DOCSLIB.ORG

2008 Annual Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2008 Annual Report FREEDOM TO MARRY ANNUAL REPORT 2008 Fostering a Strategic Vision Framing the Debate Facilitating Work and Collaboration the gay and non-gay partnership working to win marriage equality nationwide 20 08 TABLE OF CONTENTS OUR VISION .............................................................. 3 Our Vision Freedom to Marry’s Roles RECAPPING THE YEAR ................................................ 4 Pre California Decision Post California Decision Post Election Letter to the President-Elect PURSUING THE STRATEGY ............................................8 State Highlights CATALYZING THE DEBATE ..........................................10 Articles & Editorials Publications Voices of Equality Let California Ring - 2008 Shaping the Story BUILDING PARTNERSHIPS ..........................................15 The Marriage Justice Project The NAACP Marriage Justice Project AUGMENTING RESOURCES..........................................16 Regranting & Partner Support Civil Marriage Collaborative National Collaborative STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL POSITION ........................19 DONORS ..................................................................20 STAFF & STEERING COMMITTEE ..................................21 2 OUR VISION OUR VISION CONGRATULATIONS CONNECTICUT! Freedom to Marry’s singular mission — winning marriage for same-sex couples and their families in On October 10, 2008, the Connecticut Supreme the U.S. — uniquely positions us to focus on fostering Court upheld the freedom to marry in Kerrigan a strategic vision, framing the debate, and facilitating and Mock v. the Connecticut Department of Public work and collaboration among the many players in Health. Connecticut joined Massachusetts and the movement for marriage equality. It is this catalyt- (at that time) California in ending the exclusion of ic role that we play — providing the vision, building same-sex couples from marriage. The high court support, encouraging the players to stay on track and decision stated, “Interpreting our state constitu- in sync — that allows Freedom to Marry’s partner tional provisions in accordance with firmly estab- organizations to accomplish their tasks more effec- lished equal protection principles leads inevitably tively while the movement and its allies keep their to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to collective “eyes on the prize.” And the combined, marry the otherwise qualified same sex partner of collaborative work — the whole that is greater than their choice.” the parts — summons more voices, more resources, more supporters to the cause of ending exclusion Following the example of the California ruling, from marriage and the gains that come along the the Connecticut high court found that indeed sep- way. arate institutions such as civil unions or domestic partnerships are unequal to marriage. The Connecticut decision concluded, “in light of the FREEDOM TO MARRY’S ROLES history of pernicious discrimination faced by gay men and lesbians, and because the institution of Since our founding in 2003, Freedom to Marry has marriage carries with it a status and significance pursued our mission through four key ways in which that the newly created classification of civil unions we add value and through which we help move mar- does not embody, the segregation of heterosexual riage equality forward: and homosexual couples into separate institutions constitutes a cognizable harm.” Just like the o Strategist and Alliance Builder: Freedom to California ruling, the Connecticut high court Marry convenes diverse stakeholders, including understood that the only way to provide equality national advocacy groups, state and local organi- is through marriage. zations, and funders to ensure maximum support, coordinated action plans, and the deployment of Freedom to Marry salutes the leadership of Gay best practice tactics. and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) which represented eight same-sex couples in this o Advisor and Counselor: Freedom to Marry offers case, and Love Makes a Family which continually direct advice and counsel to each state’s leader- leads the way for marriage equality in Connecticut. ship as they tackle the day-to-day challenges pre- sented by the nay-sayers on the right and the Anne Stanback, the Executive complacent or conflicted in the middle. Director of Love Makes a Family in Connecticut for the last 5 years: o Funding Engine: Freedom to Marry provides “Freedom to Marry has been an direct support to innovative programming with invaluable resource to us in our gay and non-gay groups working to advance mar- work to win marriage equality riage equality, often seeding activities and strate- for same-sex couples here in gies for others to fund more fully as they develop. Connecticut. Whether we have needed research data for an immediate press call or the name of o Message Delivery: Freedom to Marry program the right person to strategize with in another state, staff develop messaging and educational the Freedom to Marry staff has always responded materials while providing key voices for the in a helpful and timely fashion.” debate locally and nationally. 3 20 08 RECAPPING THE YEAR 2008 PRE CALIFORNIA DECISION 2008 was a truly tumultuous year for the move- Our 2008 began with Freedom to Marry Week and ment for the freedom to marry, as for the country, our annual Marriage Training Institute at The Task ending on a note of difficulty and tremendous Force’s hugely attended Creating Change hope. While marked by both successes and Conference, two important events that we use to bumps, the past twelve months ultimately showed grow buy-in for the strategy and enhanced capabili- that when we and our allies engage early and work ty nationwide. While we watched with cautious together in a sustained, affirmative effort, we can optimism the oral arguments in the California win marriage equality. After all, 2008 was the year Supreme Court in early March, we simultaneously we saw two powerful court rulings striking down continued to provide coaching, advice and regrant exclusion from marriage and rejecting civil union as support across the country in states such as New a substitute for equality. Jersey, New York, and Vermont. As the Court In 2008, we won the freedom to marry in a second weighed the case, we cheered the issuance of state, and then a third, with marriage secure now reports documenting the inadequacy of civil unions in Connecticut. The pain of having the freedom to in New Jersey and Vermont and strategized with marry temporarily taken away in California has already state groups on how to maximize their impact in led to a new awakening for many not previously conveying that there is no substitute for equality in engaged, and renewed determination to do what marriage. is needed to restore marriage equality in California and ending the denial of marriage nationwide. When One Iowa and its partners successfully held off the passage of an anti-marriage constitutional For Freedom to Marry, 2008 had three distinct amendment, we went to work encouraging and phases — before the California State Supreme assisting in the shaping of an Court decision, post-decision, and post-election. affirmative public education campaign to create the And while each part of the year revolved around climate for the Iowa Supreme Court to affirm the events in California, our work remained national. constitutional right of same-sex couples to marriage equality. And we quickly updated our web site when newly named New York Governor Paterson instructed state agencies to honor any out of state legal marriage on the heels of state court decisions to that effect. Maria Shriver Senator Ted Kennedy First Lady of California US Senator, Massachusetts (Dem.) “I believe in people’s right to “There are now more than a thou- choose a partner that they love.” sand federal rights and benefits based on marriage. Gay couples and their children deserve to share 4 in all these rights and benefits too.” RECAPPING THE YEAR POST CALIFORNIA DECISION On May 15, we cheered, hugged, and cried (and As the election neared and the political campaign happily plunged right into a new wave of work) against Proposition 8 displaced this public education when the California State Supreme Court handed work, we shifted gears to prepare for the post-elec- down its landmark decision and we won the free- tion era. We created messaging strategies for win dom to marry in the long-sought second state. or loss scenarios. With our partners at GLAAD and We celebrated anew just 31 days later when the the Haas Jr. Fund, we developed background mate- first gay couples there were legally wed, even as rials for journalists to encourage them to look care- the intense work to defend those marriages was fully and contextually at exit polls of people of color. already underway. And not to be forgotten was the thrilling news that Initially we worked closely with the lead groups arrived just weeks before the election when the in California that had brought the court case to Connecticut State Supreme Court handed down its ensure appropriate messaging and visibility for the ruling affirming the freedom to marry. Almost lost marrying couples and their families, and to help in the frenzy of the election, winning a third state gay couples across the country know what the (up from zero just five years earlier) continued the best next steps were. Meanwhile behind the momentum of the year and gave us an opportunity scenes, we helped bring together such partner for further positive messaging. But our success in groups
