Democratic Constitutionalism and the Marriage Revolution

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Democratic Constitutionalism and the Marriage Revolution ARTICLES STAGES OF CONSTITUTIONAL GRIEF: DEMOCRATIC CONSTITUTIONALISM AND THE MARRIAGE REVOLUTION Anthony Michael Kreis* ABSTRACT Do courts matter? Historically, many social movements have turned to the courts to help achieve sweeping social change. Because judicial institutions are supposed to be above the political fray, they are sometimes believed to be immune from ordinary political pressures that otherwise slow down progress. Substantial scholarship casts doubt on this ro- manticized ideal of courts. This Article posits a new, interactive theory of courts and social movements, under which judicial institutions can legitimize and fuel social movements, but outside actors are necessary to enhance the courts’ social reform efficacy. Under this theory, courts matter and can be agents of social change by educating the public and dislodging institutional inertia in the political branches. This Article addresses these competing visions of judicial capacity for social change in the context of the struggle for marriage equality. Specifically, it considers the extent to which courts were responsible for Americans warming to LGBT rights and coming to new understandings of family, examining evidence marshaled from court rulings, polling data, interviews with federal and state judges, interviews with state elected officials, legislative histories, and media accounts. The Article concludes that courts played a vital role in fueling the marriage equality revolu- tion. They were not, however, unbridled agents of social change because external forces were necessary to maximize the impact of courts’ actions. * Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Chicago-Kent College of Law. Ph.D., University of Georgia, J.D., Washington and Lee University, B.A., University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. I am thankful for the various forms of support and insight from Kathy Baker, Ryan Bakker, Felice Batlan, Alex Boni-Saenz, Peg Brinig, Dale Carpenter, Erwin Chemerinsky, Rob Christiansen, Bill Eskridge, J. Amy Dillard, Mary Dudziak, Chai Feldblum, Martha Fineman, Cynthia Godsoe, Linda Greenhouse, Tim Holbrook, Nan Hunter, Nancy Leong, Hillel Levin, Heidi Li Feldman, Stefanie Lindquist, John Maltese, Anthony Madonna, Joe Miller, Brian Murchison, Sheldon Nahmod, Michael Perry, Sally Brown Richardson, Caprice Roberts, Mark Roark, Steve Sanders, Chris Schmidt, Liz Sepper, Reva Siegel, Eric Segall, Joan Shaughnessy, Carolyn Shapiro, Rod Smolla, Christian Turner, Joe Ura, Rich Vining, Sonja West, Teena Wilhelm, Vicky Wilkins, and Robin Fretwell Wilson. I appreciate feedback from the University of Illinois’ Harry Krause Emerg- ing Family Law Scholars Workshop and 2016 Loyola University Chicago School of Law Constitu- tional Law Colloquium. Finally, thanks go to Justice David Baker, Judge Bernard Friedman, Justice Beth Robinson, Chief Justice Marsha Ternus, and Judge Vaughn Walker for generously taking the time to be interviewed and improve the piece. 871 872 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW [Vol. 20:4 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION.................................................................................... 873 I. THE DIALECTICAL COURTS ............................................................. 875 A. Precedent.......................................................................................... 877 B. Support-Structures ............................................................................ 878 C. Political Reinforcement ...................................................................... 878 D. Administrative Implementation ........................................................... 878 E. Rights Consciousness Effect ............................................................... 879 F. Legitimization .................................................................................. 879 II. MARRIAGE AND THE BOUNDED NATURE OF RIGHTS ..................... 879 III. COURTS AND THE PUBLIC-AT-LARGE ............................................ 896 A. States and the Backlash Thesis ........................................................... 897 B. National Temperature ....................................................................... 902 C. Mood Shifts: Courts or the Secularization of America? .......................... 908 D. Conclusion ....................................................................................... 908 IV. THE STATUTORY EVOLUTION OF FAMILY LAW ........................... 909 A. Hawaii ........................................................................................... 910 B. Vermont ........................................................................................... 912 C. Massachusetts .................................................................................. 915 D. California ........................................................................................ 