Marriage in Canada What it Means to Yo u

Transcripción

1 N E W S L E T T E R FALL 2003 Marriage in Canada What it Means to Yo u I N S I D E : Z i m b a rdi v. University of F l o r i d a On the Docket page 11 Te s t i m o n i a l s Page 6 C reate Yo u r Legacy of Justice Page 7 F requently asked questions from U. S. couples who are considering getting married in Canada Many same-sex couples in the United States are considering getting married in Canada. Whi l e t his is now an option, it is important for couples to understand that getting married in Canada will not necessarily guarantee you and your partner the rights and privileges of different-sex married couples in the U.S. and may have signi f i- cant tax and other legal implications. Although t his is still a gray area with many remaini n g u n c e r tainties, here are preliminary answers to some frequently asked questions: Can same-sex couples from the United Sta t e s marry in Canada? Yes. As of June 2003, two provinces in Canada O n tario and British Columbia permit same-sex couples to marry on an equal basis with di f f e r e n t - sex couples. There are no residence requ i r e m e n t s in these provinces, so same-sex couples from anywhere in the world can travel to Ontario or British Columbia and get married. Are there any other countries that permit samesex couples to marry? Yes. The Netherlands and Belgium also permi t same-sex couples to marry; however, both of those countries have strict residence requirements. In the Netherlands, only couples in which one partner is a citizen of the Netherlands or in which both partners reside in the Netherlands may m a r r y. In Belgium, only couples who live in a j u r i s diction that also permits same-sex couples to marry are permitted to marry. Are there any states in the U.S. that permi t same-sex couples to marry? No, although lawsuits in which same-sex couples are seeking the right to marry are pending in Massachusetts and New Jersey. For more information on these cases, see and w w w.lambdalegal.org. For more information on w i n ning the freedom to marry, see w w w. f r e e d o m t o m a r r y.org. How do we go about getting married in Canada? To marry in Canada, you will need to obtain a marriage license, locate an authorized person to perform the ceremony, and arrange for two witnesses to be present during the ceremony. No m e dical tests are required. For more information on the practicalities of getting married in Onta r i o or British Columbia, there are now a number of websites and businesses that specialize in helping same-sex couples marry in Canada, includi n g : w w w.pridebride.com, www. r a i n b ow w e d di n g n e t- work.com, www. g a y w e d dings.com. Please note: Continued on page 3 See page 4 for this article in Spanish. (Vea página 4 para este artículo en español) c o n t e n t s Message From Kate Kendell Matrimonio en Canadá Que Significa Para Tí? Elder Law Project Update On the Docket Immigration Workers Freedom Ride th Anniversary Gala: April 24, Back Cover

2 A Message from Kate Kendell Be fo re our eyes we see ch a n ges that some did not dream possible. In Canada and th e Neth e rlands we are getting lega l ly married; in June the U.S. Supreme Court inva l i d a te d eve ry single remaining law that made our sexual intimacy a crime. The Califo rnia gove rnor just signed a law that will provide to our relationships nearly all the benefits, security and re s p o n s i b i l- ities given to married couples in the sta te. In six short months the entire legal and political landscape has shifted and we saw it all happen. But we are not just witnesses to histo ry, we are living this histo ry. This is our histo ry and our l i ves and our sto ry. This is also the sto ry and the histo ry of the National Center for Lesbian Rights. We always knew that the great st rides fo rwa rd of 2003 we re possible. If we hadn t had that conviction we could not have done this wo rk for 26 ye a rs. But, of course, with great pro gress comes great responsibility and ch a l l e n ge. Immediate ly fo l l owing the marri a ge victo ry in Canada and the Supreme Court ruling we began mapping our re s p o n s e to this ch a n ged wo rld. We know you had qu e stions about how the Canada decision would affect you, so we are providing the best answe rs we can. We are part of a national conve rsation and collaborations to dete rmine the most effe c t i ve next steps to fully winning the fre e d o m to marry in this country. We are aggre s s i ve ly assisting with the st ra tegy to defeat the enorm o u s ly dange rous anti-marri a ge const i t u t i o n a l amendment that has been introduced in Congress. We will not go back. We will not lose gro u n d. You and I are witnesses to history. In the afte rm a th of the histo ric Supreme Court victo ry in Law rence v. Texas, which st ru ck down the 13 remaining sta te sodomy laws, we are evaluating what new legal ch a l l e n ges we can bring to ex i sting anti-gay laws. In seve ral sta tes where we lost custody or other ch a l l e n ge s based on the ex i stence of a shameful sodomy law we are assessing the possibility of re n ewing our fight and securing final just i c e. We learn from other civil rights st ru g gles and victo ries that the st ru g gle never re a l ly ends and that each victo ry is fragile. The backlash to the gains we ve made is already underway and will be st rong and sustained. But we know we will prevail. We have justice, fa i rness, ri g h t and dignity on our side. And we have you. We are humbled by our 26 ye a rs of fighting for justice and we are gra teful you have been our part n e r. I inv i te you to help us finish the wo rk. In this time of unp re c e d e n ted ach i evements and unp a ralleled atta cks we need you more than eve r. We have much to do to assure that th e re is no backsliding, no ret re n chment, no one lost in our march to full justice and equ a l i t y. B OARD OF D I R E C TO R S Nancy Otto C o - C h a i r C o u rt n ey C o - C h a i r B etsy L. Allen, Esq. Vice Chair B a r b a ra Zoloth, Ph.D. Vice Chair A kaya Wi n d wo o d S e c reta ry / Tre a s u re r Ke l ly Derm o d y, Esq. D o ra Jean Dome, Esq. H e a ther Hiles Eleanor Pa l a c i o s Ra chel Ro b a s c i o t t i Ces Ro s a l e s Re n a ta Sos, Esq. Bobbie Wilson, Esq. S TA F F Ka te Kendell, Esq. E xe c u t i ve Dire c to r Noemi Calonje L e gal Assista n t Helen J. Carro l l Homophobia in Sport s P roject Coord i n a to r Ka ren Doering, Esq. Sta ff At to rn ey, Flori d a M a rta Donay re Public Education Dire c to r Robin Galas O ffice Manage r Ru th Herri n g D i re c tor of Re s o u rce Deve l o p m e n t C o u rt n ey Joslin, Esq. Sta ff At to rn ey D e b ra Ke n t Gala Manage r Jody Marks a m e r E qual Justice Fe l l ow Shannon Minte r, Esq. L e gal Dire c to r J oyce Piers o n Elder Law Project Coord i n a to r Jessica Powe rs D evelopment Associate Dena L. Zaldúa D evelopment Associate L AW CLERKS D e i rd re Bourd et C h e ster Day Rudi Gew i n g - M u l l i n s C h ri stine Jalbert Ka ren Mock ri n Chelsea Haley Ne l s o n Shannah Smith Ted Un o N ATIONAL A DV I S O RY B OA R D L e s l ey We ave r, Esq., CA C h a i r Susan Gore, Ph.D., TX J oyce Hunte r, MSW, NY Jane A. Marqu a rdt, Esq., UT L o ry Maste rs, TX Ra quel Matas, Esq., FL Nancy Po l i ko ff, Esq., DC Ab by Ru b e n feld, Esq., TN Eileen Scallen, Esq., MN C a rmen Va s quez, NY The NCLR news l et ter is published by the Na t i o n a l C e n ter for Lesbian Rights. E d i to rs: Ru th Herring, Jessica Powe rs Wri te rs / Tra n s l a to rs: NCLR Sta ff Design: Six I n k To subscribe to our monthly newsletter, us at: N C L R U p d a t e s l i s b e n j a m i n c o. c o m

