On March 10, Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.), with nine Democratic co-sponsors, introduced the Every Child Deserves a Family Act to address anti-LGBT discrimination in adoption. LGBT equality advocates, however, describe the bill's introduction as only the first step in building support for the nondiscrimination measure.

The bill would make it illegal for any entity involved with adoption or foster care placement that receives federal funding to discriminate in its placement decisions based on sexual orientation, gender identity or marital status. States whose statutes or policies conflict with the laws would need to change those policies or risk losing federal adoption funds.

As Stark said at a panel discussion on the bill held at the Capitol on March 11, ''Too many children need a loving home, and we should not close any door to them.''

The bill is modeled closely after the Multiethnic Placement Act (MEPA), legislation passed in 1994 and amended in 1996 that addressed racial discrimination in adoption placement. MEPA prohibits the use of a child's or prospective parent's race, color or national origin ''from delaying or denying a child's foster care or adoptive placement.''

Labels: adoption, discrimination law, gay parenting, marital status discrimination, Marriage

posted by Eve at 11:55 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

A Catholic adoption society has unexpectedly won a High Court battle against legislation forcing it to consider homosexual couples as parents.

Catholic Care had said it would have to give up its work finding homes for children if it was made to comply with the new anti-discrimination legislation.

The Charity Commission had rejected its plea to an exemption under the Sexual Orientation Regulations but a High Court judge this morning allowed the adoption charity's appeal.

Mr Justice Briggs, sitting in London, ordered the commission to reconsider the case in the light of the principles set out in his judgment.

Catholic Care, which serves the dioceses of Leeds, Middlesbrough, and Hallam in South Yorkshire, was the last Catholic adoption charity to continue its fight against the equality legislation.

The Roman Catholic Church lost a battle against the regulations when they were introduced in 2006.

Labels: adoption, Catholic Church, discrimination law, gay parenting, religious liberty, United Kingdom

posted by Eve at 11:52 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

2009 has been a landmark year for marriage equality advocates. In April, Iowa legalized marriage for same-sex couples. Vermont and New Hampshire soon followed suit, as did Maine—if only to have residents vote to repeal the right in November. The news did not stop there. In the same month, a narrow majority in Washington chose to grant same-sex couples the state-sanctioned benefits of marriage, but not the title. ¶ These developments, along with a host of individual triumphs and setbacks, sparked intense debates that echoed through the halls of Columbia Law School. Discussions were particularly pointed within the Center for Gender and Sexuality Law, which offers the only curriculum of its kind at any law school in the country. ¶ Taking note of the variety of well-reasoned arguments, Columbia Law School Magazine approached four professors of varying backgrounds with an idea: They would document their thoughts on marriage for same-sex couples in a series of back-and-forth emails—no moderator, no referee. The scholars could drive the free-flowing conversation in any direction and expand on any thoughts that they found particularly compelling. ¶ In addition to Professors Suzanne B. Goldberg and Katherine M. Franke, the directors of the Center for Gender and Sexuality Law, the Magazine invited constitutional law and public opinion expert Nathaniel Persily to join the conversation, as well as Professor Elizabeth F. Emens, a noted scholar on discrimination and marriage. Each approached the issue with a unique perspective shaped by their legal expertise and differing experiences. Together, they discussed the future of marriage for same-sex couples in America. An edited version of the conversation follows.

Katherine Franke: Some have argued that marriage rights for lesbian and gay couples is the preeminent civil rights issue of this era. A long shot even five years ago (and a productive wedge issue for the Republicans in the 2004 presidential election), we’ve seen the tide turn in the last couple years such that the injustice of the issue has become more apparent to a larger section of the American people. To be honest, I didn’t see it coming quite so quickly. Did any of you?

Nathaniel Persily: The rapid and radical shifts in attitudes toward same-sex marriage since 2003 may possibly be unprecedented among so-called “moral values” issues that deal with family, sexuality, or intimacy. Let me begin by discussing the state of American public opinion on same-sex marriage. If present trends continue—and that is not a big “if”—a majority of Americans within five years will support the right of gays and lesbians to marry. ...

Suzanne Goldberg: But I would have to disagree, somewhat, with Katherine’s characterization of marriage as the issue for up-and-coming activists, and Nate’s data likewise confirms that marriage, though important, is not the sole, or even the top, priority for many LGBT people today. It is no doubt true that many are embracing marriage as one of the important civil rights issues of the moment—perhaps with good reason, in that it is one of the few areas in which inequality is written formally into law. But at the same time, we have seen tremendous attention to the pervasive violence that continues against lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, and especially transgender individuals, as well as significant activism for antidiscrimination laws and against another major area of formal inequality—the military.

