DOCSLIB.ORG

Year-Endbriefs

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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. Loewy, Esq. application — having had their blood tests and with applications fees in hand — they Staff Attorney were told, “the application is for a man and a woman,” or “I feel very badly about it, Lisa Osiecki Legal Assistant but it’s not our law, it’s the state law.” Shaun Paisley All the town clerks could see was two men or two women. They couldn’t see the Legal Assistant commitment which has sustained these couples through illness, financial difficulties, Kyle Potter Legal Assistant business ventures, relocations, family stresses as well as good times for between 5 and James Singleton III 30 years. They couldn’t see the sweet faces of the 5 children being raised joyfully by 4 Gill Fellow of these couples. All they saw was the sex of the applicants, and thus turned them down. Communications Director GLAD filed suit on behalf of these seven couples on April 11, 2001 in Suffolk County Courtney Snegroff Bilingual Client Advocate Superior Court seeking the right to civil marriage for same-sex couples in Massachusetts. It Gavriel Wolfe is GLAD’s straightforward position that the denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples Public Education Director continued on page 8 IN THIS ISSUE GLAD Approaches its 25th Anniversary ▼ Creating Strong Antidiscrimination Protections ▼ AIDS Law Project: Liver Transplants, Disability Protection and Needle Exchange ▼ Civil Rights Docket ▼ Recent GLAD Events and more! NOTES FROM GLAD’S EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR As GLAD Approaches Its 25th Year, ATime to Look Back and a Time to Assess the Road Ahead n the Summer of 2002, GLAD will begin its 25th year of service to New England! That’s 25 years in which you — and many other people like you — have formed and sustained an organization committed to “Equal Justice Under Law” and an end to discrimination based Ion sexual orientation, HIV status and gender identity and expression. As I look back over what has been accomplished in the lgbt community over these years, these are some of the things I see: ▲ Non-discrimination laws in every New England state with the exception of Maine. ▲ Removal of all sodomy laws in every New England state with the exception of Massachusetts (where GLAD is currently arguing in the state’s highest court against MAINFRAME PHOTOGRAPHICS 2001 GLAD’s Executive Director such laws). Gary Buseck, Esq. ▲ Every person with HIV in New England (and indeed throughout the country) is protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act. ▲ Second-parent adoption is recognized in Vermont, Connecticut and Massachusetts and is happening in Rhode Island. ▲ Non-biological parents’ rights to preserve their relationships with their children are recognized in Rhode Island, Massachusetts and New Hampshire. ▲ The totally new legal status of “civil union” exists in Vermont giving same-sex couples all the same benefits and protections that Vermont state law provides to married couples (and the claim for equal marriage rights is underway in Massachusetts). ▲ Non-discrimination protections have been extended to transgender individuals in Connecticut, Rhode Island and Massachusetts. ▲ Students’ rights to form extracurricular clubs like Gay/Straight Alliances and to be free from harassment have been affirmed throughout the New England states. All of these things — and more — have created a more equal society in New England since GLAD began its work in mid-1978. I dare say that GLAD has either made these advances or played some significant role in them. And that means that YOU have been making these victories possible. GLAD is your voice – your organization – as we bring the message of equality for lgbt people into every corner of our lives that the law touches. Of course, this is not a time to stop or to rest. It is the time to push forward with even more determination. The tragedy of September 11th has awakened in America a sense of unity over differ- ence. Americans of all stripes died that day, and Americans of all stripes were heroes that day – including gay and lesbian citizens. We want to call our country to become what its ideals always call it to be – a place where our laws recognize that all people are created equal with inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That means changing the law – piece by piece – to dismantle the legal regime under which we live that makes every member of the lgbt community a second-class citizen. Dignity and equality will only be a reality when the law – in all its aspects – reflects and supports our claims for that dignity and equality. If you are behind us, GLAD will not stop until every one of our goals is achieved. With your support, GLAD will take every opportunity available to advance our cause. Thank you for investing in GLAD – which has made so much possible and promises an ever brighter future. ▼ 2 GLAD Fights for Strong Antidiscrimination Protections GLAD has been engaging in numerous efforts to make certain that antidiscrimi- nation provisions in the New England states are robust and forceful in providing protections for the GLBT community. It seems ridiculous that in this day and age the GLBT community must still be concerned about a lack of safety and equality in the workplace or about being denied access to basic services. While five out of