3 More Questions About Marriage (Continued from cover) these links are provided for informational purposes only. NCLR has no financial connection to these sites and does not endorse these or any other businesses. If my partner and I marry in Canada, will our marriage be valid in the U.S.? Yes, your marriage will be valid; however, di s c r i minatory marriage l aws in the U.S. will still exist. Some sta t e and local governments will acknow l e d g e your marriage, at least for some purposes. Others will not. The same is true for private employers and businesses. In addition, in 1996, Congress enacted a law stating that for all federal purpose, the term marriage means only a marriage between a man and a woman. Because of this law, the federal government will almost certainly refuse to respect your marriage. In practical terms, this means that at least in the short run, same-sex couples who marry in Canada and return to the U.S. will confront many legal questions and uncertainties. Yo u may be treated as married by some governmental entities and as unmarried by others, which may create problems. Partners Jill E. Togawa (l) and Pa u l i n e Diego-Guillermo look forward to the day we win marriage rights for lesbians. Whether to marry is a deeply personal decision. Couples may choose to marry or not to marry for a host of different reasons. If your primary reason for marrying in Canada is to gain legal protections in the U.S., you should be aware that your marriage may not be fully respected here and very likely will not be respected by the federal government. If my partner and I marry in Canada and later wish to separate, how do we obtain a legal divorce? If you live in a state that honors your marriage, you will also be able to apply for a divorce in that state. If you live in a state that does not respect your marriage, however, it is doubtful that you will be able to obtain a divorce. To obtain a divorce in Canada, at least one partner must reside there for one year before a C a n a dian court will have jurisdiction to grant the divorce. (In contrast, you do not have to reside in Canada to marry there.) Many states have similar residency requirements for di v o r c e. Thus, even if you can identify a U.S. state that will permit married same-sex couples to obtain divorces, you may have to move to that state to be eligible to petition for a divorce which may be a practical impossibility for many couples. In short, some couples who marry in Canada may find themselves in a situation where they are unable to obtain a legal divorce. If so, this would mean that even though you may separate, your marriage will remain valid and you will continue to have certain legal rights and responsibilities with regard to each other. This difficulty is yet another reason why couples should think very carefully before traveling to Canada to marry. My partner is from another country. Will getting married in Canada permit her to stay in the United Sta t e s? No, and, depending on your ci r c u m s tances, getting married in Canada may even lead to your partner s deportation from the U.S. Under a federal law mi s l e a dingly called the Defense of Marriage Act, the U.S. government will not respect marriages between same-sex couples, no matter where they are enacted. Because of this law, the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (BCIS, formerly k n own as the INS) will not honor your marriage to your partner. Instead, the BCIS may use the fact that you and your partner married in Canada to deport your partner, if she is here on a noni m migrant visa, on the ground that she does not intend to return to her home country. Getting married is especially risky for same-sex bi-national couples. Before making any decisions about marriage, consult a competent, qualified immi g r a t i o n attorney who is knowledgeable about LGBT issues for individualized advice about your situation. For more information on this and other i m migration-related issues, see and w w w.loveseesnoborders.org. Will my employer respect my marriage? Some employers will; others will not. If my employer refuses to honor my marriage, do I have any legal recourse? D e p e n ding on where you live, you may have some legal basis to compel your employer to treat you equally to other married employees. No matter where you live, however, it is almost always better to exhaust every possible remedy before filing a lawsuit against your employer. Litigation is expensive, stressful, t i m e - c o n s u ming, and often fails to secure the desired results. Before going this route, consider other options, such as ta l k i n g with your employer, joi ning with other employees to educate the employer, or working with your union to negotiate recognition of e qual benefits for all employees, regardless of marital status or sexual orientation. If you run into problems with your employer and would like our assistance, please contact us at or info@nclrights.org. For more information on workplace issues, see If my partner and I marry in Canada, are we required to file joint federal and state income taxes? The true answer to this question is, no one knows. While there are many legal uncertainties for same-sex couples who marry in Canada, how to deal with federal and state income taxes is probably the area of greatest uncerta i n t y. On the one hand, married couples are legally required to pay taxes as a married couple: if you are married, filing your taxes as a single person is against the l aw. On the other hand, current federal law prohibits the federal government from respecting the validity of marriages between (Continued on page 4) 3

4 Matrimonio en Canadá Que Significa Para Tí? P reguntas hechas frecuentemente por parejas de los Estados Unidos quienes están considerando casarse en Canadá Muchas parejas homosexuales en los Estados Unidos están considerando irse al Canadá a casarse. Mientras que esto ahora es una opción, es importante que las parejas entiendan que el casarse en Canadá no les garantizará necesariamente los derechos y privilegios que se les otorga a los matrimoni o s heterosexuales en los Estados Unidos, y puede tener implicaciones importantes legales y para los impuestos. Aunque esto sigue siendo una área gris con muchas incertidumbres, he aquí algunas respuestas preliminares a preguntas hechas frecuentemente: Pueden las parejas homosexuales de los Estados Uni d o s casarse en Canadá? Sí. Desde Ju nio del 2003, dos provincias en Canadá - Ontario y Colombia Británica - permiten que las parejas homosexuales se casen, otorgandoles los mismos derechos y privilegios de una pareja heterosexual. No hay requisitos de residencia en esta s p r o v i n cias, así que las parejas homosexuales de cualquier parte del mundo pueden viajar a Ontario o a Colombia Británica y conseguir el matrimoni o. (Continued on page 12) Marriage in Canada ( c o n t. ) persons of the same gender. In addition, many states requ i r e that you use the same marital status classification for your s tate incomes taxes as you use for your federal income ta x e s. This situation creates a double-bind for same-sex couples who marry in Canada. From a legal perspective, there is not any clear-cut answer to this dilemma. Some legal experts are recommending that same-sex couples who marry in Canada file as single (or, where appropriate, as head of household), but indicate that they are married to a same-sex partner on the form or in a cover letter. Others are reco m m e n ding that married same-sex couples file two sets of ta x returns (one as two single individuals, and one as a married couple), pay whichever is higher (to avoid tax penalties), and include a cover letter explaining that you are a same-sex married couple and are attempting to comply with all applicable federal law s. Others are recommending that you file as a married couple but set aside a special account to pay any tax penalties that may be imposed against you. No matter which course you take, there is some legal risk involved. Before making a decision about this issue, you should consult a tax attorney or an accountant if you can afford to do so. If my partner and I marry in Canada and then have chi l d r e n, will we both be legal parents? The answer depends on whether you live in a state that respects the validity of your marriage. If you do, then both you and your partner would be considered legal parents under most sta t e s l aws. Even if that is the case, however, you should ALWAY S consult a family law attorney in your state and get a court decree s tating that you are both legal parents. If you do not live in a s tate that respects the validity of your marriage, or if this qu e s t i o n is not clear in your state, then you should NOT rely on your marriage to secure your parental rights. The safest course regardless of whether you are married or not is to consult an experienced family law attorney where you live and take whatever steps are necessary to give both parents the greatest legal protections. For more information about laws affecting LGBT parents in your state, contact NCLR at or info@nclrights.org. If my partner and I marry in Canada, should we describe ourselves as married on applications for jobs, health insurance, car insurance, credit, mortgages, etc.? Yes, of course. You are legally married, and you should describe yourself accordi n g l y. You should be aware, however, that di s- c r i minatory laws and practices still exist in all of these areas. Thus, the fact that you are legally married will not necessarily guarantee that you will be afforded the rights of a married couple by employers, insurers, credit companies, mortgage compani e s, etc. If you encounter problems in these areas, contact NCLR or another LGBT legal organization for advice. If my partner and I marry in Canada, will it affect my eligibility for public benefits or for continuing alimony from a prior marriage? Yes. If you are legally married, it is likely that your spouse s income will be taken into account in calculating whether you are eligible for public benefits. This may be true even if your marriage is not respected for other purposes. And it is also likely that you will no longer be entitled to alimony from a prior marriage. (Continued on page 15) 4

5 NCLR: Changing Laws, Changing Po l i c i e s Domestic Pa r t n e r s h i p : On September 19, Governor Gray Davis signed AB 205, The Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act of 2003, which gives registered domestic partners nearly all of the rights and responsibilities currently available only to spouses under state law. NCLR helped draft this historic legislation and worked with a coalition to lobby for its passage. We are now educating our commu nity about the ramifications of this new legislation, which will greatly expand the rights and obligations of registered domestic partners in. Transgender Rights: On August 2, 2003, became the fourth state to protect transgender people from employment and housing di s c r i mi n a t i o n when Governor Gray Davis signed AB 196, a bill amending the C a l i f o r nia Fair Employment and Housing Act to speci f i c a l l y include transgender employees and tenants. AB 196 clarifies current law to ensure that laws prohibiting sex di s c r i mination in housing and employment also prohibit di s c r i mination based on gender identity. This law will protect transgender persons and i n dividuals who do not conform to gender stereotypes from losing t h eir homes or jobs due to di s c r i mination. NCLR assisted in drafting the legislation for this bill and NCLR Legal Director Shannon Minter testified on behalf of the bill. By enacting AB 196 into law, ns are sending a powerful message that no person can be denied employment or housing based on genderrelated characteristics that have nothing to do with their qu a l i f i c a- tions as employees or tenants. Safe Schools: NCLR remains a leader in the national Safe Schools movement. This year, New Jersey passed a new law prohibiting harassment on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, among other bases, in New Jersey schools. As a result of continued advocacy work with activists, students, teachers and admi ni s t r a t o r s, more than 50 local school districts in all regions of the country added sexual orientation and/or gender identity to their non-di s- c r i mination policies. A major focus was to help districts enact p o l i cies that included protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity and expression. Human Rights: With leadership from NCLR s Florida staff attorney Karen Doering, Key West and Monroe County just became the first j u r i s dictions in Florida to expand their human rights ordi n a n c e s to protect people based on gender identity and expression a major victory in this conservative state! We continue this work, with allies including the NAACP, NOW, and others, in various areas of Florida. (Continued on page 15) E l d e r L a wp r o j e c tu p d a t e Lillianne Meyer (picture d l e ft) is a 72 - ye a r-old lesbian who has vo l u n te e red for 22 ye a rs at the Morgan Hill Senior Center in Califo rn i a. She is encounte ring ongoing homophobic attitudes f rom some residents, and NC L R s Joyce Pierson has a s s i sted by speaking to th e fa c i l i t y s dire c tor and giving support to Lillianne. Joyce prov i d e s individualized support to dozens of LGBT seniors. In April 2004, NCLR will present legal wo rkshops on LG B T elder issues at the national confe rence of the American Societ y on Ag i n g / National Council on Aging. This is an imp o rtant step in a d vocating with mainst ream service prov i d e rs to imp rove th e i r s e rvices to our community. We are intensifying our Project activities in Florida with leade rship trainings in St. Pete rs b u rg and Miami for law sch o o l te a ch e rs to increase their understanding of the legal issues particular to LGBT elders. S ave the Date : Pat Bond Memorial Old Dyke Awa rds: March 28, , Berke l ey, Califo rnia. NCLR and the Pat Bond Committe e a re sponsoring this event honoring old lesbians who have not been appro p ri a te ly recognized for their contributions in the art s and in activism. Ente rtainment by singe r / a c t i v i st Ronni Gilbert. For more info rmation, call (415) , Ext