922 E. Vermont 2007–2009 ....................................................................... 929 F. Maryland ........................................................................................ 936 G. Marriage Without Courts? ................................................................ 939 H. The Legislative Response Before Windsor ........................................... 943 V. FORMS AND LIMITS OF EXECUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION ...................................................................................... 946 A. California ........................................................................................ 947 B. The Emerging of National Civil Disobedience ...................................... 957 1. Oregon ..................................................................................... 960 2. New Mexico ............................................................................. 965 3. New York ................................................................................. 967 4. Rhode Island ............................................................................ 971 5. Maryland ................................................................................. 973 C. Conclusion ....................................................................................... 975 CONCLUSION: THE DIALECTICAL COURTS.......................................... 979 Mar. 2018] STAGES OF CONSTITUTIONAL GRIEF 873 Their insulation and the marvelous mystery of time give courts the capacity to appeal to men’s better natures, to call forth their aspirations, which may have been forgotten in the moment’s hue and cry. —Alexander Bickel (1962)1 The battle for same-sex marriage would have been better served if [same-sex couples] had never brought litigation, or had lost their cases. —Gerald N. Rosenberg (2006)2 We draw down on a capital of trust, a deposit of trust. We spend that capital of trust, and we have to rebuild that capital. —Anthony M. Kennedy (2015)3 INTRODUCTION A substantial proportion of Americans believes courts can save us from ourselves. There is a prominent strain of romanticism in American political discourse, particularly among progressives and legal academics, that judicial institutions are above the fray—that they rise above the lowbrow business of politics to do right by marginalized communities.4 One need look no further than anniversaries of Brown v. Board of Education to see Americans celebrating the notion that courts can and should be champions of ideas whose times have yet to come. Americans’ “attachment,” as Gerald Rosenberg once described it,5 to the portrayal of judges triumphantly vindicating the rights of the repressed and the downtrodden fails to find wide-scale support in much of the literature studying courts.6 Indeed, many scholars criticize perceptions of dominant 1 ALEXANDER M. BICKEL, THE LEAST DANGEROUS BRANCH: THE SUPREME COURT AT THE BAR OF POLITICS 253 (1962). 2 Gerald N. Rosenberg, Courting Disaster: Looking for Change in All the Wrong Places, 54 DRAKE L. REV. 795, 813 (2006). 3 Elliot Spagat, Justice Anthony Kennedy Compares Gay Marriage Uproar to Anger After Flag Burning Case, U.S. NEWS (July 15, 2015), http://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2015/07/15/justice-kennedy- acknowledges-gay-marriage-controversy. 4 See, e.g., John Ferejohn & Larry D. Kramer, Judicial Independence in a Democracy: Institutionalizing Judicial Restraint, in NORMS AND THE LAW 161–62 (John N. Drobak ed., 2006) (discussing the tension be- tween judicial independence and accountability); Neal Kumar Katyal, Legislative Constitutional Inter- pretation, 50 DUKE L.J. 1335, 1335 (2001) (distinguishing constitutional interpretation by courts from constitutional interpretation by Congress); Douglas Laycock, Constitutional Theory Matters, 50 TEX. L. REV. 767, 767–69 (1987) (examining the relevance and implications of different constitutional theories for the judiciary in contrast to the political branches). 5 GERALD N. ROSENBERG, THE HOLLOW HOPE: CAN COURTS BRING ABOUT SOCIAL CHANGE? 9 (2d ed. 2008). 6 See Robert A. Kagan, A Consequential Court: The U.S. Supreme Court in the Twentieth Century, in CONSEQUENTIAL COURTS: JUDICIAL ROLES IN GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE 199 (Diana Kapiszewski, 874 JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW [Vol. 20:4 judicial power as detached from the historical realities of backlash and re- sistance to judicial authority.7 This raises the question: who is right about the role of courts in social change? Recent social reform attempts have revived this question.8 Beginning in the early 1990s, same-sex marriage advocates systematically used litigation as a tool for social change against stiff popular
Recommended publications
  • Prop 8 Trial Video 9Th Circuit Ruling Presskit
