholic Charities have announced they would suspend foster care and adoption services altogether unless they have the right to violate Illinois Human Right Law which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (and race and marital status).

Simply astonishing. The Advocate has the deets:

In the suit, Catholic Charities for the dioceses of Springfield, Joliet, and Peoria claim that their state-funded adoption services are exempt from the civil unions law under provisions of the legislation as well as existing state religious freedom protections.

"Same sex couples' and unmarried cohabiting couples' application for adoption or foster care referrals could be fully and adequately serviced and accommodated (as they are now) by [the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services] referring them to other providers which do not share [our] conscientious religious objections," attorneys for the dioceses wrote in their complaint.

"On the other hand, the harm to plaintiffs and to the poor, needy and vulnerable third parties whom they serve, should no injunctive relief issue, would be severe and ... even unconscionable," they wrote.

The suit was prompted in part by a March 8 letter from Illinois attorney general Lisa Madigan's office inquiring into Catholic Charities of Springfield's existing policies and whether they violate the law.

"Please be advised that the Illinois Human Rights Act makes it a civil rights violation for any person to 'deny or refuse to another the full and equal enjoyment of facilities, goods, or services of any public place of accommodation' on the basis of unlawful discrimination," which includes sexual orientation and marital status as protected characteristics, the letter read in part.

In a Tuesday statement, a spokeswoman for the attorney general's office said of the suit, "Organizations that receive taxpayer funding to provide public services must comply with the law. Unfortunately, instead of working with the state to ensure compliance with child protection and civil rights laws, the dioceses have opted to go to court."

Filed on behalf of the dioceses by attorneys from the Thomas More Society in Chicago, the lawsuit comes after the announcement late last month that Catholic Charities in Rockford was pulling out of adoption services entirely — a decision described by one source as a possible "trial balloon" from the church to put pressure on the state assembly and attorney general's office. But "there's nothing to indicate that the governor or the assembly is interested in providing an exemption" for religious groups contracted by the state for adoption services, the source said.

Meanwhile, Catholic Charities' claim that Illinois is undermining its religious freedom in state adoption contracts has been criticized by several national LGBT legal and advocacy groups.

"It's outrageous," said Camilla Taylor, national marriage project director for Lambda Legal. "They're asking permission to put their desire to discriminate ahead of the welfare of children in state care. And they're asking to do this at taxpayer expense. It's a tragic result for children."

Even the head of Catholic Charities in Illinois, Anthony Riordan, recognizes that the position stated in the lawsuit is nonsensical, making this statement:

That the Catholic Charities adoption contracts in question are not private but rather funded to the tune of a reported $30 million annually by the state is not ultimately what this is about, he argued. "I think it's certainly a reasonable point: If you receive state funds, you have to follow the directives and the rules of the state," Riordan said. "But our position is that faith-based charities have religious liberties and certain rights of conscience."[emphasis added]

I wonder how far Catholic Charities would like these alleged religious liberties to go? The right to be exempt from age of consent laws? Statutes of limitation on child molestation lawsuits? Why stop at the human rights law and try to get exemptions for every law that they don't agree with?

It should be noted that the notion that religious beliefs should trump the concept of "equal justice under the law" and the underlying principle of public accommodations civil rights laws has been rearing it's ugly head in other contexts, most notably the fight to legalize marriage equality in New York State.

Nevada Legislature Passes Transgender Rights Bill(s)

The Nevada Legislature has completed work on Assembly Bill 211, a bill to prohibit employment discrimination based on gender identity or gender expression, passing it by votes of 29-13 in the Assembly and 11-10 in the Senate to reach Republican Governor Brian Sandoval's desk.

Additionally, the Nevada Senate had previously passed bills to prohibit discrimination in public accommodations (Senate Bill 331) and housing (Senate Bill 368) on the basis of gender identity or expression. These bills are still pending in the Assembly.

