Judge orders compensation for gay couple denied benefits | L.A. NOW | Los Angeles Times

Judge orders compensation for gay couple denied benefits | L.A. NOW | Los Angeles Times

A federal judge today ordered compensation for a Los Angeles couple denied spousal benefits by the federal government because they are gay men.

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Stephen Reinhardt deemed the denial of healthcare and other benefits to the spouse of federal public defender Brad Levenson to be a violation of the Constitution's guarantee of due process and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, which is prohibited by California state law.

Levenson married his longtime partner, Tony Sears, on July 12, 2008, during the five-month period when same-sex marriage was legal in California. A ballot measure, Proposition 8, was passed a year ago defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

Reinhardt, who is the federal judge responsible for resolving employee disputes in the Federal Public Defenders office within the 9th Circuit, had earlier ordered the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts to process Levenson's application for spousal benefits for Sears. The federal government's Office of Personnel Management stepped in to derail the enrollment, however, citing the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act that prohibits the recognition of same-sex marriage for the purpose of federal benefits or programs.

Levenson appealed, seeking either an independently contracted benefits package for his spouse or payment of the equivalent value of the coverage denied. Reinhardt ordered the latter, based on a "back pay" provision in the law covering federal defense lawyers' employment.

"Considering that the federal government won't give Tony the equal benefits package of other spouses, we are very pleased with this decision," said Levenson. "Is it equal treatment? No. Is it a good remedy? Yes. And we are appreciative of the judge's order."

Levenson said he and Sears have been keeping track of the costs of insuring Sears independently and estimate the back pay and future compensation will amount to thousands of dollars each year.

The judge's order is expected to resolve the injustice Reinhardt has cited in previous orders in Levenson's case. But it also recognizes the status quo of federal government rejection of gay marriage under the Defense of Marriage Act. Several other challenges by those denied federal benefits, like filing joint tax returns, are making their way slowly through the federal courts.

The Obama administration has spoken out against what it sees as a discriminatory policy toward gay spouses of federal employees but Atty. Gen. Eric Holder has also said his office is obliged to defend the practice as long as the Defense of Marriage Act remains law.

-- Carol J. Williams

New York News - Who Do We Have to Blow to Get Gay Marriage in New York? - page 2

New York News - Who Do We Have to Blow to Get Gay Marriage in New York? - page 2

In Europe, Gay Pride parades are held each year on the occasion known as "Christopher Street Day"—a nod to the New York street that gave birth to the worldwide gay rights movement with the Stonewall riots.

But if this city once signified the leading edge of that movement, what does it say that in those European countries celebrating our fair city, there's gay marriage equality, but here, where the struggle for rights began, New York still can't get it right?

That seemed about to change at the beginning of the year. Governor Paterson was fully supportive of gay marriage rights, his popularity hadn't fully tanked yet, and gay voters had helped tip the State Senate in the Democrats' favor for the first time in 40 years. By June, Republican minority leader Dean Skelos said he'd let his members vote as they saw fit, and wouldn't block a gay marriage vote on the Senate floor. Once a marriage bill passed in the Assembly, the future looked as gay as a revival of Meet Me in St. Louis.

Voters, it's true, rejected gay marriage in California and Maine, and gay marriage's Cassandra, Maggie Gallagher, resides right here in our state. But even Gallagher couldn't do anything about it if our legislature approved a marriage equality bill and Governor Paterson signed it into law.

"It would be difficult, if not impossible, for an opponent to repeal a new law," says Justin Phillips, assistant professor of political science at Columbia University. "The reason it was so easy in California and Maine is that those states have citizen initiatives, which allow voters to draft a new law or amend their constitution. New York does not." Once New York approves an equal marriage law, says Phillips, "it's pretty much here to stay."

So what, then, is the hang-up?

In a word, it's the Democrats.

To be more specific, it's the chickenshit Democrats in the Senate. Some are afraid of being exposed as bigots, some are afraid of being exposed as homo-lovers, and some are pro marriage equality but would rather block a vote than possibly see it defeated. In each case, it's that fear-of-fear thing that our most famous governor—who was perhaps married to a lesbian, it turns out—tried to warn us about.

Last week, Governor Paterson called lawmakers to a special session to deal with the state's hemorrhaging budget, but also to vote on gay marriage. Democratic senators punted.

"I'm still stinging from the disrespect we received," says Cathy Marino-Thomas, president of Marriage Equality New York. She had spent all of last Tuesday in the Senate Gallery and outside Democratic Conference Leader John Sampson's office, only to be ignored: "Our folks were out there all day, pouring their hearts out, begging for a vote, pleading for a vote—or, at least, an answer on whether or not there was even going to be a vote, and no one even addressed them!"