    CITY ATTORNEY DENNIS HERRERA STATEMENT FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: MATT DORSEY THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2012 (415) 554-4662 Herrera expresses disappointment with ruling on Prop 8 trial video ‘Public trial records—including video records—should serve to inform our national debates, not be withheld from them,’ Herrera says SAN FRANCISCO (Feb. 2, 2012)—A federal appeals court today ruled against publicly releasing the video record of a 2010 U.S. District Court trial challenging the validity of Proposition 8, the narrowly passed state constitutional amendment that eliminated marriage rights for same-sex couples in California. The decision is only one aspect in the broader legal battle currently before a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel. No ruling has yet been issued on the merits of the appeal of former Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker’s Aug. 4, 2010 holding that Prop 8 was unconstitutional. In response to the Ninth Circuit panel’s decision to withhold the video record of the trial, City Attorney Dennis Herrera issued the following statement: “A free society deserves maximum transparency in the conduct of the public’s business to the full extent our technology allows, and that’s why I’m disappointed with today’s decision. The issue of marriage equality continues to be one of national importance, as we’re seeing now in the State of Washington. Public trial records—including video records—should serve to inform our national debates, not be withheld from them.” Herrera’s brief in the dispute argued against giving credence to Prop 8 proponents’ continuing narrative in the case to justify withholding the video record, “the myth that they, rather than gay men and lesbians whose equal citizenship they have continued to deny, are the victims here; that they or their witnesses are at risk of persecution or harassment because of their speech or religious beliefs….” The City intervened in the federal challenge to Prop 8 alongside the American Foundation for Equal Rights, which filed the case on behalf of two California couples in May 2009.
    [Show full text]
  • Queer Periodicals Collection Timeline
    Queer Periodicals Collection Timeline 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Series I 10 Percent 13th Moon Aché Act Up San Francisco Newsltr. Action Magazine Adversary After Dark Magazine Alive! Magazine Alyson Gay Men’s Book Catalog American Gay Atheist Newsletter American Gay Life Amethyst Among Friends Amsterdam Gayzette Another Voice Antinous Review Apollo A.R. Info Argus Art & Understanding Au Contraire Magazine Axios Azalea B-Max Bablionia Backspace Bad Attitude Bar Hopper’s Review Bay Area Lawyers… Bear Fax B & G Black and White Men Together Black Leather...In Color Black Out Blau Blueboy Magazine Body Positive Bohemian Bugle Books To Watch Out For… Bon Vivant 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Bottom Line Brat Attack Bravo Bridges The Bugle Bugle Magazine Bulk Male California Knight Life Capitol Hill Catalyst The Challenge Charis Chiron Rising Chrysalis Newsletter CLAGS Newsletter Color Life! Columns Northwest Coming Together CRIR Mandate CTC Quarterly Data Boy Dateline David Magazine De Janet Del Otro Lado Deneuve A Different Beat Different Light Review Directions for Gay Men Draghead Drummer Magazine Dungeon Master Ecce Queer Echo Eidophnsikon El Cuerpo Positivo Entre Nous Epicene ERA Magazine Ero Spirit Esto Etcetera 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975
    [Show full text]
  • Dc Metro Sunday Schedule
    Dc Metro Sunday Schedule disconsolately.misunderstandsHeadlong and eligible abed ifMort asexual always Clemens discourage pickeers calculably or extemporise. and indues Balanced his liberalities. Lindy resolvingMohammed What year was coming into the dropdown boxes while maintaining adequate social media, you are not scared of racism is required mask will inaugurate the dc metro washington Walker has propagate a place cute people can relief be themselves without cream of judgment or retribution. Do not fleeting or sneeze all your hands. Santa Fe Drive layover. And I imagine felt real comfortable. We see his eyes just north of volunteering and sunday buses! Francine must help her volume of purpose speaking so may can voice her concern about pollution at all Earth Day rally; Ladonna dreams of skiing and sledding. Dobson Road hazard the bus stop just fear of Pecos Road. This puts our vote back by a bankrupt firm schedule would ensure if we can prepare most trips. Metro trains has been fierce for females. March looks to query an even busier month if the Terps. We discussed the need coverage find allies within the Trump Administration and Republican Congress. Xsport fitness level until metro schedule, dc oral history blog cannot afford to bus was such, vaya al médico si no reason whatsoever to dc metro sunday schedule? It work does fog affect people from already have several permanent residence or people looking are applying for citizenship. Lookout Point; guide series of mishaps plague Nature Cat as he makes his shepherd to Cocono Cave. And one best the greatest epidemics of river time.