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Statewide Resources for LGBTQ+ Youth
    Statewide resources for LGBTQ+ youth State Organization Phone Address Website GLBT Advocacy & PO Box 3443, Alabama 256-425-7804 http://www.glbtays.org/ Youth Services Huntsville, AL, 35810 336 East 5th Avenue, Alaska Identity, INC 907-929-4528 http://www.identityinc.org/ Anchorage, AK, 99501 1101 N Central Avenue #202, Arizona One-n-Ten 602-475-7456 https://onenten.org/ Phoenix, AZ 85004 NWA Center For 179 N. Church Avenue Suite 101, http://www. Arkansas 479-966-9014 Equality Fayetteville, AR 72701 nwacenterforequality.org/ 2712 Telegraph Avenue, California The Pacific Center 510-548-8283 http://www.pacificcenter.org/ Berkeley, CA 94705 Stonewall Alliance 358 East 6th Street, California 530-893-3336 http://www.stonewallchico.org/ Center Chico, CA 95927 The Rainbow 2118 Willow Pass Road Suite 500, California 925-692-0090 https://www.rainbowcc.org/ Community Center Concord, California 94520 The GLBT PO Box 9798, Colorado Community Center 303-831-0442 http://www.glbtcolorado.org/ Denver, CO 80209 of Colorado 19 River Street, Connecticut Outspoken 203-227-1755 http://www.ctoutspoken.com/ Norwalk, CT 06850 576 Farmington Avenue, Connecticut True Colors 860-232-0050 http://www.ourtruecolors.org/ Hartford, CT 06105 1308 Delaware Avenue, Suite 10, Delaware J.U.S.T. For Youth 302-547-6629 http://www.justforyouthde.org/ Wilmington, DE 19806 2040 N. Dixie Highway, Florida The Pride Center 954-463-9005 http://www.glccsf.org/ Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Orlando Youth PO Box 536944, http://www. Florida 407-244-1222 Alliance Orlando, FL 32853 orlandoyouthalliance.org/ allconnect.com 1 Sunshine Social 1480 SW 9th Avenue, Florida 954-548-4602 http://www.sunserve.org/ Services Fort Lauderdale, FL 33315 The Rainbow 3111 Clairmont Road, Suite B, Georgia 404-457-1721 http://www.chriskids.org/ Program Atlanta, GA 30329 1017 Edgewood Avenue, Georgia YouthPride 404-521-9713 http://www.youthpride.org/ Atlanta, GA 30307 Fierce Youth PO Box 8551, Georgia Reclaiming and 404-532-0022 http://www.fyrerj.org/ Atlanta, GA 31106 Empowering https:// Hawaii LGBT P.O.
    [Show full text]
  • Marriage and Family: LGBT Individuals and Same-Sex Couples Marriage and Family: LGBT Individuals and Same-Sex Couples
    Marriage and Family: LGBT Individuals and Same-Sex Couples Marriage and Family: LGBT Individuals and Same-Sex Couples Gary J. Gates Summary Though estimates vary, as many as 2 million to 3.7 million U.S. children under age 18 may have a lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender parent, and about 200,000 are being raised by same-sex couples. Much of the past decade’s legal and political debate over allowing same-sex couples to marry has centered on these couples’ suitability as parents, and social scientists have been asked to weigh in. After carefully reviewing the evidence presented by scholars on both sides of the issue, Gary Gates concludes that same-sex couples are as good at parenting as their different-sex counterparts. Any differences in the wellbeing of children raised in same-sex and different-sex families can be explained not by their parents’ gender composition but by the fact that children being by raised by same-sex couples have, on average, experienced more family instability, because most children being raised by same-sex couples were born to different-sex parents, one of whom is now in the same-sex relationship. That pattern is changing, however. Despite growing support for same-sex parenting, proportionally fewer same-sex couples report raising children today than in 2000. Why? Reduced social stigma means that more LGBT people are coming out earlier in life. They’re less likely than their LGBT counterparts from the past to have different-sex relationships and the children such relationships produce. At the same time, more same-sex couples are adopting children or using reproductive technologies like artificial insemination and surrogacy.