But Sampson and other senators don't want a gay marriage vote to happen until they can be assured of success. The Democrats hold only a 32-30 majority in the Senate, and that majority vanishes with members like the Bronx's Rubén Díaz, a Pentecostal minister who is a definite "No" vote.

NY1 captured Marino-Thomas screaming at him, "If he wants to be a reverend, then let him go back to the church. If you want to be a senator, then you stand up for the rights and laws of this country!"

But she admits to the Voice that Díaz frustrates her less than the senators who won't say how they plan to vote or who actively work to keep a vote from happening. "I hate to say it, and it may be the only thing I respect him for, but I respect Senator Díaz for at least taking a stand. You know where he stands on this issue. He doesn't try to hide it," she says.

Take Senator Shirley Huntley (D-Jamaica), for example. Her office says the senator is undecided—she is not opposed to bringing the bill to the floor and, although she's had years to think about it, she won't decide until a bill actually comes to the floor.

So, because of the indecision of senators like Huntley, Sampson is reluctant to bring the bill to the floor. But because Sampson hasn't brought it to the floor, Huntley can remain undecided. It's a frustrating legislative circle-jerk.

Sampson has promised a vote by the end of the year, to which Marino-Thomas snorts, "Why should I believe that? They've made and broken this promise too many times to count."

If it doesn't happen, gays are getting ready to cut Democrats off financially—in New York, and nationally. Gay support has long been a pillar of Democratic fundraising, and some movement leaders are promising hell if Sampson reneges. Blogs from DailyKos to Ameriblog are calling for a national boycott of the DNC and Organizing for America (both failed to help defend marriage equality in Maine) until they generate some action on repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

The national arena, of course, is where this will eventually and inevitably be resolved. As Molly McKay of Marriage Equality USA puts it, "islands of equality" cannot continue to exist from state to state. Just as the Supreme Court eventually forced backward states to accept interracial marriages in 1968, so, ultimately, the Supreme Court will find that denying gay marriage rights violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. When that happens, California's Proposition 8 and Maine's recent vote will be swept away and gay couples will be able to marry in every state. But how long before the Supreme Court is ready to make that obvious step is a question of aging justices and their replacements.

Ironically, it is George W. Bush's solicitor general who is most progressive about charging down this legal path: Ted Olson—yes, Bush's lawyer in Bush v. Gore, who has been joined by Gore's lawyer, David Boies—is representing California couples in a federal lawsuit charging that Proposition 8 is a violation of their right to equal protection. But with the same fear that has paralyzed Albany, the thought of possibly losing in the Supreme Court terrifies some marriage advocates so much that they don't think the risk is worth the gamble.

McKay doesn't see it that way, and is fully supportive of the California case. "Courage," she says, "is the act of facing action despite your fears." (Too bad the New York State Senate has never been much for profiles in courage.) Regardless, while the federal case incubates, she says, "You have to have a vote in the New York Senate. If you lose, then you know who you have to lobby, and you have a vote again next year." Plus, "you might win." To pass a marriage equality bill in the California State Assembly, McKay needed each of four undecided Democrats. She got all four, but not until they were forced to actually vote on the floor.

Governor Paterson also promises a vote by the end of the year. He may lack the political clout to make it happen, but he's taking the long view on this one, even if there are setbacks along the way. He mentioned that the Emancipation Proclamation was signed just five years after the Dred Scott decision, then added, "In my opinion, historically, I think we have lost touch with how movements for equality are reached. There are a lot of ups and downs."

sthrasher@villagevoice.com

Changing Your Name After Marriage When You’re Gay - Bucks Blog - NYTimes.com

Changing Your Name After Marriage When You’re Gay - Bucks Blog - NYTimes.com

By JENNIFER SARANOW SCHULTZ
Changing legal documents like Social Security cards and passports can be difficult for gay couples who get married.

While changing a name after marriage can often be a struggle for heterosexual women and men, it’s a lot harder if you’re gay.

Couples who live in states that don’t allow or recognize same-sex marriage or its equivalents (civil unions, for instance) generally can’t just rely on a marriage certificate as proof of a name change and instead have to go through the in-court name change process. This means they will have to pay a $100 to $400 fee to file a petition at court, publish a notice in a local newspaper and get a court order officially changing their name and that they can use to change everything else (just one more area where being gay can cost you more).