    [Show full text]
  • Board of Commissioners Page 1
    01/08/19 Board of Commissioners Page 1 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS January 8, 2019 at 7:00 pm Central VT Chamber of Commerce Conference Room, 963 Paine Turnpike North, Berlin Page Time AGENDA 7:001 Adjustments to the Agenda Public Comments 7:05 State Economic Initiatives, Secretary Michael Shirling, Agency of Commerce and Community Development State economic development and workforce initiatives 2 8:05 Recommendations of the Commission on Act 250 (enclosed) Brief presentation on the recommendations with Commissioner discussion of changes CVRPC would support in the upcoming Legislative Session 8:30 Board of Commissioner Survey Results Presentation of survey results and recommended changes 11 8:45 Meeting Minutes – December 11, 2018 (enclosed)2 14 8:50 Reports (enclosed) Updates and questions on Staff and Committee Reports 9:00 Adjournment Next Meeting: February 12, 2019 1 Times are approximate unless otherwise advertised. 2 Anticipated action item. 01/08/19 Board of Commissioners Page 2 STATE OF VERMONT GENERAL ASSEMBLY REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON ACT 25O: THE NEXT 50 YEARS PURSUANT TO 2017 ACTS AND RESOLVES NO. 47 DRAFT 1-2-19 Rep. Amy Sheldon, Chair Sen. Chris Pearson, Vice Chair Sen. Brian Campion Rep. David Deen Rep. Paul Lefebvre Sen. Richard McCormack VT LEG #335768 v.13 01/08/19 Board of Commissioners Page 3 page i TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................... iv I. SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Vaughn Walker FEDERAL JUDGE B
    VAUGHN WALKER FEDERAL JUDGE b. 1944 “Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.” As a federal judge in the U.S. District Court of Northern California, Vaughn Walker ruled as unconstitutional California’s Prop 8 prohibition of same sex-marriage. Vaughn Walker Born in Watseka, Illinois, Walker attended the University of Michigan and was a is a federal judge Woodrow Wilson Fellow in economics at the University of California at Berkeley. He attended Stanford Law School and practiced law in San Francisco. who ruled that In 1987 President Ronald Reagan nominated Walker for a judgeship. The same-sex marriage is a nomination was stalled due to Walker’s previous representation of the U.S. Olympic constitutional right. Committee in a lawsuit that disallowed the use of the title “Gay Olympics.” House Democrats, including Rep. Nancy Pelosi, accused him of being insensitive to the LGBT community. In 1989 when President George H. W. Bush renominated Walker for a seat on the federal district court, Walker was confirmed unanimously. He presided over numerous important cases, including drug legalization, NSA surveillance without a warrant, antitrust, mergers and copyright infringement. In 2010 Walker presided over Hollingsworth v. Perry, the landmark case that challenged California’s Proposition 8, a ballot initiative eliminating the right of same-sex couples to marry. Walker ruled Prop 8 unconstitutional. His decision influenced subsequent state and federal marriage equality cases, including Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court case that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. After retiring from the bench in 2011, Walker came out and acknowledged his decade-long same-sex relationship.