    [Show full text]
  • State Profiles
    HAWAII'S EQUALITY PROFILE Quick Facts About Hawaii Percent of Adults Total LGBTQ Percent of Workforce Total LGBTQ Percent of LGBTQ (18+) Population (13+) That is LGBTQ Workers Adults (25+) Raising Who are LGBTQ 59,000 5% 34,000 Children 4.6% 30% Williams 2020 Census 2018; Williams Williams 2020 Gallup/Williams 2019 2020 Gallup/Williams 2019 Hawaii's LGBTQ Policy Tally Sexual Orientation Policy Gender Identity Policy Tally: Tally: 13.5/18.5 16.5/20 MEDIUM HIGH Overall Tally: 30/38.5 HIGH MAP's "LGBTQ Policy Tally" examines each state's LGBTQ policy climate, as measured by over 35 pro- or anti-LGBTQ laws and policies. These laws are grouped into seven major categories: relationship and parental recognition; non- discrimination; religious exemptions; LGBTQ youth; healthcare; criminal justice; and the ability for transgender people to correct name and gender markers on identity documents. See the state's full profile for more detailed information. Scores as of 0 9/24/20 21. For full state profile, visit: https://www.lgbtmap.org/equality_maps/profile_state/HI Recommended citation: Movement Advancement Project. 20 21. “State Equality Profile: Hawaii.” https://www.lgbtmap.org/equality_maps/profile_state/HI. Accessed September 24, 20 21. Scores as of 09/24/2021 Hawaii's LGBTQ Laws and Policies Click on each issue for more information and to see where the state fits into the national landscape. KEY Ind icates state law o r p o licy Ind icates lo cal laws o r p o licies and /o r p artial law Ind icates no law o r p o licy Enumeratio n no t ap p licab le Sexual Orientatio n Gend er Id entity Relationship and Parental Recognition Law Exists? Tally Law Exists? Tally As a result of the 2015 U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • When Marriage Is Too Much: Reviving the Registered Partnership in a Diverse Society Abstract
    M ARY C HARLOTTE Y . C ARROLL When Marriage Is Too Much: Reviving the Registered Partnership in a Diverse Society abstract. In the years since same-sex marriage’s legalization, many states have repealed their civil union and domestic partnership laws, creating a marriage-or-nothing binary for couples in search of relationship recognition. This Note seeks to add to the growing call for legal recognition of partnership pluralism by illustrating why marriage is not the right fit—or even a realistic choice—for all couples. It highlights in particular the life-or-death consequences matrimony can bring for those reliant on government healthcare benefits because of a disability or a need for long- term care. Building upon interview data and a survey of state nonmarital partnership policies, it proposes the creation of a customizable marriage alternative: the registered partnership. author. Yale Law School, J.D. 2020; University of Cambridge, M.Phil. approved 2017; Rice University, B.A. 2016. I am grateful first and foremost to Anne Alstott, whose endless support, encouragement, and feedback enabled me to write this Note. I am further indebted to Frederik Swennen and Wilfried Rault for taking the time to speak with me about nonmarital partnerships in France and Belgium and to Kaiponanea T. Matsumura and Michael J. Higdon for invaluable guidance on nonmarital partnerships in the United States. Thanks also to the wonderful editors of the Yale Law Journal’s Notes & Comments Committee, especially Abigail Fisch, for their thoughtful comments; to the First- and Second-Year Editors, for their careful review of my Note; and to the Streicker Fund for Student Research, whose generosity made it possible for me to con- duct the research that informed this project.