6 In Memory of Kate Hogan by Michele Granda In March of 2002, I was on vacation in the British Virgin Islands with my partner of twelve years, Kathleen Kate Hogan. While there, Kate and I went kayaking in a bright yell ow, two-seater kayak off the shore of Jost Van Dyke. Tr a g i c a l l y, a 39 foot motorboat came from behind and ran Kate Hogan (l) and Michele Granda directly over our kayak without w a r ning. I was able to get out of the way of the oncoming vessel, but Kate was not as fortunate. Kate was severely injured by the motorboat and died at the hospital a few hours later. S u b s e quent to the accident, I brought a wrongful death action on behalf of Kate s estate and the statutory beneficiaries of her esta t e : K a t e s father and brother. Even though Kate appointed me to be the executrix in her will and our lives had been fully interwoven, emotionally and financi a l l y, during our twelve years together, the l aw apparently did not regard me as a beneficiary of Kate s esta t e and would not consider the fact that Kate was in a committed relationship at the time of her death. As far as the law was concerned, Kate was a 36-year old spinster, and because of that characterization, the value of Kate s life, even to Kate s father, was mi nimal in the eyes of the law. Fo r t u n a t e l y, the National Center for Lesbian Rights came to my rescue. Karen Doering of NCLR worked with my attorneys to assist them in understa n ding the arguments associated with same-sex couples in this context. Thanks to NCLR s groundbreaking work in the Sharon Smith case, NCLR had already blazed a trail in this area, laying the groundwork for a successful claim in Kate s case. With my counsel, Karen attended the mediation we had in Florida with the yachting company that owned and operated the motorboat that killed Kate. Kate s case was satisfactorily resolved at medi a t i o n. Karen was instrumental in getting the yachting company (and my own attorneys) to understand that the case could not be settled without accounting for the fact that Kate had a committed life partn e r. Karen s presence, perhaps even more than her words, calmed me and made me feel that there was at least one person, in addi t i o n to Kate s fami l y, who understood the significance of what we were trying to do. The result we achieved would not have been possible without NCLR s assista n c e. Setting aside the fact that anyone in my position would generally be considered unlucky, I am certainly one of the more lucky ones. Kate had a will. Kate named me as the primary beneficiary of her e s tate. I witnessed the incident and, therefore, had an independent claim to resolve at the mediation. I had an enviable relationship with Kate s family which allowed me to raise the necessary claims and negotiate an acceptable resolution with Kate s fami l y. I found NCLR which helped me achieve a satisfactory and expedient result. I am fortunate that Kate s family and I had a wonderful relationship during Kate s life and that our relationship has only strengthened since her death. Kate s father and brother fully understood the role I played in Kate s life. They knew, for example, that Kate and I were attempting to have a child together and planned to grow old t o g e t h e r. After Kate s death, I worked very closely with Kate s father and brother to assert claims in the wrongful death action that were respectful of Kate s life with me. Though I had the assistance of K a t e s fami l y, the attorneys I retained to assist with the litigation were less convinced of the meritorious claims Kate s family and I wished to assert. By no means is NCLR s work done, how e v e r. I know that there are many similarly situated people who would not have fared so well in my situation. Unfortunately, many persons like me experience firsthand the difficulties that gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender persons encounter when they interact with the American legal system and learn that rights available to all Americans do not necessarily apply to them. I am thankful that NCLR helped me, and I am hopeful that NCLR can continue to do this work so that the task of achieving equal rights becomes less speculative and thus less daunting. Please join me in helping NCLR obtain the necessary funds to c o n t i nue this fight for our commu ni t y. 6 Donor & Client Te s t i m o n i a l s Ye ste rd ay was a histo ric day!! My th a n ks to you and all those fo l ks fighting so dilige n t ly for our rights. It has been a pleasure (and obv i o u s ly well wo rth it) to have supported your organization for all these ye a rs. To d ay I wear my NCLR baseball cap with an ex t ra dose of pride as I shout from th e m o u n tain tops that, as citizens, we have the right to life, l i b e rty and the pursuit of happiness re ga rdless of who we l ove. Keep up the good wo rk. - Margaret Curry and Julie Gill, NCLR Sustainer Fund members for over 15 years, after sodomy laws were reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court When our fa m i ly was th re a tened by homophobic social wo rke rs, NCLR was th e re to help keep us to geth e r. The legal team has continued to wo rk with us to make sure this type of homophobia cannot harm o ther families like ours. We will always be thankful for the support, dedication, and c a re that all the sta ff members demonst ra ted on our behalf. - Derek Peake (l), Ted Uno (former NCLR law clerk), and Nicholas, Javier and Melany Un o - Peake

7 An Invitation to Join the Kathryn Friebe Legacy Circ l e Kathryn Friebe loved her leather boots and had the same style in five colors when she died of cancer at age 81. Born poor, she never recei v e d f i n a n cial help from anyone. Kathryn saved every possible penny, not because she was mi s e r l y, but because she was generous. She was one of N C L R s first major donors and made a long-lasting commitment to NCLR through her estate plan. - Judy Davis (r), who left NCLR a generous bequest, pictured with her partner Andi Po l i s k y Judy supported many women s organizations. NCLR, and Kate s vision, were especially close to her heart, and she wanted to make sure she left you all that message. Andi Po l i s k y In her memory, we are proud to establish the Kathryn Friebe Legacy C i r c l e to recognize and honor people who remember NCLR in thei r e s tate plan. To join, please complete the reply form on the brochure enclosed with this newsletter. NCLR is grateful to the following people who have joined our Legacy Circle, ensuring the strength of NCLR and all the brazen activists who fight on behalf of all lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people. Our fight will not end in this lifetime; your legacy will ensure NCLR s future. Betsy L. Allen Mark Hartman Sina Pierret Bonnie and Julie B e n i t e z Sheryl I. Harris Chris Hawkins Andi Polisky Lynn Riordan - Angela Padilla, Amy Silverstein, & Isabella Beatriz Padilla-Silverstein Margaret Broenniman C o u r t n e y Gregory A. Courtney Kathy Cruz Rhett Currier Margaret A. Dwyer Pam Foy Lynn Gallagher Linda Garber Emily L. Gochis Leslee Hamilton Ruth Herring H. Nona Hungate Burke Keegan Kate Kendell Clarissa C. Kripke Ana Linder Jan Medina Marcia Munson Joyce Nordquist Angela Padilla Janet L. Phillips Ronnie Sandler Bev Scott Maryann R. Simpson Deborah Ann Smith Sue Sponnoble Peg Van Camp Camille Wo j t a s i a k and Kristen Jensen Jan Zobel Barbara S. Zoloth My partner Amy and I have been major donors to NCLR for many years and I was honored to serve on the Board. NCLR has been instrumental in creating a world in which my family can thrive, which is a great gift to us. I will continue to support NCLR for the rest of my life. I also want to provide financial security and continuity to NCLR after I m gone so they can continue their ground-breaking legal work on behalf of all lesbians. I have left NCLR a bequest in my will, and I invite you to join me. Angela Pa d i l l a NC L R National Offi c e 870 Market St re et, Suite 57 0 San Francisco, CA NC L R Regional Offi c e 3708 W. Swann Ave n u e Ta mpa, FL ( 415) [T] ( 415) [F] (800) i n NC L R i g h t s. o rg w w w. NC L R i g h t s. o rg NCLR is a national, lesbian-feminist, non-profit law firm with headquarters in San Fr a n c i s c o and a regional office in Tampa. Our mission is to create a world in which every lesbian can live fully, free from discrimination. Through impact litigation, public policy advocacy, public education, collaboration with other social justice organizations and activists, and direct legal services, we advance the legal and human rights of lesbians, gay men, and bisexual and transgender individuals across the United States. Each year we serve more than 4,000 clients in all fifty states. NCLR prioritizes serving those who historically have been marginalized: lesbians, immigrants, low-income people, lesbians of color, youth, elders, and transgender individuals. To increase our impact, NCLR works in close collaboration with other progressive colleague organizations throughout the country. 7