Nathaniel Persily: It should also be noted that gays, while much more supportive of marriage equality than heterosexuals, have not been uniform in their support.

As of 2004, for example, when faced with three options—marriage, civil unions, and no legal recognition—half of those who called themselves gay, lesbian, or bisexual said “they should be allowed to legally marry,” 31 percent said “they should be allowed to form civil unions but not marry,” and 17 percent said “there should be no legal recognition of their relationships.” I suspect the preference for marriage has grown by between 10 and 20 percentage points since then (as it has with the population in general), but the 2004 poll gives a sense of the diversity of views within the gay community, as well. ...

Katherine Franke: But liberty and equality aren’t the only rights being argued in the marriage cases. In many of them, the primary argument being made is that exclusion from marriage creates a dignity harm by refusing to acknowledge that same-sex unions are entitled to the same dignity and respect as different-sex unions. Yet to do so is to take for granted that marriage is something sacred, something to be honored, and something that dignifies those who earn its blessings. But doesn’t it, at the same time, risk implying that there is something undignified about a sexual relationship outside of marriage?

Suzanne Goldberg: To me, the dignity claim is rhetorically powerful because of its connection to equality: When we, as a society, deny some people equal access to state-sponsored institutions, whether marriage or anything else, we, in effect, treat the denied group as less worthy than the others. At the same time, Katherine’s question illustrates the tremendous power that government regulation has to sanction, or not, individual choices about intimate relationships.

Labels: beyond marriage, culture, discrimination law, gay marriage, Marriage, polygamy

posted by Eve at 10:27 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

...But the result seems to me to likely violate the First Amendment (though there’s no precedent precisely on point).

[1. Compelled Speech.] Photography is an art, and Huguenin is an artist. It may not be high art, but it embodies a wide range of artistic choices (especially since she says she takes a “photojournalist” approach, rather than just doing normal staged photos). And though she sells the art to its subjects, that is of course part of a long and continuing tradition in the arts, including painting and sculpture, as well as photography. Certainly many of the works protected by the First Amendment (books, newspapers, movies, and the like) were created for money and distributed for money.

Yet the New Mexico government is now telling Huguenin that she must create art works that she does not choose to create. [...]

For whatever it’s worth, Huguenin also says she exercises political judgment in deciding what to photograph (for instance, she reports that she refuses to make photographs that put horror films in a positive light, or to take photographs that positively portray abortion, pornography, or nudity, as well as same-sex marriage). I don’t think that sort of political selectivity should be required for photographers to be protected as artists, but it seems to me to highlight the scope of the artist’s judgment, and the artist’s constitutional right to exercise such judgment (just as a bookstore has the right to choose which books to stock).

Consider also a hypothetical analogy: Say that instead of Willock’s trying to hire a photographer, Willock was trying to hire a solo freelance writer (or a writer in a two-person freelancing partnership) to write materials for Willock’s (hypothetical) same-sex marriage planning company. The writer refused on the grounds that she didn’t want to promote such a company.

I take it the law would cover the writer as much as it would cover the photographer (why wouldn’t it?). Yet wouldn’t requiring writers — even writers of press releases and Web sites — to write words that express views they reject violate the First Amendment? And if not, what’s the difference between that and requiring photographers to take photographs that implicitly but strongly express views they reject? (Wedding photographs, of course, express views celebrating the event being photographed.) ...

[2. Religious Exemptions:] [And] the decision may also violate the photographer’s religious freedom rights under the New Mexico Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Labels: discrimination law, gay marriage, New Mexico, religious liberty

posted by Eve at 10:29 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton won praise in June after pushing to extend many federal benefits traditionally provided to diplomats' spouses to gay and lesbian partners.

Since then, unmarried heterosexual couples have been lining up to ask for benefits too. They have approached the State Department's personnel office and the diplomats' union, arguing that they are entitled to equal treatment. At least one couple has threatened to challenge the rules in court as discriminatory.

The U.S. Office of Personnel Management, which is responsible for policy on federal workers, is weighing such an extension of benefits, U.S. officials say -- to the consternation of conservatives. ...

Michelle Schohn, spokeswoman for the advocacy group Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies, said her group was cautioned during the closing days of the George W. Bush administration about the consequences of demanding family benefits for same-sex partners. ...

Schohn said her group supported extending benefits to unmarried heterosexual couples. "They're our natural allies," she said.

Labels: beyond marriage, discrimination law, heterosexual couples

posted by Eve at 11:50 AM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

"What is freedom of expression?" Salman Rushdie once asked. "Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist." Ride a Metrobus in this city, and you'll see an example of what Rushdie is talking about.