six New England states have statutes explicitly prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation, these provisions must be broadly interpreted and widely enforced in order for these protections to become meaningful. GLAD has been working to make sure that this happens. One important aspect of this work lies in making sure that the courts fairly evaluate discrimination claims by GLBT plaintiffs. In a case involving a sexual MAINFRAME PHOTOGRAPHICS 2001 Staff Attorney harassment claim brought by a lesbian plaintiff against her supervisor, Muzzy Karen L. Loewy v. Cahillane Motors, Inc., a trial court judge instructed a jury to consider the offensiveness of the harassing conduct from the perspective of a “reasonable lesbian.” We were concerned about this case, in part, because a jury would not necessarily know what a reasonable lesbian is, and, given stereotypes of ANTIDISCRIMINATION hypersexuality in the GLBT community, might think that a would welcome all sexual banter at work. While allowing trial courts to provide personal information regarding a plaintiff might enable juries to consider the ways in LAWS “MUST which minorities experience harassment, this information might also have the effect of perpetuating negative stereotypes or inflaming the prejudice of the jury. BE BROADLY GLAD submitted an amicus brief in this case setting forth a test for courts to apply that would balance these competing interests, and, in July, the Supreme Judicial Court issued its decision upholding the jury instruction and articulating INTERPRETED a test that incorporated the analysis set forth in GLAD’s brief. Another way to ensure that antidiscrimination protections are meaningful AND WIDELY involves bolstering the ability of those who have experienced employment discrimination to bring claims. Organizations like GLAD investigate cases carefully before accepting them for representation and, wherever possible, ENFORCED IN rely on informal interviews rather than depositions to develop cases. Recently, a court imposed a fine of over $400,000 on a law firm that specializes in ORDER FOR THESE representing plaintiffs in employment matters because attorneys from the firm talked to co-workers of their client, who was suing the defendant for sexual harassment and sex discrimination. The court held that counsel for a plaintiff PROTECTIONS TO who is suing an organization may not ethically have contact with any current employee of that organization. This area of law is contentious, but we believe BECOME that there must be a means to contact some employees without notice to the defendant employer. A rule prohibiting GLAD from contacting any employees without the employer’s consent would have a substantial adverse effect on MEANINGFUL.” GLAD’s ability to provide free, cost-effective and competent representation to people in employment cases. As a result, we have joined as an amicus in this case, Messing, Rudavsky & Weliky, P.C.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Fordham Law Review Foreward
    Fordham Law Review Volume 81 Issue 2 Article 1 2012 Foreward Joseph Landau Fordham University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Joseph Landau, Foreward, 81 Fordham L. Rev. 537 (2013). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol81/iss2/1 This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SYMPOSIUM DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT: LAW, POLICY, AND THE FUTURE OF MARRIAGE FOREWORD Joseph Landau* On March 30, 2012, the Fordham Law Review held a daylong conference on the federal Defense of Marriage Act1 (DOMA), a statute enacted in 1996 with large majorities in both the House and Senate and signed into law by President Clinton.2 The Symposium could not have come at a better time: there have been extraordinary changes in the political dynamics surrounding relationship rights since DOMA’s enactment in 1996, when same-sex couples could not marry in any U.S. or foreign jurisdiction. Currently, same-sex couples can legally marry in six U.S. states3 and the District of Columbia.4 Nine additional states have broad domestic * Associate Professor, Fordham Law School. I would like to thank the following individuals for their helpful comments and suggestions: Liz Cooper, Alphonso David, Howard Erichson, James Esseks, Ray Fisher, Dawn Johnsen, J.
    [Show full text]
  • OBERGEFELL V. HODGES
    (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2014 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus OBERGEFELL ET AL. v. HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT No. 14–556. Argued April 28, 2015—Decided June 26, 2015* Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The petitioners, 14 same-sex cou- ples and two men whose same-sex partners are deceased, filed suits in Federal District Courts in their home States, claiming that re- spondent state officials violate the Fourteenth Amendment by deny- ing them the right to marry or to have marriages lawfully performed in another State given full recognition. Each District Court ruled in petitioners’ favor, but the Sixth Circuit consolidated the cases and reversed. Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a mar- riage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawful- ly licensed and performed out-of-State. Pp. 3–28. (a) Before turning to the governing principles and precedents, it is appropriate to note the history of the subject now before the Court.