8 O nt h ed o c k e t The National Center for Lesbian Rights docketpursues the agenda of lesbian civil rights in courts across the nation. Our advice and counseling service, providing free assistance to callers from across the country and technical assistance to attorneys, is a key component of NCLR s litigation program. In addition to litigating impact cases through direct representation and amicus briefs, NCLR joins in briefs on issues of importance to lesbians that are authored by other organizations, and serves as co-counsel with firms at both the trial and appellate levels. Attorneys interested in providing pro bono assistance can contact NCLR Executive Director, Kate Kendell, Esq. R E L AT I O N S H I P R E C O G N I T I O N L a w rence and Garner v. Texas U.S. Supreme Court VICTORY! In a 6-3 decision, the Un i ted Sta tes Supre m e C o u rt held that the Texas Homosex u a l Conduct Law violated the fundamental ri g h t to pri va c y. Passed in 1973, the Texas sta t u te made it a crime for same-sex couples to have s ex, but did not prohibit diffe re n t - s ex couples f rom engaging in the same sexual acts. The Texas sta t u te demeans the lives of homos exual pers o n s, Kennedy wro te. The plaint i ffs are entitled to respect for their pri va te l i ves. The sta te cannot demean their ex i s- tence or control their destiny by making th e i r p ri va te sexual conduct a cri m e, he said. The Court s decision in Law rence reve rses th e C o u rt s 1986 decision in Bowe rs v. Hard w i ck, w h i ch upheld Georg i a s sodomy sta t u te and a p p e a red to place the imp rimatur of th e C o u rt on millennia of anti-gay bias and disc rimination. Ac c o rding to the maj o rity opinion, Bowe rs rationale does not with sta n d c a reful analys i s.... B owe rs was not corre c t when it was decided, and it is not corre c t to d ay. It ought not to remain binding pre c e- dent. Bowe rs v. Hard w i ck should be and now is ove rru l e d. Lambda Legal re p re s e n ted the plaintiffs in the case. NCLR joined an amicus brief with a number of other civil rights groups supporting Lambda s position in the case. To re a d the brief NCLR joined, see h t t p : / / w w w. h rc. o rg / p u b l i c a t i o n s / e u / l ette rs / l aw re n c e _ b rief.pdf. -Amicus brief joined Smith v. Knoller et al VICTORY! Settlement reached with landlord, trial pending against dog owners NCLR is co-counsel for Sharon Smith, the surviving partner of Diane Whipple. Diane wa s t ra g i c a l ly killed on January 26, 2001 as a result of a bru tal atta ck by neighbors dogs. S m i th is also re p re s e n ted by Michael Card o z a and Ro b e rt Lazo and the law fi rm of Heller E h rman White & McAu l i ffe LLP. On Au g u st 9, 2001, San Francisco Superi o r C o u rt Judge A. James Ro b e rtson II held th a t S h a ron Smith can bring a lawsuit for th e w rongful death of her part n e r, Diane Alex i s Whipple. This ruling marks the fi rst time a c o u rt anywhere in the country has held th a t excluding all same-sex part n e rs from the ri g h t to bring a wrongful death suit violates th e c o n stitutional principle of equal pro te c t i o n. The dog ow n e rs, Marj o rie Knoller and Ro b e rt Noel, also faced criminal ch a rges and are curre n t ly serving sentences for invo l u n ta ry m a n s l a u g h te r. In November 2002, Sharo n re a ched a confidential settlement with th e building ow n e rs. Her lawsuit aga i n st the dog ow n e rs is still pending and has been continued until th ey are released from prison. Sheila Ortiz-Taylor and Joy Lewis v. We s t m i n s t e r Oaks Retire m e n t Community Florida Writ pending In March 2003, NCLR filed discri m i n a t i o n ch a rges aga i n st We st m i n ster Oaks Ret i re m e n t Community on behalf of Tallahassee re s i d e n t s Sheila Ort i z -Taylor and her life - p a rtner Joy L ewis. Sheila and Joy we re denied admission because th ey are a same-sex couple. They fi rst applied for residency at We st m i n ste r O a ks in June We st m i n ster Oaks denied their application, based on their policy of not p e rmitting unmarried, non-re l a ted couples to l i ve to gether in the fa c i l i t y. After re a p p ly i n g in 2003, Lewis and Ort i z -Taylor we re aga i n denied. After ex h a u sting all other ave n u e s, th ey filed discrimination ch a rges aga i n st th e ret i rement community, alleging discri m i n a- tion on the basis of sex, mari tal status and s exual ori e n tation. NCLR clients Sheila Ort i z -Taylor and Joy Lew i s w i th gra n d d a u g h te r On July 14, 2003, the Leon County Fa i r Housing Ad m i n i st ra tor dete rmined th a t We st m i n ster Oaks policy of prohibiting all n o n - m a rried, non-re l a ted people from living to gether (which by definition precludes all s a m e - s ex couples from living to gether), does not discri m i n a te on the basis of sexual ori e n- tation, mari tal status or sex and thus does not violate the County s Fair Housing Code. NCLR is appealing this decision. 8

9 Koebke v. B e rn a rd o Heights Country Club B. Birgit Ko e b ke and Kendall E. Fre n ch are a lesbian couple who have been domestic partn e rs for eleven ye a rs. Ko e b ke joined th e B e rn a rdo Heights Country Club in A l though she paid the same members h i p p rice for a fa m i ly membership as hete ro s ex u- al members of the Club, the Club refused to p rovide her partner with the same benefits it g i ves to the part n e rs of married hete ro s ex u a l m e m b e rs. On behalf of Ko e b ke and Fre n ch, Lambda L e gal sued the Bern a rdo Heights Country Club for refusing to provide them with th e same membership benefits given to diffe r- e n t - s ex couples, and for allowing oth e r m e m b e rs to harass and insult them for being a same-sex couple. NCLR filed an amicus brief in the case, along w i th the Wo m e n s Sports Foundation and th e C a l i fo rnia Wo m e n s Law Cente r, discussing the long and continuing histo ry of discri m i- nation aga i n st women by golf courses, and the political, pro fessional, and business p ower that deri ves from golf course membership. To read the NCLR brief, see h t t p : / / w w w. n c l ri g h t s. o rg / c a s e s / p d f / Ko e b ke A m i c u s. p d f -Amicus brief fi l e d Kantaras v. Kantaras Florida On Fe b ru a ry 23, 2003, Ta mpa Circuit Court J u d ge Gera rd O Brien issued a gro u n d b re a k- ing ruling in which he held Michael Ka n ta ra s, a tra n s s exual man, was lega l ly married to his fo rmer wife and is the legal fa ther of th e c o u p l e s two ch i l d ren. This decision has now been appealed by Linda Ka n ta ras, Mich a e l s fo rmer wife. This highly publicized divo rce and custo d y case was one of the fi rst in the country to d ete rmine whether a tra n s gender man has the right to marry and be a parent. Mich a e l Ka n ta ras was born female. He comp l ete d s ex - reassignment in and married Linda Ka n ta ras two ye a rs late r. During their nineyear marri a ge, Michael and Linda raised two ch i l d ren to geth e r. The ch i l d ren are now 11 and 13 ye a rs old. Linda was awa re th a t M i chael is tra n s s exual befo re she marri e d him. During the divo rce proceeding, howeve r, Linda ch a n ged her position and asked th e c o u rt to inva l i d a te their marri a ge and to deny Michael any pare n tal rights solely because he is a tra n s s exual person. Collin Vause, a fa m i ly law atto rn ey in Clearwa te r, is co-counsel on the case. M a s h b u rn v. Tampa Fire & Police Pension Fund et al Florida Writ pending On July 6, 2001, Ta mpa police officer Lois M a rre ro became the fi rst female police officer killed in the line of duty on the Ta mp a police fo rce. She had been a police office fo r 19 ye a rs. Lois was surv i ved by her partner of 11 ye a rs, Mickie Mashburn. In Au g u st, M i ckie was denied Lois s pension, which a m o u n ted to seve ral hundred thousand doll a rs. If Mickie and Lois had been able to m a rry, Mickie auto m a t i c a l ly would have re c e i ved the pension as a surviving spouse. NCLR is re p resenting Mickie in her laws u i t challenging the pension board s decision to deny her Lois s pension. W h i t m i re v. Arizona Ninth Circuit VICTORY! NCLR and Martha Matth ews of the ACLU of S o u th e rn Califo rnia re p re s e n ted Ka rl W h i t m i re in his ch a l l e n ge to an Ari z o n a D e p a rtment of Corrections policy pro h i b i t i n g people of the same sex (other than immedia te re l a t i ves) from embracing and kissing d u ring visiting hours at the fa c i l i t y. The p rison argued that the policy was necessary to pro tect inmates who, th ey claimed, wo u l d be in physical danger if th ey we re seen hugging someone of the same sex. The Ninth C i rcuit re j e c ted the Depart m e n t s arg u m e n t. In a decision issued on Au g u st 12, 2002, th e N i n th Circuit held that that the policy lacke d any commonsense rationale, especially in th e case of pri s o n e rs who are already openly gay and thus whose sexual ori e n tation is alre a d y k n own. The ACLU of Arizona re a ched a favo r- able settlement on re m a n d. M A R R I A G E Goodridge v. D e p t. o f Health Massachusetts G ay and Lesbian Ad vo c a tes and Defe n d e rs ( G LAD) re p resent seven same-sex couples who are seeking the right to marry in M a s s a ch u s etts. A sta te Superior Court judge ruled aga i n st the plaintiffs in May 2002, w h i ch pro mpted GLAD to appeal to th e M a s s a ch u s etts Supreme Judicial Court. The case was heard by the Court this spring, and will like ly be decided in the fall of NCLR joined an amicus brief supporting th e c o u p l e s right to marry. -Amicus brief joined In re Marriage of Simmons Illinois NCLR is re p resenting Ste rling Simmons, a t ra n s gender fa ther in Chicago, in a marri a ge and custody case. Ste rling and his fo rm e r w i fe married in 1985 and had a child to gether in 1992 th rough alte rn a t i ve insemination. When Ste rling filed for divo rce in 1998, his w i fe counte r- p etitioned to have their marri a ge declared void and to te rm i n a te Ste rl i n g s pare n tal rights. In April 2003, th e t rial court gra n ted her petition, ruling th a t Ste rling is not lega l ly male, was not lega l ly m a rried, and is not a legal parent. Ste rling is appealing the decision to the Illinois A p p e l l a te Court. NCLR is re p re s e n t i n g Ste rling on appeal, to gether with th e Chicago fi rm of Lehrer and Redleaf. Chicago fa m i ly law atto rn ey Rich a rd Wilson is also p roviding assistance on the case. 9