    [Show full text]
  • Freedom of Marriage: an Analysis of Positive and Negative Rights Rachel A
    Washington University Jurisprudence Review Volume 8 | Issue 1 2015 Freedom of Marriage: An Analysis of Positive and Negative Rights Rachel A. Washburn Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_jurisprudence Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, Human Rights Law Commons, Jurisprudence Commons, and the Legal Theory Commons Recommended Citation Rachel A. Washburn, Freedom of Marriage: An Analysis of Positive and Negative Rights, 8 Wash. U. Jur. Rev. 087 (2015). Available at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_jurisprudence/vol8/iss1/4 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Jurisprudence Review by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FREEDOM OF MARRIAGE: AN ANALYSIS OF POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE RIGHTS RACHEL ALYCE WASHBURN ABSTRACT The institution of marriage is deeply embedded in modern society. Within the United States, legal recognition of marriage conveys both social dignity and material benefits to married individuals. As far back as 1967, the Supreme Court has treated freedom of marriage as a Constitutional right necessary to protect personhood rights such as liberty and autonomy. However, it did not fully extend this right to same-sex couples until its 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. Justice Scalia criticizes the majority opinion in Obergefell as lacking logic and precision, yet it reconciles jurisprudential discrepancies in prior case law addressing the right of marriage. These discrepancies are rooted in the contrasting negative and positive rights analytics of Immanuel Kant and Georg Willhelm Friedrich Hegel, respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • Marriage Equality and the Supreme Court a Guide to What Is at Stake in Upcoming Rulings
    Marriage Equality and the Supreme Court A Guide to What Is at Stake in Upcoming Rulings By Crosby Burns and Joshua Field June 10, 2013 This month the Supreme Court will deliver two historic rulings that will affect thou- sands of committed same-sex couples throughout the United States. InHollingsworth v. Perry, the Court will determine the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8, which stripped same-sex couples in California of their right to marriage in 2008.1 Approximately 109,000 same-sex couples lost the freedom to marry in California that year.2 In United States v. Windsor, the Court will rule on the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, a federal law passed in 1996 that defines marriage as the union between a man and a woman for the purposes of more than 1,000 federal laws and programs.3 DOMA implicates everything from veterans’ benefits to immigra- tion to federal estate taxes, and it unfairly discriminates against legally married same-sex couples by denying them federal benefits and protections currently enjoyed by oppo- site-sex couples.4 In 2003 the Supreme Court affirmed the civil rights of gay and lesbian Americans in the landmark case Lawrence v. Texas by invalidating state antisodomy laws that prohibited consensual sex between people of the same gender.5 Ten years later the Supreme Court is poised to deliver two similarly monumental rulings that could have sweeping implica- tions for gay and lesbian couples in the United States. The Supreme Court has consistently and repeatedly affirmed that marriage
    [Show full text]
  • Top of Page Interview Information--Different Title
    Oral History Center University of California The Bancroft Library Berkeley, California The Freedom to Marry Oral History Project Evan Wolfson Evan Wolfson on the Leadership of the Freedom to Marry Movement Interviews conducted by Martin Meeker in 2015 and 2016 Copyright © 2017 by The Regents of the University of California ii Since 1954 the Oral History Center of the Bancroft Library, formerly the Regional Oral History Office, has been interviewing leading participants in or well-placed witnesses to major events in the development of Northern California, the West, and the nation. Oral History is a method of collecting historical information through tape-recorded interviews between a narrator with firsthand knowledge of historically significant events and a well-informed interviewer, with the goal of preserving substantive additions to the historical record. The tape recording is transcribed, lightly edited for continuity and clarity, and reviewed by the interviewee. The corrected manuscript is bound with photographs and illustrative materials and placed in The Bancroft Library at the University of California, Berkeley, and in other research collections for scholarly use. Because it is primary material, oral history is not intended to present the final, verified, or complete narrative of events. It is a spoken account, offered by the interviewee in response to questioning, and as such it is reflective, partisan, deeply involved, and irreplaceable. ********************************* All uses of this manuscript are covered by a legal agreement between The Regents of the University of California and Evan Wolfson dated July 15, 2016. The manuscript is thereby made available for research purposes. All literary rights in the manuscript, including the right to publish, are reserved to The Bancroft Library of the University of California, Berkeley.