Even more, couples who live in states that do allow or recognize same-sex marriage and civil unions often in practice don’t have it that much easier. While changing a name on a driver’s license can be done without a problem in such states, changing federal documentation can be trickier.

Since the federal government doesn’t recognize the right to same-sex marriage, even if you get married in a state that allows it, whether you can get the name change processed by Social Security or the passport office merely with the marriage certificate and required forms currently tends “to be hit and miss,” said Emily Doskow, an attorney in California who specializes in same-sex and transgender family issues and writes about marriage and divorce issues for the legal information publisher Nolo. “It depends on what local office you are going to, what the opinion is at the moment and whether you get a staff person who cares or doesn’t care,” she said.

This is despite the fact that a spokeswoman for the Social Security office said such same-sex couples should have no problems changing their Social Security cards because the marriage certificate is a legal name change document in those states and the office follows state rules in regard to name changes. In addition, while the Passport Agency used to not recognize the marriage certificates of same-sex couples as name change documents, the State Department earlier this year changed its policy to permit the document to be used as proof for a same-sex last name change if it’s a legal way to change one’s last name under a state’s law.

Problems now are because of “misunderstanding and misinformation at the passport and Social Security offices,” said Karen Loewy, senior staff attorney at Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, a legal rights organization focusing on New England. “The marriage license should be enough for any name change” in a state that allows or recognizes same-sex marriage or its equivalents, she said.

She said she expected the hurdles to eventually go away. But for now, she recommends that couples who face problems trying to change their Social Security cards or passports keep trying, go in person to talk with someone else in the office and bring or send in additional supporting changed identification like driver’s licenses and this document from the Glad Web site about the changed law. “There is no reason folks should have to go to court,” Ms. Loewy said.

Lawmakers Defy Church Pressure On Gay Marriage - wjz.com

Lawmakers Defy Church Pressure On Gay Marriage - wjz.com

Lawmakers Defy Church Pressure On Gay Marriage
WASHINGTON (AP) ―


D.C. Council members say there's little room for compromise with the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington over a proposed same-sex marriage law.

The church says it won't continue offering social services with D.C. money if the marriage bill isn't changed because it would require the church to recognize same-sex couples. But council members say threats shouldn't determine D.C. laws.

Council member Jim Graham says the church hasn't abandoned social services in New Hampshire, Connecticut or Vermont after they began same-sex marriages.

In Boston, Catholic Charities has halted city adoption programs because Massachusetts bans public discrimination against same-sex couples.

Council chairman Vincent Gray plans to meet with colleagues Friday to discuss the issue.

Argentine judge allows gay wedding in legal first - Yahoo! News

Argentine judge allows gay wedding in legal first - Yahoo! News



BUENOS AIRES (Reuters) – An Argentine judge has granted a homosexual couple permission to get married, setting a precedent that could pave the way for the Catholic country to become the first in Latin America to allow same-sex marriage.

This week's ruling by Judge Gabriela Seijas in Buenos Aires, which became the region's first city to approve civil unions between same sex couples in 2002, may increase pressure on lawmakers to debate a gay marriage bill currently deadlocked in Congress.

"The law should treat everyone with the same respect according to their singularities, without the need to understand or regulate them," Seijas said in her ruling, which could still be overturned by city authorities.

The couple, Alex Freyre and Jose Maria Di Bello, said in a statement posted on a gay rights Internet site that the decision would allow them to become "the first gay couple in Latin America to get the right to marry."

Civil unions in Buenos Aires and several other Argentine cities grant same sex couples some but not all the rights of married couples.

Elsewhere in Latin America, same sex civil unions are allowed in Uruguay and Mexico City.

(Reporting by Nicolas Misculin and Helen Popper, editing by Alan Elsner)

Guessing game in New York - Washington Blade: Gay and Lesbian News, Entertainment, Politics and Opinion

Guessing game in New York - Washington Blade: Gay and Lesbian News, Entertainment, Politics and Opinion

By CHRIS JOHNSON
Nov. 13, 2009

New York’s governor and state Senate leaders announced this week they’re committed to a vote on same-sex marriage legislation by the end of this year.

Gov. David Paterson (D) announced the agreement at a press conference Tuesday while flanked by champions of the marriage bill, according to media reports.

“This is the first time that the Senate leadership had indicated that it will support a vote on marriage equality,” Paterson said, according to the New York Daily News.

Austin Shafran, a spokesperson for the Senate Democrats, didn’t respond to the Blade’s request for comment, but reportedly confirmed for the Daily News an agreement had been made with Senate leaders on the marriage bill.