10 1 0 PA R E N T I N G S h a ron S. v. S u p e r i o r Court of San Diego County VICTORY! In a resounding endorsement of second-parent adoptions, six of the seven Califo rn i a S u p reme Court Justices reve rsed a decision of the Califo rnia Court of Appeal from Octo b e r , which had cre a ted shock wave s th roughout the country by holding that th e C a l i fo rnia adoption sta t u tes do not perm i t s e c o n d - p a rent adoptions. The case began when Sharo n s part n e r, A n n et te, filed a petition for second-pare n t a d o ption of their yo u n ge st son. The part i e s b ro ke up short ly befo re the adoption wa s finalized, and Sharon atte mpted to get th e c o u rt to dismiss the adoption petition. When the court refused, Sharon appealed to th e C a l i fo rnia Court of Appeal. On appeal, Sharo n a rgued not only that this particular adopt i o n should not be gra n ted, but that the court should rule that all second-parent adopt i o n s a re invalid. Un fo rt u n a te ly, the Court of Appeal agreed and decided not only th a t A n n et te could not proceed with her pet i t i o n, but also that second-parent adoptions ge n e r- a l ly are not valid in Califo rnia. On appeal, in a 6-1 decision, the Califo rn i a S u p reme Court reve rsed this decision. Writing for the maj o ri t y, Justice We rd e ga r held that second-parent adoptions offer th e possibility of obtaining the security and a d va n ta ges of two parents for some of C a l i fo rn i a s neediest ch i l d re n. Just i c e We rd e gar also st ressed the imp o rtance of p roviding legal pro tections and stability fo r ch i l d ren born to same-sex and other unmarried couples: Un m a rried couples who have b rought a child into the wo rld with th e ex p e c tation that th ey will raise it to geth e r, and who have jointly petitioned for adopt i o n, should be on notice that if th ey separa te th e same rules concerning custody and visita t i o n as apply to all other parents will apply to th e m. A n n et te was re p re s e n ted on appeal by C h a rles Bird. NCLR filed an amicus brief in the case, and coord i n a ted the filing of amicus b ri e fs by other gro u p s. -Amicus brief filed S h a ron S. v. S u p e r i o r Court II This action arises out of the same fa c t s d e s c ribed in the second-parent adoption case a b ove. While the second-parent adopt i o n case was pending befo re the Califo rn i a S u p reme Court, the trial court, during a hearing on visitation, held that Annet te F., th e ch i l d s non-biological parent, is a pre s u m e d p a rent under the Califo rnia Un i fo rm Pa re n ta ge Act, without the need for an adoption. Sharon S. has appealed this ruling, and the case is curre n t ly pending befo re th e C a l i fo rnia Court of Appeal. NCLR is re p resenting Annet te F. in this appeal. M c G r i ff v. M c G r i ff Idaho NCLR is re p resenting Theron McGri ff, a gay fa ther in Idaho who lost joint legal and physical custody of his two ch i l d ren because of his sexual ori e n tation. Prior to the divo rc e, T h e ron was the pri m a ry careta ker of the two ch i l d ren. After the divo rce, which was initia ted by Thero n s ex - w i fe, the parties agre e d to share custody of the ch i l d ren. This a rra n gement continued until Theron became i nvo lved with a male part n e r, at which point his fo rmer wife petitioned for and re c e i ve d sole custody based solely on her arg u m e n t that the ch i l d ren would be harmed by living w i th a gay fa th e r. To add insult to injury, th e t rial court also held that Theron can only h ave visitation with his ch i l d ren if he does not live with his part n e r. The Idaho Supre m e C o u rt has agreed to rev i ew the decision, w h i ch is ex p e c ted to be heard this fall. In the meantime, the same trial court judge who issued the custody and visitation decision has ord e red Theron to pay all of his w i fe s atto rn ey fees on the appeal. For more i n fo rmation on the case, see www. i d a h o- d a d. o rg. Butler v. Harris The issue in this case is whether Califo rn i a s gra n d p a rent visitation sta t u te unconst i t u- t i o n a l ly infri n ges on the rights of pare n t s. NCLR filed an amicus brief with the ACLU of S o u th e rn Califo rnia, the ACLU of San Diego, L e gal Services for Children, and Pro fe s s o r Joan Hollinger urging the Califo rnia Supre m e C o u rt to ta ke same-sex parent families into c o n s i d e ration when deciding the const i t u- tionality of the Califo rnia gra n d p a rent visitation sta t u te. -Amicus brief filed Kristine H. v. Lisa R. K ri stine H. and Lisa R. decided to have a ch i l d to gether using alte rn a t i ve insemination. P rior to the ch i l d s birth, in September 2002, the birth mother asked a court to hold th a t b o th moth e rs we re legal parents under th e C a l i fo rnia Un i fo rm Pa re n ta ge Act. The court gra n ted her re qu e st and issued a judgment d e c l a ring both women to be the ch i l d s lega l p a rents. After the ch i l d s birth, both wo m e n raised her to geth e r. Two and a half ye a rs l a te r, after the couple separa ted, the birth m o ther filed a lawsuit asking the trial court to va c a te its prior judgment, which wo u l d mean that the other mother was not a lega l p a rent. The trial court refused to do so, and the birth mother appealed. NCLR filed an amicus brief on behalf of the non-biological m o th e r, arguing that she is a legal parent. -Amicus brief fi l e d Fritz v. SSA VICTORY! in both proceedings NCLR re p re s e n ted a lesbian mother whose child was denied social security benefits afte r the death of the ch i l d s other parent, th e m o th e r s part n e r. Prior to the second pare n t s death, a court held that the deceased p a rtner was a legal parent under th e C a l i fo rnia Un i fo rm Pa re n ta ge Act. In a shocking display of homophobia and insensitivity to this gri eving fa m i ly, the Social Securi t y