    [Show full text]
  • The Freedom to Marry for Same-Sex Couples: the Opening Appellate Brief of Plaintiffs Stan Baker Et Al
    Michigan Journal of Gender & Law Volume 6 Issue 1 1999 The Freedom to Marry for Same-Sex Couples: The Opening Appellate Brief of Plaintiffs Stan Baker Et Al. In Baker Et Al. V. State of Vermont Mary Bonauto Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders Susan M. Murray Langrock Sperry & Wool Beth Robinson Langrock Sperry & Wool Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjgl Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, Law and Gender Commons, and the Sexuality and the Law Commons Recommended Citation Mary Bonauto, Susan M. Murray & Beth Robinson, The Freedom to Marry for Same-Sex Couples: The Opening Appellate Brief of Plaintiffs Stan Baker Et Al. In Baker Et Al. V. State of Vermont, 6 MICH. J. GENDER & L. 1 (1999). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjgl/vol6/iss1/1 This Brief is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Journal of Gender & Law by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE FREEDOM TO MARRY FOR SAME-SEX COUPLES: THE REPLY BRIEF OF PLAINTIFFS STAN BAKER ET AL. IN BAKER ET AL. V. STATE OF VERMONT t (-ary "Bonauto* Susan cM Jvfurra/** 'Beth Rebinson*** INTRODUCTION • 2 I. THIS Is A HEIGHTENED SCRUTINY CASE • 3 A, The Right to Marry Is Fundamentalto All Individuals • 4 B. The State's Gender ClassificationIs Impermissible atAll Levels • 8 1. The State, Not Divine Providence, Defines Civil Marriage • 8 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Same-Gender Marriage & Religious Freedom
    Same-Gender Marriage & Religious Freedom A Call to Quiet Conversations And Public Debates By The Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy President, Interfaith Alliance Revised January, 2013 Inside Front Cover Same-Gender Marriage & Religious Freedom A Call to Quiet Conversations And Public Debates By The Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy President, Interfaith Alliance Revised January, 2013 1212 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 1250, Washington, DC 20005-4706 TEL: 202.238.3300 FAX: 202.238.3301 WEB: inferfaithalliance.org SAME-GENDER MARRIAGE AND RELIGIOUS FREEDOM INTERFAITH ALLIANCE positively to the proposal of addressing same-gender marriage from the perspective of religious liberty. CONTINUING QUIET CONVErsatiONS IN Government agencies, too, have paid attention to the paper, though tangible consequences of their reading are not apparent. MIDST OF LOUD VOICES A state attorney general in an “American heartland” state quietly used the paper to inform his development of a strategy with Listening is not easy. Talking takes little effort and even less which to deal with his state’s legislature as it debated same-gender discipline. But in the first edition of this paper, I promised that marriage. When the Supreme Court of Iowa ruled on same- both Interfaith Alliance and I would listen to advocates of diverse gender marriage, the majority opinion abounded with religion- views on same-gender marriage — from angry opposition to the related themes and affirmations of the importance of religious idea to passionate devotion to and activism in support of same- liberty as a responsible means of dealing with this issue. gender marriage, as well as numerous opinions that fall on the I am profoundly grateful for all who have given us feedback — spectrum between those two poles of thought.
    [Show full text]
  • March 28, 2013 Anzalone Liszt Grove Research National Polling Summary
    March 28, 2013 Anzalone Liszt Grove Research National Polling Summary Friends, Below you will find the Anzalone Liszt Grove Research National Polling Summary, which provides a pollster's take on data and trends that affect political campaigns. This week we focus on the Supreme Court’s review of California’s Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act, as well as the public’s fast-evolving perceptions of marriage equality. As pollsters who work on behalf of a number of gay rights organizations, and were proud to be part of the team to help defeat Amendment One in Minnesota, it is an issue we feel passionately about. Following our analysis are additional news items and data we thought you'd enjoy. John Anzalone, Jeff Liszt and Lisa Grove This week, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Hollingsworth v. Perry and Windsor v. United States. The first is a federal challenge to Proposition 8, the same-sex marriage ban that California voters approved of in 2008. The second questions Section 3 of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage as solely between a man and a woman. While we will have to wait until the end of June for the justices’ ruling, support for marriage equality has been gaining strength in the court of public opinion for some time now. Last November, Minnesota became the first state in the country to reject a constitutional amendment to ban marriage between same-sex couples. At the same time, Maine, Maryland and Washington became the first states to legalize marriage equality through a popular vote, bringing the total to nine states and the District of Columbia where same-sex couples have the freedom to marry.
    [Show full text]