    [Show full text]
  • Amending the Defense of Marriage Act: a Necessary Step Toward Gaining Full Legal Rights for Same-Sex Couples Nancy Kubasek
    Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law Volume 19 | Issue 3 Article 8 2011 Amending the Defense of Marriage Act: A Necessary Step Toward Gaining Full Legal Rights for Same-Sex Couples Nancy Kubasek Christy Glass Kate Cook Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/jgspl Part of the Sexuality and the Law Commons Recommended Citation Kubasek, Nancy, Christy Glass, and Kate Cook. "Amending the Defense of Marriage Act: A Necessary Step Toward Gaining Full Legal Rights for Same-Sex Couples." American University Journal of Gender Social Policy and Law 19, no. 3 (2011): 959-986. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington College of Law Journals & Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. KUBASEK 4/30/11 9/1/2011 6:28 PM Kubasek et al.: Amending the Defense of Marriage Act: A Necessary Step Toward Gai AMENDING THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT: A NECESSARY STEP TOWARD GAINING FULL LEGAL RIGHTS FOR SAME-SEX COUPLES NANCY KUBASEK, CHRISTY GLASS, AND KATE COOK I. Introduction ............................................................................................ 959 II. History of the Treatment of Same-Sex Relationships in the United States ............................................................................................... 962 III. Losses Imposed on Same-Sex Couples by Federal DOMA ................ 965 A. Federal Welfare Benefits .......................................................... 968 B. Tax Benefits .............................................................................. 969 C. Additional Benefits ................................................................... 970 IV. Alternative Approaches to Remedying the Problem ..........................
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 New Member Orientation November 26 – 27, 2018
    2018 New Member Orientation November 26 – 27, 2018 Monday, November 26, 2018 *All events are in the State House unless noted* Throughout the day Slide Show: The Legislature Cafeteria Lounge 7:15 a.m. – 9:00 a.m. Registration, Payroll, Expenses, Benefits, Photographs, and Room: 10/Room: 11 iPad Distribution and Training 7:30 a.m. – 10:00 a.m. Breakfast [PLEASE register first] Cafeteria - sidebar Open Cafeteria Account (if desired) 9:15 a.m. – 9:25 a.m. Welcome and Introduction Room 11 Mark Snelling, President, Snelling Center for Government 9:25 a.m. – 10:10 a.m. The Legislative Process Senate Chamber, or New House and Senate Members go to their respective chambers House Chamber to discuss parliamentary procedures, reporting and debate of bills, the amendment process, recording and notice of proceedings in Calendars and Journals, and legislative decorum John Bloomer, Secretary of the Senate William MaGill, Clerk of the House 10:10 a.m. – 10:20 a.m. Transition to Room 11 on 1st Floor 10:20 a.m. – 10:50 a.m. Overview of the Office of Legislative Council Room 11 Luke Martland, Director and Chief Legislative Counsel 10:50 a.m. – 12:20 p.m. Drafting Bills, Committee Hearings, and the Role of Location to be determined Legislative Council Discussion of the drafting process, bill introduction, the legislative committee process, and the role of the Office VT LEG #319211 v.1A 2018 New Member Orientation Page 2 of 6 Monday, November 26, 2018 continued 12:20 p.m. – 12:30 p.m. Transition to State House Cafeteria on 2nd floor 12:30 p.m.