11 Ad m i n i st ration refused to honor the court s judgment based on the homophobic arg u- ment that a child cannot have two legal parents of the same ge n d e r. The Social Securi t y Ad m i n i st ration took this position despite th e fact that fe d e ral law re qu i res th e Ad m i n i st ration to defer to sta te law with re ga rd to who is a legal parent. Fo rt u n a te ly, a fter a hearing befo re an Ad m i n i st ra t i ve Law J u d ge, the administ ration corre c ted its erro r and awa rded the child surv i vor benefits. In a separa te action, the deceased wo m a n s p a rents filed for visitation and custody of th e wo m a n s biological child despite the fact th a t the parents had cut off all contact with th e i r d a u g h ter fo u rteen ye a rs ago and had neve r m et their gra n d ch i l d ren. In January 2003, the trial court dismissed all of the gra n d p a r- e n t s claims and ord e red them to pay the surviving moth e r s atto rn ey fees. YO U T H A s h ly Massey and her mother Amelia re c e i ve d NC L R s Justice Awa rd Massey v. Banning Unified School District Intermediate victory! NCLR and Martha Matth ews of the ACLU of S o u th e rn Califo rnia are curre n t ly re p re s e n t- ing Ashly Massey, a lesbian student who wa s b a rred from gym class after her gym te a ch e r l e a rned of her sexual ori e n tation. In December 2002, Ashly filed suit in fe d e ra l c o u rt aga i n st the dist rict as well as individual school officials for their conduct, alleging violation of the Equal Pro tection Clause, as well as va rious sta te claims including violation of Califo rnia Student Safety and Violence Prevention Act of 2000 (AB 537). In an early atte mpt to get the case dismissed, the dist rict claimed it did not know that prohibiting Ashly from attending class was illegal. On March 31, 2003, fe d e ral dist rict judge Au d rey Collins re s o u n d i n gly re j e c ted this argument, ch a ra c te rizing it as d i s i n ge n u o u s, and entire ly misguided, and held that the law has been clearly esta b- lished for seve ral ye a rs that discri m i n a t i o n on the basis of sexual ori e n tation gives ri s e to an Equal Pro tection claim. The case is n ow proceeding towa rds trial. - NCLR case F l o res v. Morgan Hill Unified School District Ninth Circuit VICTORY! In a gro u n d b reaking ruling in April 2003 f rom the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, th e C o u rt made clear that school officials have a duty and responsibility to pro tect st u d e n t s f rom anti-gay harassment and abuse. This case was brought by NCLR, the ACLU of No rth e rn Califo rnia, and cooperating atto r- n eys Diane Ritchie, Leslie Lev y, and Jim E m e ry of the law fi rm of Ke ker & Van Ne st, LLP on behalf of six fo rmer students aga i n st the Morgan Hill Un i fied School Dist ri c t (MHUSD) in fe d e ral dist rict court in San Jose, Califo rnia. For ye a rs, each of the plaint i ffs was subjected to a daily barra ge of anti- LGBT epith ets, slurs, dero ga to ry sexual comments, th reats of physical violence and/or actual physical assaults because of their ge n- der and real or perc e i ved sexual ori e n ta t i o n. The lawsuit is seeking to hold MHUSD liable for its indiffe rence to this harassment and its fa i l u re to ta ke any meaningful re m e d i a l action to pro tect these students or to prov i d e them with an equal educational opport u n i t y. In April 2003, in a tremendous victo ry fo r LGBT students across the country, the fe d e ra l a p p e l l a te court for the we ste rn sta tes (th e N i n th Circuit Court) issued a histo ric decision holding that school officials violate st u- d e n t s fe d e ral constitution right to Equ a l P ro tection when th ey fail to pro tect st u d e n t s f rom anti-gay harassment. The case now p roceeds to tri a l. Youngblood v. S c h o o l B o a rd of Hillsboro u g h County et al Florida NCLR is re p resenting Robinson High Sch o o l Senior Nikki Youngblood in a fe d e ral laws u i t a ga i n st a Florida school dist rict for re qu i ri n g all female students to wear an ultra - fe m i n i n e scoop neck drape for their senior port ra i t s, while allowing male students to wear a jacket and tie. Nikki and her mother info rm e d s chool officials that Nikki did not feel comfo rtable we a ring ste re o t y p i c a l ly fe m i n i n e a t t i re and re qu e sted that Nikki be exe mpte d f rom we a ring a drape. The school refused to honor her re qu e st. As a result, Nikki s pict u re did not appear in the High School ye a r- book alongside those of her classmates. The suit alleges violations of sta te and fe d e ra l c o n stitutional provisions and sex discri m i n a- tion laws. The case is on appeal to th e E l eve n th Circuit. Citizens for Pa re n t a l Rights v. Novato Unified School District INITIAL VICTORIES! Case pending In December 2001, seve ral parents sued th e Nova to school dist rict for presenting an age - a p p ro p ri a te anti-bias production entitled Cootie Shots: Theatrical Inoculations Aga i n st Bigotry. The pre s e n tation included skits illust rating the hurtful effects of namecalling and st ra tegies for coping with into l e r- ance in a school setting. The parents claimed that showing the production violated th e i r religious rights. In June 2003, NCLR and the ACLU inte rve n e d in the lawsuit on behalf of Fri n ge Benefi t s, the th e a t re company that produced the program, and Un i ted for Safe Schools Nova to, a local coalition of parents, students and organizations concerned with equ a l i t y. These groups are inte rvening in the lawsuit to help the school dist rict defend its right to educ a te ch i l d ren about the values of dive rs i t y and acceptance. 1 1

12 S P O RT S Z i m b a rdi v. University of Florida Florida New case NCLR is providing assistance to Un i ve rsity of F l o rida NCAA Division I senior softball co-captain, Andrea Zimbardi. In the spring of 2003, A n d rea was te rm i n a ted from the team afte r ex p ressing concerns about homophobic sta tements made to her and other playe rs on the team by one of the coaches. Andrea is a S o u th e a ste rn Confe rence honor roll st u d e n t and, according to te a m m a tes, an inspirational ath l ete. - NCLR case A n d rea Zimbardi, Senior softball co-capta i n, NCAA Division 1, Un i ve rsity of Florida E M P L OY M E N T Coyne v. B e l - A i re I n v e s t m e n t s, I n c. a n d Donald F. W i n t e r, S r. Florida New case NCLR joins cooperating atto rn eys Ke n d ra P re s s wood and Marga ret Laney in re p re s e n t- ing Peter Coyne in a sexual harassment suit a ga i n st his fo rmer emp l oye r. Peter allege s that Don Wi n te r, the President and owner of B e l -A i re inve stments, began groping and to u ching Peter in a sex u a l ly offe n s i ve way s h o rt ly after he began wo rking th e re. T h roughout Pete r s 14 months of emp l oyment, Wi n ter bullied, manipulated, and denigra ted Peter and subjected him to continued s exual harassment, including th re a tening to fi re Peter if he refused Wi n te r s sex u a l demands. When Peter fi n a l ly did refuse any f u rther sexual contact, he was const ru c t i ve ly d i s ch a rged and then harassed and sta l ked by Wi n te rs. Peter is seeking damages to comp e n s a te him for the lost wa ges and seve re m e n tal anguish and emotional dist ress he s u ffe red as a result of Wi n te r s unre l e n t i n g h a ra s s m e n t. - NCLR case Hawai i Civil Rights Commission v. R G I S Inventory Specialist Hawai i In response to a re qu e st from the Exe c u t i ve D i re c tor of the Hawai i Civil Rights Commission, the Hawai i Civil Rights Commission issued a decision stating th a t the Commission has the power to inve st i ga te claims of emp l oyment discrimination filed by t ra n s gender people to dete rmine if sex u a l ste reotyping and other fo rms of sex discri m i- nation have occurre d. On appeal, th e H awai i circuit court reve rsed th e C o m m i s s i o n s ord e r. The case is now on appeal to the Hawai i Supreme Court. NCLR is seeking to file an amicus brief, along w i th the Human Rights Campaign and Gay and Lesbian Ad vo c a tes and Defe n d e rs, arg u- ing that tra n s gender people are pro te c te d under the Hawai i sta t u tes prohibiting sex d i s c rimination in emp l oyment. -Amicus brief fi l e d For updates on NCLR s docket please visit our Web site: w w w. N C L R i g h t s. o r g For free assistance in English and Spanish, call us at: (415) or (800) M a t r i m o n i o en Canadá ( c o n t. ) Hay otros países que permi tan que las parejas homosexuales se casen? Sí. Los Países Bajos y Bélgica ta m b i é n p e r miten que las parejas homosexuales se casen; sin embargo, ambos países tienen r e quisitos estrictos para establecer la resid e n cia. En los Países Bajos, solamente las parejas en las cuales uno o una de ellos es un ciudadano de este país o en las cuáles ambas personas residen en los Países Bajos se pueden casar. En Bélgica, solamente las parejas que viven en una jurisdi c ci ó n que también permi ta el matrimoni o homosexual se pueden casar. Hay estados en los Estados Unidos que p e r miten que las parejas homosexuales se casen? No, aunque hay juicios en los cuales varias parejas del mismo sexo se han unido para l e v a n tar una queja contra el estado y buscar el derecho de casarse. Estos casos e s tan pendientes en Massachusetts y en New Jersey. Para más información sobre estos juicios, vea y w w w.lambdalegal.org. Para más información sobre ganar la libertad para casarse, vea www. f r e e d o m t o m a r r y. o r g. Qué tenemos que hacer para casarnos en Canadá? Para casarse en Canadá, tendrás qu e obtener una licencia de matrimoni o, localizar a una persona autorizada para realizar la ceremonia, y tener dos testigos presente durante la ceremonia. No se r e quiere ninguna prueba médica. Pa r a más información sobre los pasos prácticos implicados en casarse en Canadá, vea w w w. g o v. o n. c a / M B S / e n g l i s h / m y o n ta r i- oweb/married.html o w w w. i n f o ni a g a r a. c o m / s e r v i c e s / w e d di n g s / f a l l s v i e w / f a q. h t m l # h ow Si mi pareja y yo nos casamos en Canadá, nuestra unión sera válida en los E s tados Unidos? Sí, su unión será válida; sin embargo, las leyes di s c r i minatorias de los Esta d o s U nidos aún aplicarían. Algunos estados y gobiernos locales reconocerán su uni ó n, por lo menos para algunos propósitos. Otros no. Lo mismo pasa en las empresas 1 2