The Senate killed Senate Bill 180, which would have added gender identity or gender expression to the state's hate crimes law, even though the Federal Hate Crimes Law already has provisions which include sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression.

The National Gay and Lesbian task Force sent out a statement praising the Nevada's legislature's positive legislative actions to protect transgender individuals:

"This is a wonderful victory for the people of Nevada. We commend lawmakers for ensuring that all Nevadans, regardless of gender identity or expression, are protected from discrimination in employment. The startling statistics and personal stories found in our national survey on transgender discrimination show just how critically necessary these protections are. No one should fear being jobless, homeless and going hungry because of discrimination. Without legal protections, transgender people are made particularly vulnerable to bias and abuse. This law will literally save lives. We thank the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada for its hard work leading to this victory and we're proud to be a partner in this effort. We look forward to the governor's signature on this important measure."

The Hawaii Legislature passed and Democratic Governor Neil Abercrombie signed into law a measure prohibiting employment discrimination on the basis of gender identity of gender expression earlier this year.

TN Senate Approves Bill To Repeal Local LGBT Rights Laws

In Tennessee, the State Senate has passed legislation to prohibit local ordinances which ban discrimination based on sexual orientation. The only city in Tennessee which has a local gay rights ordinance is Nashville, so basically the state legislature is repealing Nashville's ordinance and preventing any other locality from enacting  LGBT civil rights ordinance in the future.

A local news report from NewsChannel5:

A vote Thursday afternoon in the Senate all but cemented the passing of state's Equal Access to Intrastate Commerce Act. Senators voted 21 to 8 on the proposal that would prohibit local governments from creating anti-discrimination laws that are stricter than the state's has passed the Senate.

"It had nothing to do with intrastate; it had nothing to do with jobs. It had to do with some people that folks didn't like. And they twisted it up, dressed it up in bows to make it look different," said State Sen. Thelma Harper of Nashville.

The move by state legislators will repeal Metro Nashville's ordinance barring contractors from doing business with the city if they don't ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

Ostensibly, the legislators are claiming that they want to have uniform statewide rules on non-discrimination. I suppose it's just a coincidence (or oversight) that they have also refused to pass a bill which would include sexual orientation or gender identity as characteristics protected under statewide civil rights laws.

WATCH: Delaware Governor Signs Civil Unions Into Law

Delaware Senate Passes Civil Unions Bill!

Delaware took a big step today in favor of LGBT equality when the State Senate approved SB 30, a bill which would allow same-sex couples to enter into civil unions which have all the right, responsibilities and rewards that the state can provide to married couples.

According to the Washington Blade, the bill passed by a vote of 13-6

The approval came after the Senate defeated two hostile amendments, including one that would have forced a state referendum on the issue. The second amendment called for expanding the measure to include opposite-sex couples. It was defeated 12-2. 

The bill now goes to the state House where a vote is expected on Wednesday, April 13. Supporters are optimistic because the House is thought to be more supportive of the bill than the Senate.

This is surprising progress in Delaware, since it was a mere two years ago that Delaware passed an LGB rights bill banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in housing, employment, education and public accommodations. Delaware still does not have a bill banning discrimination on the basis of gender identity.

DOJ Asked To Suspend DOMA-Related Deportations

Immigration Equality has written the Department of Justice to request that same-sex couples who would be able to be get a green card except for DOMA's provisions be allowed to stay in the country pending the legal resolution of its constitutionality:

Dear Attorney General Holder:
Thank you for the courageous action you took on February 23, 2011 in announcing that the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) would no longer defend the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”) in federal law suits.  We applaud your decision and believe that this is a critical step forward in ensuring equality under the constitution for all Americans and their families.