    [Show full text]
  • Advancing Transgender Rights in 2016 Getting It Right After Obergefell
    GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders GLADBriefs SUMMER ’16 A Watershed Moment Decades in the Making: INSIDE Advancing Transgender Rights in 2016 Getting it Right After Obergefell.........3 2000 Massachusetts Superior Court rules schools must allow transgender girls to wear any Phill Wilson to Receive the clothes allowed to any other female student (Doe v. Yunits) 2016 Spirit of Justice Award...............4 2009 GLAD files suit against the operator of Denny’s restaurants in Maine, resulting in a GLAD Now Stands for GLBTQ Legal policy that transgender customers have access to the restroom consistent with their Advocates & Defenders......................4 stated gender identity (Freeman v. Denny’s) Justice 2020: 2010 U.S. Tax Court rules treatments for gender transition-related care qualify as deductible GLAD’s Strategic Vision.......................5 medical care under the Internal Revenue Code (O’Donnabhain v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue) Nunsense: The Boston Sisters are Change Makers.............................7 2014 Maine high court rules that exclusion of a transgender girl from the girls’ restroom at school violates non-discrimination law (Doe v. Clenchy) Docket Update....................................8 2016 President Obama announces his support for transgender student restroom policy for which GLAD has been fighting for years. t the midway point in the year, it’s already press – finally being on the verge of securing clear that 2016 marks a watershed full, express gender identity protections in A moment for transgender rights. public accommodations in Massachusetts – From the national rallying cry against North it’s truly a remarkable moment. Carolina’s HB2, to the Obama Administration’s At GLAD, we know that this moment did not just guidance to all public schools on full inclusion magically occur.
    [Show full text]
  • Marriage Licenses Mary Anne Case
    University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Minnesota Law Review 2005 Marriage Licenses Mary Anne Case Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Case, Mary Anne, "Marriage Licenses" (2005). Minnesota Law Review. 696. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr/696 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Minnesota Law Review collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Lecture Marriage Licenses* Mary Anne Caset Like a marriage license itself, the title of this Lockhart Lecture can have a variety of meanings. I intend it first and foremost to be read as a complete sentence in the present tense: subject, "marriage"; verb, "licenses." A central theme I shall address is the variety of ways over time and at present mar- * This piece is based on the 2004-2005 William B. Lockhart Lecture, de- livered at the University of Minnesota Law School on October 26, 2004. The lectureship is named in honor of William B. Lockhart, who served as Dean of the University of Minnesota Law School from 1956 until 1972. The author is grateful to Dean Alex Johnson for his invitation and to members of the audi- ence and Minnesota Law School faculty for their comments. Portions of this paper were also presented at an AALS panel on Cohabitation After Marvin; a Harvard Law School conference on Freedom to Marry;
    [Show full text]
  • How Constitutional Litigation Has Advanced Marriage Equality in the United States
    ARTICLES BACKLASH POLITICS: HOW CONSTITUTIONAL LITIGATION HAS ADVANCED MARRIAGE EQUALITY IN THE UNITED STATES WILLIAM N. ESKRIDGE JR.* INTRODUCTION ...................................................... 276 I. COURTS AND THE STRUGGLE FOR MARRIAGE EQUALITY, 1970- 2012 ................ ........... .................... 279 A. Stage 1, Uphill Struggles: 1970-1996 ......................................... 282 B. Stage 2, Politics ofRecognition Breaks Through: 1996- 2 0 08 ............................................................................................. 2 85 C. Stage 3, From Backlash Toward Normal Politics: Post- 2008........................... ............ 288 II. THE POLITICS OF BACKLASH ............................. 292 A. The Politics ofDisgust: Backlash Triumphant, 1993-1996......... 296 B. Identity Politics: Backlash Subsides, 2000-2004......................... 300 C. Normal Politics: Beyond Backlash, 2009-2013........................... 306 III. How CONSTITUTIONAL LITIGATION HAS ADVANCED MARRIAGE EQUALITY INTHE UNITED STATES .................... ..... 309 A. The TransformationofPolitics: Agenda-Setting, Reversing the Burden oflnertia, and CreatingConditions for Falsificationof Stereotypes......................................................... 310 1. A genda Setting...................................................................... 310 2. Reversing the Burden of Inertia............................................. 312 3. Creating Conditions for Falsification of Stereotypes. ........... 314 B. The Transformation of Social
