Blog Posts for Civil Rights Project
Important News for Massachusetts Public Retirees
On November 18, 2011 Governor Deval Patrick signed Chapter 176 of the Acts of 2011, “An Act Providing for Pension Reform and Benefit Modernization.” One section of this law allows retirees who retired under Chapter 32 of the Massachusetts General Laws on or before May 17, 2004 choosing Option A or B, and then married a person of the same sex on or before May 17, 2005 to change to Option C retroactive to their retirement date. Option C allows for a spouse to continue receiving a monthly retirement income after the retiree dies. This option is also available for the surviving spouse of a retiree provided the conditions above are met. Chapter 32 of the General Laws covers most Massachusetts state, county and municipal employees, including public school teachers.
When Love Doesn’t Make a Family
This week, GLAD, the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) and NCLR’s National Family Law Advisory Council released a revised version of Protecting Families: Standards for LGBT Families, a set of 10 guidelines aimed at reminding LGBT people how important it is to legally protect the families they create and to caution parents against wielding anti-LGBT laws against their partner should their relationship break-up. Basically, we’re calling on the members of our community—and their lawyers—to fight fairly and to do their best to avoid damaging custody disputes. As GLAD’s Mary Bonauto writes in her introduction to the standards, “We believe that, even in the midst of the emotional upheaval that inevitably accompanies the end of the adult relationship, families can do a great deal to resolve their differences in a manner that puts their children first.”
Knowing Your Rights Is The First Step To Being Your Own Advocate For Change
In the Public Affairs and Education wing of GLAD we are always so delighted when we can provide information that helps people successfully fight for their rights. Information is power, and it is our job to spread the word in the community about what legal protections exist to protect people no matter what their sexual orientation, HIV status or gender identity might be. As educators and advocates, we are excited when community members take the law under their arm and advocate for themselves.
Just the Facts, Maggie
When the U.S. House Subcommittee on the Constitution held an April 15 hearing called “Defending Marriage,” we knew it would not be a friendly forum. Although the focus of the hearing was on the Justice Department’s decision not to defend DOMA, Chairman Trent Franks called Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage as the principal witness rather than anyone from the Department of Justice. Ms. Gallagher’s written testimony begged for a written response, and GLAD submitted its rebuttal last week, which will now be entered into the Congressional Record.
Another GSA is Born
I recently received the exciting news that we had helped a high school student and his friends in Maine form a Gay Straight Alliance (GSA). I would have been happy to sue to found a GSA but it was just as satisfying to persuade the school to do the right thing because it was right for the school. Indeed, GLAD does a lot of work behind the scenes.
It’s Tax Time: Good News/Bad News
It’s everyone’s favorite time of year. At least there is some good news for transgender tax payers this year. But still the same bad news for married same sex couples.
GLAD Goes to Washington
Yesterday I had the honor of accompanying Nancy Gill and Marcelle Letourneau, the lead plaintiffs in Gill v. OPM, GLAD’s First Circuit DOMA challenge, along with attorney Mary Bonauto, to Washington, D.C. The three were invited to speak at a press conference hosted by Congressman Jerrold Nadler of New York, who re-introduced the Respect for Marriage Act, his bill to repeal DOMA. Rep. Nadler’s history of active support for advancing LGBT rights on Capitol Hill is as long as his congressional career, which began in the early 1990s.
Reality Check: The Big Lie About Catholic Charities, Adoption and Marriage Equality
Last month’s marriage equality hearing in Rhode Island left me feeling a little like Congressman Joe “You Lie!” Wilson. Wilson, you’ll recall, shouted his infamous exclamation at President Obama after the president stated in a speech to Congress that his health care legislation would not provide free health coverage for illegal immigrants, despite what vocal opponents of the healthcare bill were saying. As I watched Austin Nimocks of the anti-gay Alliance Defense Fund testify without blinking that marriage equality in Massachusetts “forced” Catholic Charities of Boston out of the adoption business, it was all I could do not to let loose a “You Lie!” right there in the marbled halls of the Rhode Island State House.
Know Your Rights: What is ‘heightened scrutiny’ and why is it important?
Courts have found that laws that discriminate against certain groups of people are more likely to reflect prejudice against that group than they are good public policy. Rather than being assumed to be constitutional, such laws need to be justified with exceptionally good reasons. This is called “heightened scrutiny” and has, for example, been used in cases where a racial group is being discriminated against. GLAD has consistently argued in the courts that sexual orientation deserves “heightened scrutiny.” So it was an enormous breakthrough last week when the President and the Department of Justice (DOJ) agreed with GLAD on that point- and because of that also agreed that DOMA is unconstitutional.
Something On Which GLAD & NOM Agree! Courts Have a Role to Play in the Real World
On the heels of the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) announcement last week that it would no longer defend DOMA against legal challenges by GLAD and other organizations, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) issued an action alert urging members to immediately call their congressional reps to demand they defend the odious law.
“It’s a constitutional outrage,” NOM President Brian Brown wrote in the alert. “Why do we even have courts if the President himself gets to decide which laws are constitutional?” (Emphasis added).