We write to request that until there is a final resolution in the DOMA litigation, you instruct the Board of Immigration Appeals to hold in abeyance the appeals of immigrant visa petitions (I-130) filed by American citizens or lawful permanent residents on behalf of their lesbian or gay spouses. We ask further that you instruct the Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”) to grant long continuances in removal proceedings where the foreign national could adjust status based on his or her marriage to a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident were it not for DOMA. While we understand that your letter explained that until there is a final resolution in the DOMA litigation, the Administration would continue to enforce DOMA, staying removals is the only way to maintain the status quo for these families pending the final resolution of the DOMA cases. Where the validity of a law has been so clearly called into question the most appropriate response for the Administration is to hold cases directly affected by the law.

Of the many rights that flow from marriage, none is more immediate than the right to petition for lawful permanent residence for a foreign-born husband or wife. Every day American families are town apart because Section 3 of DOMA prevents the foreign spouse from obtaining lawful permanent residence. The EOIR immigration judges are employees of DOJ and it would be unjust for immigration judges to continue to order removals of the lesbian and gay spouses of Americans by enforcing a law that you have determined is unconstitutional. Staying removals of gay and lesbian spouses is the only way to ensure that the constitutional rights of American citizens are not being violated pending the final resolution of the DOMA cases. Maintaining the status quo for these families at this point will also preserve judicial resources by preventing potentially hundreds of immigration-based federal DOMA challenges in individual cases

In addition, openly gay immigration attorney Lavi Soloway, has sent out a press release announcing that he will be asking the federal government to stop deporting bi-national couples:

On Tuesday March 22 in a New York Immigration Court, Monica Alcota, a citizen of Argentina, and her wife, Cristina Ojeda, an American citizen, will request that an Immigration Judge terminate removal proceedings so that the couple may fully pursue a marriage-based green card process with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services free of the threat of removal. This is the first time a married same-sex couple will appear in court to seek termination of such proceedings since the Obama administration reversed its position on Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) on February 23, calling it unconstitutional and announcing that it would not defend DOMA in pending and future federal court challenges.

Cristina Ojeda and Monica Alcota have been together since July 2008 and live in Queens, New York. In August 2010 they married in Connecticut. Cristina filed a marriage-based alien relative petition on behalf of Monica in September 2010. That petition is currently pending before U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.  Alcota came to the United States in October 2000. She is a law-abiding, hard-working and talented antiques restorer and devoted, loving wife to Cristina.

The couple's lawyer, Lavi Soloway, will argue that removal proceedings should be terminated consistent with the Immigration and Customs Enforcement's long-standing policy of prosecutorial discretion which favors family unification and the accomodation of sympathetic humanitarian circumstances. ICE and the Court should consider the rapidly changing landscape of DOMA. That changing landscape includes the Obama administration's new position on DOMA which is expected to dramatically alter the course of future litigation against DOMA, but it also includes other significant developments.

On March 16, 2011 a bill to repeal DOMA, the Respect for Marriage Act, was introduced in the House by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) with 105 co-sponsors and in the Senate by Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT) with the expected support of a total of 20 co-sponsors in total.  This historic legislation seeks to end discrimination against same-sex married couples by the federal government, including for immigration purposes.

In other courts around the country, DOMA is under attack by multiple challenges. In two decisions this past July, Boston Federal District Court Judge Joseph Tauro ruled that DOMA was unconstitutional. Those cases are now on appeal at the First Circuit Court of Appeals. The Department of Justice has withdrawn from defending Section 3 of DOMA in those cases saying that it would now tell that court that it believed the statute was unconstitutional.

Termination of deportation proceedings would not restrict the Department of Homeland Security from re-initiating proceedings at a later date; it would however, free this couple from attending hearings and defending against an on-going prosecution of deportation proceedings and it would free resources of an overburdened immigration court.

Montana House Passes Anti-LGBT Civil Rights Bill 60-39

Wow. What will the impact of of the 2010 election of hundreds of Republican state legislators on the rights of LGBT people be around the country? Probably a detrimental one.

The State House of Montana just passed the most anti-gay bill in the nation by a vote of 60-39 which would prevent any local entity from enacting local civil rights ordinances which prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. (Note, this is a more extreme anti-LGBT public policy position than the state of Utah and the Mormon Church.) There was only one such ordinance in the state, in the college town of Missoula, Montana. And it was only enacted last year!