13 privadas y los negocios. Además, en 1996, el congreso decretó una ley que indicaba que para todo el propósito federal, el término "matrimonio" significa solamente una unión entre un hombre y una mu j e r. Debido a esta ley, el gobierno federal rechazará casi ci e r tamente su unión. INS) no honrará su matrimonio a su pareja. Por consiguiente, si tu pareja está aquí con una visa de no-inmigrante, el BCIS puede utilizar el hecho de haberse casado en Canadá para deportarla, ya que esto les demostraria que ella no tiene intención de regresar a su país de orígen. En términos prácticos, esto significa que a plazo corto, las parejas del mismo sexo que se casan en Canadá y regresen a los Esta d o s U nidos enfrentarán muchas preguntas legales e incertidumbres. Puede ser que usted y su pareja sean tratados como casados por algunas entidades gubernamentales y como solteros por otros, creando otros problemas. El casarse es una decisión profundamente personal. Las parejas pueden elegir casarse o no casarse por muchas razones di v e r s a s. Si su razón por casarse en Canadá es ganar los protecci o n e s legales en los Estados Unidos, usted debe estar enterado que su u nión no será reconocida completamente aquí y muy probablemente no será reconocida por el gobierno federal. Si mi pareja y yo nos casamos en Canadá y más ta r d e deseamos separarnos, cómo obtenemos un divorcio legal? Si vives en un estado que honre tu matrim o nio, también podrías solici tar el di v o r ci o en ese estado. Si vives en un estado que no reconoce tu matrimonio, es dudoso qu e puedas obtener un di v o r cio. Para obtener un di v o r cio en Canadá, por lo menos una de las personas en la relación debe residi r allí por un año antes de que una corte C a n a diense tenga jurisdi c ción para conceder el di v o r cio. (Por otro lado, nota que no tienes que residir en Canadá para casarte allí.) Muchos estados tienen requisitos similares sobre la residencia para otorgar el di v o r cio. Por lo tanto, aunque puedas identificar un e s tado de los Estados Unidos que les otorgue el di v o r cio a las parejas homosexuales, tendrías qu e moverte a ese estado para ser elegible para solici tar el di v o r ci o allí. Esto puede ser una imposibilidad práctica para mu c h a s parejas. Para resumir, algunas de las parejas que se casen en Canadá podrian encontrarse en una situación donde les sería imposible obtener un di v o r cio legal. Esto significa que aunqu e usted se separára de su pareja, su matrimonio seguiró siendo válido y usted continuará teniendo ciertos derechos legales y responsabilidades con respecto a cada uno de ustedes. Esta di f i c u l ta d es otra razón por la que les recomendamos pensar muy cuidadosamente la situacion antes de viajar a Canadá para casarse. Mi pareja es de otro país. Si nos casamos en Canadá esto p e r mitirá que ella permanezca en los Estados Uni d o s? No, y dependiendo de sus ci r c u n s ta n cias, el casamiento en Canadá aún puede conducir a la deporta ción de su pareja de los E s tados Unidos. Bajo la ley federal llamada la "Defensa del Acto del Matrimonio," el gobierno de los Estados Unidos no reconocera matrimonios entre parejas del mismo sexo, no importa dónde se decretan. Debido a esta ley, la oficina de los Servici o s de Ciudadanía e Inmi g r a ción (BCIS, conocida antes como el Alex Morris (center) with his lesbian moms Paul Morris and Cory Po h l e y, together 16 years and gay dads Tony Humber and H a rvey Ya w, together 23 years, all of whom are advocates for marriage. El matrimonio es especialmente peligroso para las parejas bin a cionales del mismo sexo. Antes de tomar cualquier deci s i ó n sobre el matrimonio, consulta a un abogado competente qu e tenga experiencia en casos de inmi g r a ción, que esté bien informado sobre las reglas que afectan a personas LGBT (lesbiana, gay, bisexual, y transgenero) y que les dé atencion personal sobre su s i t u a ción. Para más información sobre esto y otros temas relacionados a la inmi g r a cion, vea y w w w. l o v e s e e s n o b o r d e r s. o r g. Mi empresa reconozerá mi matrimoni o? Algunos empresas si; otras no. Si mi empresa rechaza honrar mi matrimoni o, tengo recurso legal? D e p e n diendo del lugar donde vive, usted puede tener ci e r ta base j u r í dica para obligar a su empresa que le trate igualmente como a los otros empleados casados. No importando el lugar donde usted vive, es casi siempre mejor agotar cada remedio posible antes de presentar un pleito contra su empresa. El litigio es costoso, estresante, lleva mucho tiempo, y frecuentemente no asegura los resultados deseados. Antes de ir por esta ruta, considere otras o p ciones, como hablar con su empresa, unirse con otros empleados para educar a la empresa, o trabajar con su unión de empleados para negociar el r e c o n o ci miento de igualdad de subsidios para todos los empleados, sin importar estado civil u o r i e n ta ción sexual. Si usted encuentra problemas con su empresa y quisiera nuestra ayuda, contactenos por favor, al o info@nclrights.org. Para más información sobre temas del lugar de trabajo, vea www. p r i d e a t w o r k. o r g. Si mi pareja y yo nos casamos en Canadá, somos requeridos p r e s e n tar impuestos juntos, federales y del estado? La respuesta verdadera a esta pregunta es que nadie sabe. Mientras que hay muchas incertidumbres legales para las parejas del mi s m o sexo que se casan en Canadá, cómo ocuparse de impuestos es probablemente el área de más incertidumbre. Por un lado, las parejas casadas deben legalmente pagar impuestos como una pareja casada: si usted está casado, presentar sus impuestos como soltero es ilegal. Por otra parte, la ley federal actual prohíbe el gobierno federal de respetar la validez de matrimonios entre las personas del mismo género. Además, muchos estados requieren qu e usted utilice la misma clasificación de estado civil para sus impuestos del estado que usted utiliza para sus impuestos federales. E s ta situación crea una situación donde nadie gana para las parejas del mismo sexo que se casan en Canadá. Desde una perspectiva legal, no hay respuesta clara a este di l e m a. Algunos expertos legales están recomendando que las pare- (Continued on page 14) 13