“We will commit the full spectrum of our energies to making marriage equality a reality in the State of New York,” Shafran was quoted as saying.

Gay state Sen. Tom Duane, a gay lawmaker and prime sponsor of the marriage bill in the Senate, said Paterson and Senate leaders reached a decision to bring the marriage bill to the floor this year “under the leadership of Gov. Paterson, who brought everyone together — the LGBT political organizations, myself, my colleagues in the Senate majority.”

Approval in the Senate is the last major obstacle in passing same-sex marriage legislation in New York. In May, the New York Assembly passed legislation that would grant marriage rights to gay couples, 89-52. Paterson has pledged to sign the bill if it reaches his desk.

The governor has placed the marriage bill on the Senate’s agenda for Monday and Tuesday for an extraordinary session of the Senate, which must also consider legislation that would address the state’s $3.2 billion budget deficit. But the Senate is not required to vote on items the governor puts on the agenda. It was unclear at Blade deadline whether the Senate would take up the marriage bill next week.

Duane said “nothing is ever for certain” in Albany with regard to whether or not the Senate would take up the legislation next week, but added he’s pushing to bring it to the floor at “every opportunity, every time that we’re together, and we’ll be together again on Monday.”

“I do know that the governor is putting it on the agenda, and, again, that shows his leadership on the issue,” Duane said.

Whether there are sufficient votes in the Senate to pass the marriage bill also was unclear. Democrats hold a narrow majority in the Senate, 32-30, and about five Democrats have said they are non-committal or would vote against the bill, according to a report in the New York Times, making Republican votes necessary for passage.

Jeff Cook, a Log Cabin Republicans legislative adviser who has been lobbying GOP senators on the marriage bill, said he couldn’t speak to whether senators would take up the measure next week, but noted he believes the measure will pass this year with Republican votes.

“I believe that when this finally comes up for a vote that it will pass with bipartisan support,” he said. “I am confident that there will be Republican support.”

Duane said he’s “feeling very, very optimistic” about there being enough votes in the Senate to approve the marriage bill.

Asked whether there would be stronger chance for passing the bill later in the year as opposed to next week, Duane replied, “I guess the answer would be who knows, but I’m very optimistic about the bill today.”

But Dan Pinello, a gay government professor at the City University of New York, said he’s “not optimistic” about there being sufficient votes to pass the marriage bill.

“I don’t think the votes are there, quite frankly, but I think it’s important, nonetheless, that the vote be taken because that way people are on the record, and next year, which is the election cycle, they can be held accountable for the votes,” he said.

Pinello said the New York State Legislature “is run by these dinosaurs,” and a vote on the marriage bill — even it fails — would get opponents of same-sex marriage on the record so issue advocates know who to target in the 2010 election.

Paterson was reportedly joined at the press conference by Duane and Alan Van Capelle, Empire State Pride Agenda’s executive director. Key members of the Senate were absent, including Democratic Leader John Sampson, President Malcolm Smith and Majority Leader Pedro Espada Jr.

But Paterson said at the press conference that Senate leaders “will stand behind this commitment” and their lack of presence at the event didn’t mean they weren’t standing by the agreement, the Daily News reported.

“I think that those three leaders would not like to get into the conversation about dates and times,” Paterson was quoted as saying. “They’ve made the commitment. They have not had a chance to meet with their membership as yet, and usually these types of commitments come after meeting the membership.”

The commitment for a Senate vote this year comes after supporters of same-sex marriage had a false start on hopes that the chamber would take up the measure this week. Lawmakers failed to take up the measure Tuesday at the start of the session, even though Paterson put the bill on the agenda.

The Senate began its session at around noon Tuesday, and lawmakers discussed appreciation for U.S. veterans in recognition of Veteran’s Day, then put the chamber in recess. The Daily News reported Senate Democrats went into discussion about the marriage bill in a members-only conference and engaged in “very passionate” debate.

Enough is Enough

must read Gay apartheid must end


DavidMixner.com - Live From Hell's Kitchen

Over the next weeks, there will be numerous well-meaning proposals to deal with the aftermath of our brutally unfair defeat in Maine. Clearly there are many ways to respond. However, with all the energy I can muster, I have come to the clear conclusion that we can't continue on the path we have been following the last two decades. The time has come for a major shake-up in ideas, tactics and priorities.

Those who hang on to the nostalgia of the past can live in it. There is no question in my mind that the vast majority of the LGBT community is ready to move forward with new visions and new tactics. What is happening to us with this expanding system of Gay Apartheid in America cannot be allowed to continue and if it does, we cannot go quietly into the night enabling such abuse anymore.