From The Missoulian ("Bill to nullify Missoula's equality ordinance receives backing in House"):

Missoula's Democratic legislators were infuriated by the passage of House Bill 516, by Rep. Kristin Hansen, R-Havre. Her bill passed 60-39 and faces a final House vote before heading to the Senate.


Sixty Republicans voted for it. All 32 Democrats voted opposed it, joined by seven Republicans. One Republican was absent.


[...]


As sponsor, Hansen said HB516 would prohibit local governments from enacting ordinances or policies that seek to protect residents from real or perceived discrimination based on their sexual orientation or gender as Missoula did through an ordinance and Bozeman through a policy.
She said the Missoula City Council adopted the ordinance and provided an enforcement mechanism that fell outside of that in the Montana Human Rights Act.


"It would apply retroactively to the city of Missoula's ordinance in order to keep all businesses and all entities on a level playing field," Hansen said. "All discrimination claims will have to go through the human rights procedures as designated by the Montana Human Rights (Commission)."


[...]


"Our community is filled with possibly the biggest gay and lesbian population in the state," said Rep. Ellie Hill, D-Missoula. "We are a community with the University of Montana. We have a lot of young people. We passed this ordinance because we wanted to protect our own citizens, our own people. You don't have to agree with it." 

Sands said she is proud to be part of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community and told the House: "There are thousands of ‘us' living in Montana. We are your neighbors, your work colleagues, we are part of your families, we sit in the pew next to you at church, and we serve in elective offices with you." 

Along with other LGBT Montanans and their families, Sands said she was claiming her constitutional right to equality and justice under Montana's constitutional provision that says: "The dignity of the human being is inviolable. No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws." 

"It doesn't say, except for gay people," she said.

The bill  is reminiscent of Colorado's Amendment 2 which was struck down by the United States Supreme Court in Romer v. Evans by a 6-3 vote in 1996. However, that was an anti-gay voter initiative (which overturned local gay rights ordinances in Boulder, Aspen and Denver) while this is a legislatively enacted measure which still needs to go through the upper body and be signed into law by Governor Brian Schweitzer, a Democrat.  The notion that the state is trying to enact a uniform enforcement procedure for discrimination is a transparent fiction. Obviously, the Montana Human Rights Act does NOT include sexual orientation and gender identity and the same Republicans voted to kill a measure which would have added those characteristics. Presumably, Schweitzer will veto the measure if it reaches his desk but has not made a public statement on the measure so far.

O, Canada! House of Commons Passes Transgender Rights Bill

The LGBT blogosphere is buzzing with the news that Canada's House of Commons by a vote of 143-135 has narrowly passed a bill banning discrimination on the basis of gender identity or gender expression.

The entire NDP and Bloc Quebecois caucuses and six Conservative members voted in favour of Bill C-389, allowing it to pass with a vote of 143-135 in the House of Commons Wednesday night. Some Liberals voted against the bill while others abstained.

The private member’s bill is now handed to the Senate — where the Conservatives have a majority — where it must pass before becoming law.

In terms of votes, the unelected Senate has historically followed the lead of its elected counterpart. But late last year, members of the upper chamber came under fire when they defied the opinion of majority of the House, and defeated an environmental bill.

The Leader of the Government in the Senate, Marjory LeBreton, said the bill will be treated the same way it was in the House, and “sees no evidence at all” to indicate any party lines will be taken.

The bill, sponsored by NDP MP Bill Siksay, would prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity and expression through adding “gender identity” and “gender expression” to the list of prohibited grounds for discrimination in the Canada Human Rights Act, and through adding transgendered and transsexual Canadians as identifiable groups in the Criminal Code’s hate crimes law.