Some Metrobuses are carrying advertisements paid for by Stand for Marriage DC, a group that opposes civil marriage for same-sex couples. The group wants to subject the District's recently passed law permitting same-sex marriage to a public referendum.

Offended by the ads, an opposing group, Full Equality Now DC, has demanded that the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) remove the ads from Metrobuses on the grounds that they disrespect gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) city residents. Full Equality Now asserts that the ads force GLBT people to "stare down discrimination as they board the bus to go somewhere or are even passed by an advertisement on the street." That, says Full Equality Now, targets D.C. residents on the basis of sexual orientation, in opposition to both common decency and the standards of nondiscrimination in WMATA's own policies.

Labels: DC, discrimination law, freedom of speech, gay marriage, offensive

posted by Eve at 11:39 AM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

The D.C. Council voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to legalize same-sex marriage in the District, a key step in a process that could enable gay couples to marry in the nation's capital by the spring.

After months of debate, the council passed the legislation 11 to 2 after a lively discussion that elicited passionate statements from members about the historical significance of their action. ...

Council member Phil Mendelson (D-At Large), a key sponsor of the bill, said he may still "tweak" the bill to try to accommodate the [Catholic] Church before the final vote, scheduled for Dec. 15. But Mendelson and other members indicated Tuesday that they are not likely to make new broad exemptions.

"Marriage is just not about two individuals who want to marry. It requires that . . . every third party recognize that couple being married," Mendelson said. "Exemptions are a very troublesome slope because it undoes what we are trying to do here."

Susan Gibbs, a spokeswoman for the archdiocese, said that if a compromise is not reached, the Church will continue to provide services but with fewer resources, because it will no longer be able to bid on city contracts.

"We are just asking for a bill that would balance the city's interest in legalizing same-sex marriage and religious groups' interest in following their faith teachings," Gibbs said.

Other religious leaders are turning their attention to a potential court battle over whether the city should allow a public vote on whether to ban same-sex marriage.

Two weeks ago, the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics ruled that city laws prohibit a public vote because it would discriminate against gay men and lesbians. Jackson and several other opponents have filed suit in D.C. Superior Court seeking to reverse the election board's decision. Jackson noted that last month voters in Maine overturned a same-sex marriage law that had been approved by that state's legislature.

Labels: Catholic Church, DC, discrimination law, gay marriage, religious liberty

posted by Eve at 7:58 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

...Marriage is not just an outlier, it is the only outlier. The fringe of the right will complain about any legal protections for lesbians and gay men, but they can’t put together a majority on any issue except for full marital equality. An enormous majority of Americans even support repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, though political cowardice on that issue still lingers in Congress -- the same cowardice that got us the policy in the first place.

This chart shows that more than a majority in virtually every state, including the ones with the most anti-gay sentiment, supports employment and housing protection, hate crimes laws and health benefits for homosexuals. The trailing issue in all states is always marriage, with majority-plus support in only six states.

In short, these are hard times for homophobes. That’s why gay marriage is such a satisfying issue for the ones who are left. It is the only issue where they can rouse up enough residual bias against gays among otherwise fair-minded people to win an election.

And the importance of that last word cannot be overemphasized. It is direct elections where anti-gay prejudice about marriage can best be exploited. This may be the most toxic consequence of Maine. It is a warning shot to legislatures to avoid exercising their best judgment about fairness for gay citizens. The anti-gay bias that short-circuits rational debate in the electorate at large will make legislative action futile, so don't even bother to try.

Labels: discrimination law, gay marriage, Maine, Marriage

posted by Eve at 8:04 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

Will Major League Baseball teams be able to recognize gender-specific holidays, such as Mother's Day? Some teams may decide to forgo promotions that recognize the holiday in light of a lawsuit against the Oakland Athletics.

The A's just lost a $510,000 suit that alleged the club discriminated against men by giving away reversible bucket hats and tote bags only to adult women who attended the game on Mother's Day of 2004, according to The Wall Street Journal's Law Blog.

The plaintiff's lawyer, Alfred Rava, has filed about 40 anti-male discrimination suits in the past, according to the Journal. Aside from the suit against Oakland, the San Diego Padres and the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim have also been served in recent years for holding similar promotions.

Labels: discrimination law, gender differences, motherhood

posted by Eve at 2:57 AM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

Insisting on their religious and academic freedoms, Catholic educational institutions are seeking exemption from a provision in the new Magna Carta of Women banning the dismissal of unwed mothers from employment or school.

Monsignor Gerardo Santos, national president of the Catholic Educational Association of the Philippines (CEAP), said the CEAP would ask that a provision on such an exemption be inserted into the new law’s implementing rules and regulations. ...