How can we have any dignity, honor or pride in ourselves if we validate this continued process of ballot box terrorism? How can we stand tall next to each other if we explain away another's cowardliness? How can we allow people to dehumanize our relationships and our very integrity if we give people passes to sit out the battle for our very freedom? No longer are political timelines a reason for delay, no longer are incremental approaches acceptable and no longer can the political process expect us to be patient and wait our turn. Our turn came long ago and there will be no more waiting.

Our national organizations should be put on notice that we expect more from them and that we want more accountability and more dynamic leadership. For example, who talked to the President about Maine? Why did the White House refuse to become heavily involved? Why was Attorney General Eric Holder's statement not disavowed by the White House? Did we have direct access to the President or not? Wanting to know these answers is fair. Holding organizations that ask for our money and support accountable is not divisive it is common sense. We want leaders and organizations that represent our interests and are not beholden to the trappings of political power. Time to end the cozy relationship between our national leaders and Washington power brokers and start playing tough.

Organizations should follow the role model of Empire State Pride Agenda (ESPA) in New York. They must refuse to allow anyone to speak at their dinners who is not for marriage equality. That includes the President of the United States. If they insist on doing so, we should stop enabling them and stop buying tickets. Guess what? ESPA, because of their policy, is not viewed as fringe or ineffective. In fact, they are one of the toughest and best state organizations in the country. Why in the world would we give people platforms and honorswho don't support full equality now? We must stop it. They are abusers of our graciousness and our kindness. There is no room for them anymore.

As so many others have said, "The Gay ATM Machine is closed." Not one penny more for those who are fair weather friends, who ask us to delay and who insist patience is a virtue in the face of injustice. I was astounded a few weeks ago in Washington when all my liberal friends were urging me to support the Democrat Owen in upstate New York who won election on Tuesday. When I responded that he was strongly against marriage equality and opined that they shouldn't be supporting him, it was quickly pointed out to me that the Human Rights Campaign was supporting him. Well, you know what? I don't care. If we support people who are against full equality, how can we expect others to do differently? No more excuses. Stop it. Close the checkbooks to those who are not fully on our side.

Promises are not enough. Before we support people they must be CO-SPONSORS for the repeal of DOMA and DADT. How in the world can Speaker Pelosi justify not being on Congressman Nadler's "Respect for Marriage Act?" No sponsorship equals getting no money, it is really that simple In addition, we must cease giving money to groups that contribute to those 'Blue Dog' Democrats who are holding so much of our legislation up. Instead of national party committees, give to those politicans who have proven themselves directly. How can we possibly send money to the Democratic National Committee which urges the people of Maine to phone New Jersey and not a word about our struggle? How can you justify it?

New tactics must be embraced and honored. Civil disobedience must now be on the table and it is time for a long discussion about how it is to take place in the community. Perhaps we have to fill the jails, block military bases, sit in Congressional offices, block marriage bureaus, etc in order for them to know that business as usual has stopped. Careful and thoughtful consideration must be given now to this option.

Watching the coverage on Maine and the results tells me the press doesn't really take us seriously as a civil rights movement. If that initiative had said people of different faiths could not marry does anyone really believe that it would be a sidebar story this week? The media has grown used to us being abused and we are enabling them to ignore it. "Oh yeah, another loss, how sad, we support you." GLAAD has to consider making this a priority and force the media to accept us as the civil rights movement we have become in the last months. Nothing could be more important. I will take a stereotype on a television show in exchange for serious and comprehensive coverage of our civil rights struggle.

There is so much more to say and be debated over the next months. Maybe the ideas above are not the best but at least they are bold and not more of the same. We can't survive more of the same. Apartheid for the LGBT community is becoming a way of life and everyone is beginning to adjust to it. We can't, we simply can't, allow that to happen.

For over thirty years I have been fighting ballot box measures and even have won some. What I have seen is a system of laws go in place around the country that prevents us from full equality. Some laws are specific like banning our participation in the military or DOMA. Some states ban adoption or foster care. Others give people permission to discriminate against us. We are not denied a few rights, we are being denied our basic freedom and dignity.

No longer can I stand before you in speeches and rallies urging you to stay the course. The course needs changing and we need to toughen up in the process. Yes, we must continue fighting but this time, instead of responding to their strategy, we must forge our own. Make no mistake about it. The days of acquiesce are over. There is no option except one at this stage and that is full equality now.

Freedom,Liberty,Justice are not mere words. They represent a way of life that is being denied to LGBT Americans every day of our lives.

Enough. No More, Enough