It is very notable that an LGBT-supportive country like Canada, which legalized marriage equality way back in 2005, has only been able to get a bill passed through one house of the legislature banning anti-transgender discrimination in 2011. Here in the United States we are nowhere near to a national legal consensus on marriage equality and we haven't been able to pass a bill banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation despite trying since 1973! There are only 12 states which include the T in their LGB anti-discrimination laws.

And it is looking more and more unlikely that Canada's gender identity non-discrimination bill will become law this year:

Critics have dubbed the legislation “the bathroom bill,” claiming it would allow male sexual predators to invade women’s washrooms and change rooms.

[...]

The Conservatives, who have a majority in the Red Chamber, have adopted the tactic of using the Senate to block private-members’ bills passed by the House of Commons that don’t accord with the government’s agenda.

Legislation to force the government to act on climate change was defeated last year, while bills requiring Supreme Court judges to be bilingual, providing tax credits for university graduates who work in certain regions and offering restitution for Italian Canadians interned during the Second World War, lie in limbo.

Since Prime Minister Stephen Harper does not support the transgendered-rights legislation, it will doubtless face similar purgatory when it arrives in the Senate.

And with prospects for a spring election increasing, because opposition parties can’t bring themselves to support the upcoming budget, any legislation that isn’t on the brink of royal assent is likely to perish.

Hopefully if there's a Spring election, there will be a change in Governments from the Conservatives to the Liberals.

Maryland Lt. Gov. Brown Announces Support For Marriage Equality

Maryland Lieutenant Governor Anthony Brown

The groundswell of support for marriage equality in Maryland continues to grow. The highest-ranked Black elected official in the state (and potential 2014 gubernatorial candidate), Lieutenant Governor Anthony Brown, has announced his support for the pending bill to legalize marriage equality, SB 116.

As a prominent black elected official, LGBT advocates for the marriage bill would likely seek Brown’s help in campaigning for the bill in a referendum fight in his home turf of majority black P.G. County. In California in 2008, exit polls showed that a majority of black voters supported overturning that state’s same-sex marriage law in the bitterly fought ballot measure known as Proposition 8.

“I think Prince George’s County, which is predominantly African American, should not be viewed as a monolithic entity or county or community,” Brown said. “I think we’re going to get varying degrees of support and varying degrees of opposition. We know from public comments that many of the traditional civil rights organizations have come out in support of it,” he said, referring to the same-sex marriage bill.

“We also know that a number of members of the clergy from the African-American churches have come out or spoke against it,” he said. “So there’s not a clear or I should say single voice in Prince George’s County on this issue as I suspect is true in most all of the large counties in Maryland.”

[...]

Brown’s official biography on the Maryland State website shows that he has served in the Army since 1984 both on active duty and currently in the reserves. He served a 10-month tour in Iraq as part of a Multi-National Force in 2004 that provided humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people. In 2007 he was promoted to the rank of colonel and, as an attorney with a degree from Harvard Law School, he currently commands a Pennsylvania-based Army Legal Support unit.

Brown is not the only prominent politician to announce his support for marriage equality this week. The former head of the Republican State Senate caucus Alan Kittleman released a statement on Tuesday expressing his support for SB 116.

I know that some may contend that since the Bible teaches that marriage is between a man and a woman, Maryland should continue to prohibit same sex marriage. First, let me state that I am a strong follower of Jesus Christ. I worked in youth ministries for many years. However, while my faith may teach that marriage is between a man and a woman, our government is not a theocracy. As the state senator from District 9, I represent everyone in my district, regardless of their faith. Therefore, while my spiritual life is extremely important to me, it cannot be the sole basis for my decisions as a state senator.

I know that some will be upset with my decision to support SB 116 and I respect the fact that people have differing opinions on this issue. I carefully considered my decision. I sought counsel from many people, including my family, clergy, advocates for both sides, fellow legislators and many others. These discussions were very helpful to me and I appreciate the time that those individuals took to talk with me. Ultimately, it was my strong feelings about civil rights that led me to decide to support SB 116.

 Wow! Bipartisan, diverse support for marriage equality in Maryland!