Women’s rights activists have said that under the new law, unwed mothers who are kicked out can file a civil case and sue for damages while government officials who dismiss them can be sanctioned under administrative and civil service laws.

Santos insisted on the Catholic schools’ right to have an unwed pregnant student or employee go on leave “after due process,” or to enforce other disciplinary action.

Labels: Catholic Church, culture, discrimination law, gender differences, out-of-wedlock births, Philippines, religion, religious liberty, single parenting

posted by Eve at 3:54 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

Portugal's Constitutional Court on Friday upheld the country's ban on gay marriage, rejecting a challenge by two lesbians who are seeking to wed.

The court said its five judges ruled 3-2 against an appeal lodged by the women two years ago.

Teresa Pires and Helena Paixao, divorced mothers in their 30s who have been together as a couple since 2003, were turned away by a Lisbon registry office when they attempted to marry in 2006 because the law stipulates that marriage is between people of different genders.

Portugal's constitution, however, also forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation. The women took the case to a Lisbon court, which rejected their unprecedented challenge. ...

In the meantime, the two intend to take their legal battle to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France, she said.

Gay marriage is permitted in five European countries — Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and Norway.

In Portugal, which is an overwhelmingly Roman Catholic country, efforts to introduce gay marriage have hit resistance from religious groups and conservative lawmakers.

Labels: Catholic Church, discrimination law, Europe, gay marriage, Portugal

posted by Eve at 3:15 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

A California court has ruled in favor of a Los Angeles Community College student who said he was called a "fascist bastard" by his teacher for defending traditional marriage.

The court also ordered LACC to strike from its website a sexual harassment policy that censors speech deemed "offensive" to homosexual people. ...

Lopez said his professor called him a “fascist bastard” and refused to let him finish his speech against same-sex marriage during a public speaking class last November, weeks after California voters approved the ban on such unions.

When Lopez tried to find out his mark for the speech, the professor, John Matteson, allegedly told him to “ask God what your grade is,” the suit says.

Labels: discrimination law, gay marriage, universities

posted by Eve at 12:14 AM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

The Stonewall Foundation has published a report on "Religion and Sexual Orientation: How to manage relations in the workplace" that Congress ought to read in advance of its consideration of ENDA. Aside from some platitudinous guidelines ("treat everyone with respect"), the core of the document is a series of case studies, including a local clerk who refused to conduct civil partnership ceremonies, a counselor who balked at providing psychosexual counseling to same-sex couples, and a senior employee who constantly quoted Bible passages to a junior employee. The rule in Britain is that religious organizations can discriminate only if the job position or activity in question is directly associated with the doctrine of the faith group. By contrast, the religious exemption in ENDA would grant religious organizations essentially a blanket waiver of ENDA's requirements. As this report documents, the British system is workable and fair.

Labels: discrimination law, homosexuality, religion

posted by Eve at 2:55 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

Conservative leader David Cameron has been accused of contributing to the closure of Roman Catholic adoption agencies in order to win homosexual voters.

In 2007 Mr Cameron voted for new ‘gay rights’ laws forcing adoption groups to consider gay couples as potential adopters without any protection for religious agencies.

Newspaper columnist Gerald Warner says the Conservative leader had “calculated that it was worthwhile insulting Catholics (8 per cent of the electorate) to please homosexuals (0.8 per cent) because he believed (correctly) that the former do not constitute a bloc vote and imagined (incorrectly) that the latter do”.

The new laws have now seen most of these agencies – known for their work with ‘hard to place’ children – either cut ties with the Roman Catholic Church or drop out of adoption work.

Labels: adoption, Catholic Church, discrimination law, religious liberty, United Kingdom

posted by Imapp Staff at 7:11 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

D.C. Attorney General Peter Nickles issued a legal opinion Thursday saying a voter referendum seeking to overturn a city law recognizing same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions would violate the city's human rights law and should not be allowed.

Nickles submitted his four-page opinion to the D.C. Board of Elections & Ethics, which is deliberating whether to approve or deny a request by the pastor of a Maryland church and six other District residents that the board allow voters to decide on the same-sex marriage law in a referendum.

"As expressed in the [Human Rights Act], the established public policy of the District of Columbia is to treat individuals as equals, whatever their gender, sexual orientation, or marital status my be," Nickles said in his opinion. ...

The law says that initiatives, which propose laws, and referenda, which seek to block or overturn laws, can only be held if the proposed ballot measure doesn't violate eight specific criteria. One of the eight criteria holds that a ballot measure cannot seek changes that would be contrary to the Human Rights Act, which, among other things, bans discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender.

Labels: DC, discrimination law, gay marriage

posted by Eve at 9:44 AM EMAIL SHARE PRINT