    [Show full text]
  • Year-Endbriefs
    GAY & LESBIAN ADVOCATES & DEFENDERS Year-EndBriefs December2001 Board of Directors Margaret Williams President Barry Field, Esq. Vice President Gloria & Linda Maureen & Ellen Donna M. Turley, Esq. Orleans Newton Treasurer David & Robert Ed & Mike Boston Richard D. McCarthy Boston Clerk MAINFRAME PHOTOGRAPHICS 2001 Joseph Alexander, Jr., Esq. Julie & Hillary Brenda M. Buchanan, Esq. Boston Ellen Cain, Esq. Gina & Heidi Henry Goodrow Northampton Richard & Gary Mark C. Kelley Whitinsville Barbara J. Macy, Esq. Marc Paige Seeking Marriage in Court and Patricia Peard, Esq. Peter Rainey in the Court of Public Opinion — Johanna Schulman Susan Wilson, Esq. As the Extremists Move Against Leticia A. Zaragoza GLAD Staff All Unmarried Families Mary L. Bonauto, Esq. Goodridge et al. v. Department of Public Health Civil Rights Project Director Gary Buseck, Esq. The motivations of the seven Massachusetts couples seeking the right to marry in Executive Director the Commonwealth are simple enough: Beth Grierson ▲ a legal celebration of their love and commitment; Development Assistant Network Administrator ▲ bread and butter issues ranging from pension survivor rights to securing family Buzz Harris insurance policies, to knowing they can inherit from each other without a crushing Regional Director of Development Shawn Jacobs tax burden; Events Coordinator ▲ attaining more emotional security in knowing they can be by their partner’s side Thomas Kilduff Reception/Office Manager at the hospital and can make critical health care decisions — as well as burial Bennett H. Klein, Esq. decisions — when necessary; and AIDS Law Project Director ▲ creating a world where their children will know their parents’ relationship is respected. Jennifer L. Levi, Esq. Senior Staff Attorney But when they went to their city and town halls to fill out the marriage license Karen L.
    [Show full text]
  • Editors' Note
    Editors’ Note The editors of the Asian-Pacific Law & Policy Journal (“APLPJ”), proudly present Volume 13, Issue 2, which ambitiously features two translations, five articles, and four comments. The translations include reporting of landmark Chinese cases from 2009 and 2010 by China’s progressive investigative newspaper, the Southern Weekend. The topics covered in the articles include food safety in China; Japan’s relationship with nuclear weapons; Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument’s precedence-setting for international marine conservation efforts; and a piece on Native Hawaiian polity written in response to an article published by APLPJ in 2010. This issue also includes comments ranging from human trafficking in South Korea; legal history on Hawai‘i land inheritance law; corporate social responsibility in India; and an analysis of the natural resource enforcement chain in Hawai‘i. Along with producing this exciting issue, the APLPJ staff presented what proved to be one of the largest and most significant student-run symposiums in the history of the William S. Richardson School of Law. The Rainbow Rising Symposium Committee, comprised of APLPJ staff and members of both the Pacific-Asian Legal Studies Organization and the Lambda Law Student Association, ultimately raised over $20,000 through generous grant support by the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa’s Center for Japanese Studies, Center for Korean Studies, Center for Pacific Islands Studies, Center for Southeast Asian Studies, the Student Equity, Excellence & Diversity Board, and the Student Activity & Program Fee Board. Rainbow Rising also received support from the William S. Richardson School of Law and the Ka Huli Ao Center for Excellence in Native Hawaiian Law.
    [Show full text]