    [Show full text]
  • Commonwealth V. Kelly, Bratlie & Shdeed (Massachusetts Supreme
    COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT No. SJC 116.16 COMMONWEALTH v. AMANDA KELLY, CHRISTOPHER BRATLIE & KEVIN SHDEED ON APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT OF THE- SUPERIOR COURT PLYMQUTH COUNTY. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2.013-P=0047 AMICUS BRIEF FOR ANIICI CURIAE ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE AND SIX ADDITIONAL ANIICI IN SUPPORT OF THE` LONIMONWEP,LTH OF MASSACHUSETTS AND AFFIRMANCE l~fchael N. Sheetz (BBO #548776) [email protected] ~ Adam S. Gershenson (BBO #671296) [email protected] COOLEY LLP 500 Boylston Street Boston,-.MA 02116 (617) 937-2300 Steven M. Freeman Melissa Garlick Lauren A. Jones Seth M. Magnin .Anti=Defamation League 605 Third Avenue New York, New York. 10158 Septerc►ber 22, 2014 Table of Contents Page STATEMENT OF INTEREST ............................... 1 QUESTION PRESENTED .................................. 7 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .................................. 7 ARGUMENT ............................................ 9 I. THE HATE CRIMES STATUTE CRIMINALIZES CONDUCT THAT HARMS THE VICTIM, THE VICTIM'S COMMUNITY, AND SOCIETY AS A WHOLE. .................................... 9 II. THE "SPECIFIC INTENT" INSTRUCTION IS APPROPRIATE BECAUSE IT IS TRUE TO THE STATUTE'S TEXT, PURPOSE, AND SCHEME. ..... 13 A. The Instructions Were True to the Statutory Text. .....:............... 14 B. The "Specific Intent" Instructions Effectuate the Legislature's Intent in Drafting the Hate Crimes Statute. ............................ 15 C. Canons of Statutory Construction Support Upholding the "Specific Intent" Instructions as Consistent With the Larger Statutory Scheme Governing Bias-Related Crimes. ...... 19 1. The Instructions Below Fit The Overarching Scheme to Prohibit Criminal Civil Rights Violations. ............. 19 2. The "Specific Intent" Instructions Fit the Hate Crimes Statute's Regulatory Scheme. .. .................... 25 III. REQUIRING A "PREDOMINANT" OR "SUBSTANTIAL" MOTIVE WOULD BE .INCONSISTENT WITH SECTION 39, THE STATUTORY SCHEME, AND SOUND POLICY.
    [Show full text]
  • Marriage Equality Comes to the Fourth Circuit Carl Tobias University of Richmond School of Law, [email protected]
    Washington and Lee Law Review Volume 75 | Issue 4 Article 6 2-19-2019 Marriage Equality Comes to the Fourth Circuit Carl Tobias University of Richmond School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Family Law Commons, Jurisprudence Commons, Law and Gender Commons, Sexuality and the Law Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Recommended Citation Carl Tobias, Marriage Equality Comes to the Fourth Circuit, 75 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 2005 (2018), https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr/vol75/iss4/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington and Lee Law Review at Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington and Lee Law Review by an authorized editor of Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Marriage Equality Comes to the Fourth Circuit Carl Tobias Table of Contents I. Introduction .................................................................... 2006 II. A Brief History of Marriage Equality ........................... 2006 III. Marriage Equality Litigation and Marriage Equality’s Implementation .............................................................. 2013 A. The Fourth Circuit ................................................... 2013 1. Virginia Litigation ............................................. 2014 a. Eastern District Opinion .............................
    [Show full text]
  • Legislative Update for March 9, 2019
    Supporting Vermonters to lead healthy and satisfying lives community by community Legislative Update for March 9, 2019 The Legislature is on Town Meeting Day Break for one week. When it returns on March 12th there will be a flurry of activity to pass bills out of committees of jurisdiction by the March 15th crossover deadline. This deadline does not apply to bills authored by full committees or the money bills. The House Appropriations Committee is aiming to complete their budget proposal by March 19th. Early Stage Appropriations Advocacy is Successful Thanks to great advocacy efforts by advocates and agencies from around the state the Vermont Care Partners provider network made a good showing in the recommendations of the two key house policy committees in their FY2020 budget memos to the House Appropriations Committee. In fact, the House Health Care Committee made increased funding to improve designated and specialized service agency (DA/SSA) workforce compensation their number one funding priority. While the House Health Care Committee requested a 4% increase for DA/SSAs, the House Human Services Committee requested a 2% increase. Now the House Appropriations Committee will weigh those memos and the other advocacy they have received from: the public hearings; our advocacy days for disabilities and mental health; and individual outreach. While Representative Hooper is responsible for the DMH budget and Representative Lanpher is responsible for the DAIL budget, the full committee votes on priorities as a committee. In addition to improved funding for workforce, the House Health Care Committee put in a plug for electronic health records (EHR) systems one-time investment and for the workforce development proposal for the Tobacco Settlement funds from Vermont Care Partners which calls for a 3-year commitment to work at a DA/SSA to receive tuition assistance or loan repayment.