14 Matrimonio en Canadá ( c o n t. ) jas del mismo sexo que se casan en Canadá presentan como solteros (o, cuando sea apropiado, como cabeza de familia), pero que indican que estan casados a una persona del mismo sexo por m e dio de una carta de cubierta. Otros están recomendando qu e las parejas del mismo sexo presenten dos tipos de impuestos (uno como dos solteros, y otro como una pareja casada), pagar la qu e sea más alta (para evitar penas de impuesto), e incluir una carta de cubierta explicando que ustedes son una pareja casada del mismo-sexo, y estan procurando cumplir con todas las leyes federales aplicables. Otros están recomendando que parejas casadas del mismo sexo presenten como solteros pero mandar una carta de cubierta indicando que se casaron en Canadá, y después pres e n tar para un reembolso (si es apropiado), a causa de que están casados y deben ser tratadas como casados - reconociendo, sin embargo, que no es probable que el gobierno federal acepta r á este argumento. En cualquier plan de acción que usted tome, habrá un cierto riesgo legal. Antes de tomar una decisión sobre e s ta cuestion, usted debe consultar con un abogado de los impuestos o con un contable si usted puede permitirse hacerlo. Si mi pareja y yo nos casamos en Canadá y después tenemos niños, nosotros dos seremos padres legales? La respuesta depende en si usted vive en un estado que respete la validez de su matrimonio. Si es así, entonces ambos de ustedes son considerados los padres legales bajo las leyes de la mayoría de los estados. Au n que si ése es el caso, sin embargo, usted SIEM- PRE debe consultar con un abogado de la ley de la familia en su e s tado y conseguir un decreto de corte indicando que ustedes dos son los padres legales. Si usted no vive en un estado que respete la validez de su matrimonio, o si esta pregunta no está clara en su estado, usted no debería confiar en su matrimonio para asegurar los derechos parentales. El curso más seguro - sin importar si están casados o no - es consultar a un abogado con experienci a en la ley de la familia en su estado, y tomar todas las medi d a s necesarias para dar a ambos padres lo máximo de las protecciones legales. Para más información sobre las leyes que afecta n a padres LGBT en su estado, contacte NCLR en o i n f n c l r i g h t s. o r g. Si mi pareja y yo nos casamos en Canadá, deberíamos describirnos como casados en las solicitudes para empleo, el seguro médico, el seguro de coche, el crédito, las hipotecas, etc.? Sí, por supuesto. Estan casados legalmente, y ustedes deberían describirse así. Pero deben estar enterados de que todavía existen leyes y prácticas di s c r i minatorias en todas estas áreas. Así, la realidad de que están casados legalmente no necesariamente les garantizará que las empresas, los aseguradores, las compañías de c r é dito, las compañías de hipoteca, etc. les otorgaran los derechos de una pareja casada. Si usted encuentra problemas en e s tas áreas, contacte a NCLR u otra organi z a ción legal LGBT para consejo. Si mi pareja y yo nos casamos en Canadá, afectará mi elegibilidad para obtener subsidios públicos o para pension de un m a t r i m o nio previo? Sí. Si estan casados legalmente, es probable que la renta de su pareja sea considerado en calcular si usted tiene derecho a subs i dios públicos. Esto puede ser verdad aun si su matrimonio no e s ta respetado por otros usos. Y también es probable que usted no tendrá derecho a pension de un matrimonio previo. Cómo puedo averiguar si mi ciudad o estado honrará mi m a t r i m o ni o? Desafortunadamente, no hay manera simple de estar seguro de cuales ciudades y estados honrarán su matrimonio y cuales no. Además, algunas jurisdi c ciones talvez honraran su matrimoni o para algunos usos, pero no para otros. Hablando generalmente, las localidades y los estados con leyes y políticas homophobicos son menos probables a respetar su matrimonio, y viceversa. Pa r a más información sobre las leyes que afectan parejas del mi s m o sexo en ciudades y estados específicos, contacte NCLR en o info@nclrights.org. Si mi pareja y yo nos casamos en Canadá, debemos ta m b i é n tomar otras medidas para protegernos? Sí. Aún si usted y su pareja estan casados, deberían crear una red de seguridad para ejecutar documentos adi cionales que les protegerán lo máximo posible, en caso de que su matrimonio sea cuestionado o no sea respetado. Por lo menos, ustedes deben tener un testamento, poderes de abogado para el cuidado médico y las finanzas, y un acuerdo de asoci a cion. Para más información, consulte las CUERDAS DE SALVAMENTO: DOCU- MENTOS PARA PROTEGERLES A USTED Y SU FA M I L I A EN ÉPOCAS DE PROBLEMAS, la nueva publicación de NCLR que tiene los documentos de la protección de la asoci a- cion, di s p o nibles en www. n c l r i g h t s. o r g. Cuando es posible, las parejas con niños deberían ta m b i é n obtener adopciones o decretos de corte de familia. Cuando esta s cosas no están di s p o nibles, las parejas deben consultar con un abogado de la ley de la familia para proteger a ambos padres lo máximo posible bajo las leyes de su estado. Para más información sobre leyes de adopción y familia en su estado, contacte a NCLR en o info@nclrights.org. Si mi pareja y yo nos casamos en Canadá y después encontremos discriminación en los Estados Unidos, qué deberiamos hacer? Es casi cierto que las parejas del mismo sexo que se casan en Canadá y regresan a los Estados Unidos encontraran por lo menos un poco de di s c r i mi n a ción en las empresas, negocios, o entidades gobernamentales. Usted puede protegerse en ci e r t o grado al estar preparado a educar, abogar, y trabajar con otros en su comu nidad para cambiar políticas y prácticas di s c r i mi n a t o r i a s. En la mayoría de los casos, presentar un pleito no es la estrategia más eficaz, ni para proteger a su familia, ni para cambiar la ley. Para obtener materiales de educación, ideas sobre la igualdad de m a t r i m o nio, y consejos sobre cómo abogar por usted mi s m o, c o n tacte a su grupo esta tal LGBT o uno de los grupos n a cionales de la defensa, tales como Libertad a Casar (www. f r e e- d o m t o m a r r y.org), La Campaña por Los Derechos Humanos ( w w w.hrc.org), el Nacional Destacamento Especial de Gays y Lesbianas ( o NCLR ( Si usted está considerando presentar un pleito, contacte a NCLR ( w w w.nclrights.org) o otro grupo legal LGBT para ayuda. 1 4

15 NCLR: Changing Laws, Changing Po l i c i e s ( c o n t. ) Title IX: On July 11, 2003 the Department of Education issued a statement reaffirming the current Title IX regulations and guidance on athletic policies, and strongly reaffirmed its commitment to equal opportunities for girls and boys, men and women. This move follows attacks on Title IX athletics polici e s, as the Department of Education considered weakening these protections. NCLR worked in collaboration with leading women's and sports organi z a- tions to oppose proposed changes that would have gutted Title IX. Marriage in Canada ( c o n t. ) How can I find out whether my city or state will honor my marriage? U n f o r t u n a t e l y, there is no simple way to be sure which cities and states will honor your marriage and which will not. In addition, some jurisdi c t i o n s may honor your marriage for some purposes, but not for others. Generally speaking, localities and states with homophobic laws and policies are less likely to respect your marriage, and vice-versa. For more information on law s affecting same-sex couples in specific cities and states, contact NCLR at or info@nclrights.org. If my partner and I marry in Canada, should we also take other steps to protect ourselves? Yes. Even if you and your partner marry, you should create a safety net by executing additional documents that will protect you to the greatest extent possible in the event that your marriage is challenged or not respected. At a mi ni mum, you should have a will, powers of attorney for health care and finance, and a partnership agreement. For more information, consult LIFE- LINES: DOCUMENTS TO PROTECT YOU AND YOUR FA M I LY IN TIMES OF TROUBLE, NCLR s new publication on partnership protection documents, available at Where possible, couples with children should also secure adoptions or court decrees of parentage. Where these are not available, couples should consult with a family law attorney to protect both parents to the extent possible under your sta t e s laws. For more information on adoption and parentage laws in your state, contact NCLR at or info@nclrights.org. If my partner and I marry in Canada and then face discrimination in the U.S., what should we do? Same-sex couples who marry in Canada and return to the U.S. are almost c e r tain to face at least some di s c r i mination from employers, businesses, or g o v e r n m e n tal entities. You can protect yourself to some degree by being prepared to educate, advocate, and work with others in your commu nity to change di s c r i minatory policies and practices. In most cases, filing a lawsuit is not the most effective strategy, either for protecting your fami l y, or changing the law. For education materials, talking points about marriage equ a l i t y, and tips about how to advocate for yourself, contact your statewide LGBT group or one of the national advocacy groups, such as Freedom to Marry ( w w w. f r e e d o m t o m a r r y.org), the Human Rights Campaign (www. h r c. o r g ), the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force ( or NCLR ( w w w.nclrights.org). If you are considering filing a lawsuit, contact NCLR ( w w w.nclrights.org) or another LGBT legal group for assistance. NCLR Public Education Director Marta Donayre (l) with fellow riders at the Immigrant Workers Freedom Ride kickoff march and rally in San Francisco On the Road to Fre e d o m NCLR Participates in Historic Immigrant Workers Freedom Ride J u st as the Freedom Rides of the early 1960s exposed th e b ru tality of legal segre gation in the South, the Immigra n t Wo rke rs Freedom Ride (IWFR) exposed the injustice of current policies towa rd immigrants, as more than a th o u s a n d i m m i grant wo rke rs and their allies crossed the country on buses from September 30 to October 4. NCLR was proud to be the only LGBT group participating in the Ride. I m m i gration is not usually associated with the LGBT comm u n i t y. Most people are shocked to hear of the hurdles we face. Public Education Dire c tor Marta Donay re educate d fe l l ow ri d e rs, journ a l i sts, and local communities about h ow immigration affects our community, and made personal connections that will be invaluable in building mainst ream support for LGBT immigrants. For more info rm a- tion on the IWFR, please visit www. i w f r. o rg. Permanent Partners Immigration Act (PPIA) Update NCLR is pleased to announce that the PPIA was intro d u c e d by Ve rmont Senator Pa t ri ck Leahy in the U.S. Senate. Since 2000, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) has intro d u c e d PPIA in the House of Re p re s e n ta t i ves, but the lack of a c o mpanion bill in the Senate gave us little hope of it actua l ly becoming law one day. The Senate ve rsion of PPIA is analogous to the House ve rsion. PPIA would re c o g n i z e s a m e - s ex part n e rs for immigration purposes. NCLR is p roud to collabora te with the Lesbian and Gay I m m i gration Rights Task Fo rce, the Human Rights C a mpaign, Love Sees No Bord e rs, and PFLAG in th e a d vancement of this vital piece of legislation. Dolores Huerta (center), co-founder of the United Fa r m Workers of America, AFL-CIO; Marta Donayre (r); and Leslie Bulbuk, of Love Sees No Borders 15

16 26 t h A n n i v e r s a r ygala Photo Gallery May 24, We thank Gala Co-chairs Betsy Allen and Lesley We a v e r, and our hardworking Gala Committee, for their fabulous leadership! S AVE THE DAT E S AT U R DAY, APRIL 24, TH A N N I V E R S A RY GALA DINNER DANCE - SAN FRANCISCO NCLR Launches 2003 Major Gifts Campaign Challenge grants inspire new and increased gifts Gala Co-chairs: Kelly Dermody (l) & Deborah Dixon Join us for our legendary Gala -- the hottest lesbian event in the c o u n t ry! Celebrate and support our groundbreaking legal work in the company of 1,800 lesbians, and our friends and allies. Mark your calendars now, r e s e rve your space early, and dust off your dancing shoes it s going to be a fine party! For more details please visit w w w. n c l r i g h t s. o r g. Major Gifts Co-chairs (l-r): M a ryann Simpson, Akaya Windwood, & Sonni Zambino We are proud to announce that the Evelyn & Wa l t e r Haas, Jr. Fund and Ambassador James C. Hormel have both provided generous challenge grants to inspire new and increased gifts from individual donors. We invite you to participate and increase the impact of your donation this fall.