    [Show full text]
  • ACLU Annual Report FINAL
    Because We Believe It’s More Than ‘Just a Piece of Paper.’ 2006 DEFENDING THE CONSTITUTION ANNUAL REPORT 2006 Board of Directors Board of Trustees Nancy Ryan, President Martin Fantozzi, Chair Charles Baron, Ron Ansin Vice President Holly Gunner Donna Palermino, Clerk James C. Hamilton Martin Fantozzi, Jeffrey F. Jones Treasurer Woody Kaplan Mark A. Michelson Michael Altman Nancy L. Rosenblum Russell S. Chernin Nancy Ryan Jo Ann Citron Jerry Cohen Malick Ghachem Holly Gunner John Henn Wendy Kaminer Woody Kaplan Joseph Kociubes Herman B. Leonard Mark A. Michelson Pablo Navarro Christopher H. Pyle Mala Rafik Arnie Reisman Susan Reverby Nancy L. Rosenblum Byron Rushing Leslie Shapiro Harvey Silverglate Jodie Silverman Madhu Sridhar Carl Takei Lisa Thurau-Gray Heather Wightman Ernest Winsor Richard Wright Bernard Yadoff Steven F. Young Letter from the Leadership The year 2006 will go down in history as a turning point in civil liberties for the American people. The question is: which way will our country turn? This year, newspaper reports have exposed warrantless illegal government spying on thousands of ordinary Americans and tens of millions of Americans have had their phone records secretly turned over to the NSA. We learned that our president has signed quasi-secret “signing statements,” effectively declaring that he isn’t obligated to uphold more than 750 statutes passed by Congress. And Congress has stripped away the right of habeas corpus and authorized the continued use of indefinite detention, extraordinary rendition, and cruel and unusual punishment as tools of U.S. policy. Carol Rose, Executive For the members and supporters of the ACLU in Massachusetts, this also has been a year in which Director people in the Commonwealth and around the country stood up in large numbers to call for an end to these abuses of power.
    [Show full text]
  • Litigating Same-Sex Marriage: a Divorce on Strategy Bryan Edward Lucas
    Seton Hall University eRepository @ Seton Hall Law School Student Scholarship Seton Hall Law 5-1-2014 Litigating Same-Sex Marriage: A Divorce on Strategy Bryan Edward Lucas Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.shu.edu/student_scholarship Recommended Citation Lucas, Bryan Edward, "Litigating Same-Sex Marriage: A Divorce on Strategy" (2014). Law School Student Scholarship. 520. https://scholarship.shu.edu/student_scholarship/520 LITIGATING SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: A DIVORCE ON STRATEGY by Bryan Lucas Love is important! It doesn't matter who people love, as long as they are happy. Everyone should have the right to marry who he or she wants. You may not like two men being married, but for them, it's normal. My two dads should be able to be married and have the same rights as any married couple. How would you feel if you couldn't marry someone just because the government said you weren't allowed to? If I loved someone and wasn't allowed to marry them, I would be really sad. My family has taught me that even if you don't agree with someone, you should still be kind and respectful. The government should too.1 These are the words of the ten-year-old adopted daughter of two men named David and Lee. They live with her older brother, but they are not married, because they reside in Illinois, one of the 41 states where doing so is not recognized, or is explicitly prohibited by law. Lee’s father, Mike, wrote, “I want Lee and David to know their union will be honored as a marriage.
    [Show full text]