Web Feature

Susan Gray, Yvonne Keller and their two childern

Once again, an Ohio court has declared that antigay legislator Thomas Brinkman has no legal standing to take away domestic partner health benefits from employees of Miami University. Simply being a taxpayer, the state Court of Appeals held unanimously, does not give Brinkman the right to take away fair and legitimate health benefits because he suffers no harm when those benefits are provided.

Jean Lynch and Helenka Marculewicz

Lambda Legal argued that Brinkman had no standing to sue because the university pays for its domestic partner benefits with privately donated funds, not with tax dollars or tuition. Brinkman also did not show that he suffered any direct impact from the university's domestic partner health coverage.

Lambda Legal intervened in this case in December 2005 on behalf of Professors Jean Lynch and Yvonne Keller and their partners after their benefits came under attack by Brinkman and the antigay Alliance Defense Fund (ADF). The lawsuit against the university claimed that its domestic partner benefits violate Ohio's antigay constitutional amendment, which limits marriage to a man and a woman. We argued that the amendment does not apply to the university because it concerns only marriage and does not address the legality of domestic partnership benefits. Earlier this year, in a case called Ohio v. Carswell, the Ohio Supreme Court held that the state's amendment is focused upon marriage. Now the Court of Appeals has held that giving benefits to same-sex couples causes no injury to antigay activists like Brinkman and ADF.

Two Ohio courts have now agreed with us, and families in the state are more secure as a result.

History

• November 2005: Brinkman, represented by ADF, files lawsuit against Miami University in the Butler County Court of Common Please to take away domestic partnership benefits two days before Thanksgiving.
• December 2005: Lambda Legal files a motion to intervene on behalf of two professors and their domestic partners.
• January 2006: Court grants Lambda Legal's motion to intervene.
• July 2006 Lambda Legal files papers asking the Butler County Court of Common Pleas to dismiss the ADF lawsuit.
• November 2006: Victory! Lawsuit dismissed.
• December 2006: Brinkman and ADF file a notice of appeal.
• August 2007: Victory — again! The Ohio Court of Appeals unanimously affirms the lower court's decision to dismiss Brinkman's suit because he does not have legal standing.

Hear Aly, Elroi and Calvin's stories on LOGO's new 5-part series titled
Stoli® Presents Be Real: The Series.

At Lambda Legal we know something about telling stories. Every year our Help Desks hear from thousands of Americans who have experienced discrimination because of their sexual orientation, gender identity or HIV status. Some of these callers become plaintiffs in our high-impact lawsuits — and once they do, we share their often-harrowing stories with our members, the LGBT and HIV communities and the media.

"Part of Lambda Legal's work is to put a face on discrimination, so it's not just an abstract concept," says Leslie Gabel-Brett, Lambda Legal's Director of Education and Public Affairs. "We want people to see that our clients are real people, who have overcome real difficulties, so their stories can be inspiring for all LGBT people, people with HIV and people who care about correcting injustice."

But our communities' stories go beyond discrimination, and Lambda Legal's national sponsor Stolichnaya® Vodka has captured some of these stories on film. After the successful 2006 film premiere of BE REAL: Stories from Queer America at GLBT film festivals and on LOGO, a new 5-part series titled Stoli® Presents Be Real: The Series premiere on Logo in May. As a national sponsor of Lambda Legal, Stoli has been a steadfast ally in the fight for the full civil rights of LGBT people and those with HIV. Be Real continues this commitment by giving life to the stories of what they describe as heroes in the community.

"We wanted to recognize individuals who are totally authentic and true to themselves. Every day, LGBT heroes make the brave decision to come out and give back to their communities, and that is what Be Real is all about" says Adam Rosen, Senior Brand Manager for Stoli.

BE REAL: The Series was directed by Katherine Linton, former producer and co-anchor of the PBS gay newsmagazine show In The Life and writer of The Evolution Will Be Televised. Each of the five 30-minute episodes seeks to capture the stories of individuals who are working to make an impact in their community by coming out, giving back and being real.

"By virtue of being who they are and interacting with people throughout their communities, each of the cast members is making an impact," says Linton. "For example, we have the story a female boxer who, by being an out woman in a fairly homophobic and sexist arena, is making a difference in the way people perceive LGBT people everywhere."

One way you can make an impact in your community is to host a Lambda Legal House Party in a Box while you tune into LOGO to watch Stol®i PresentsBe Real: The Series. (Check your local listings for show times in your area.) When you order the House Party in a Box, we'll send you everything you need to host a party that will benefit Lambda Legal – including party supplies and copies of Lambda Legal's Impact magazine.

For more information about Stoli® Presents Be Real: The Series, visit www.stoli.com/bereal or www.LOGOonline.com. To learn how to host a Lambda Legal house party, visit www.lambdalegal.org/houseparty or call our Membership Department at 212-809-8585 ext. 334.

In response to a ruling by the Sixth Circuit Court for Pinellas County that rejected an attempt to terminate previously agreed to and ordered alimony for an ex-spouse because he is transgender, Lambda Legal issued this statement from Greg Nevins, Senior Staff Attorney in Lambda Legal's Southern Regional Office in Atlanta and Cole Thaler, Transgender Rights Attorney for Lambda Legal:

"Today's ruling is a good news, bad news decision. While the end result of the court ruling is good for our client, part of how we got there is bad for the transgender community as a whole in Florida. This is the precise example of why it is damaging to chain people to the gender on their birth certificate. It's wrong to call our client a woman when Julio is a man."

Lambda Legal represents Julio Silverwolf (formerly Julia Roach) in a lawsuit brought by Lawrence Roach who argued that he no longer should have to pay alimony because Julio transitioned from female to male. The couple had been married for 18 years during which time Julio (then Julia) did not work outside the home, at Lawrence's request. Part of the divorce proceedings included a non-modifiable obligation to pay alimony until death or remarriage of the wife, which the Court agreed had not occurred. The Court ordered the alimony payments to continue, but also stated that Silverwolf would not be recognized as a man under Florida statutes.

Rosario Gennaro and Alexander Gardner knew for a while that they wanted to adopt children. In May 2007, the couple had a home study by a licensed social worker and obtained certification as Qualified Adoptive Parents from the New York City Surrogate Court.

But when they went to post a profile at ParentProfiles.com — a service of Adoption Profiles, LLC — they found that only "Qualifying Husband and Wife Couples" could use the profile posting service.

Unfair bias isn't new for the company. Adoption Profiles was sued in California in 2004 for violating that state's antidiscrimination law and, as a result, is no longer doing business there. Now it may need to pull its business from New York State as well.

Lambda Legal has filed a discrimination complaint with the New York attorney general's office on behalf of the couple. "We are committed partners who can provide a loving home for the child," says Gennaro. "Birth parents should have the opportunity to review our profile and see what a loving home we could provide for a child." 

Since 1973, Lambda Legal has been making real changes in people's lives. In 2007, we maintained this tradition with even more groundbreaking victories. We have had major successes for parenting and workplace equality laws across the country, and have won significant victories for same-sex couples and relationship recognition.

We participated in more than 25 new cases this year, responded to approximately 5,000 calls to our Help Desk and inaugurated our first-ever national day of action for workplace equality.

Lambda Legal is not just about winning victories in the present, but also about building a better future. Here are a few highlights of our work from 2007:

An end to the military ban on openly gay and lesbian service members is in sight, after key congressional votes Thursday night.

Both the full House and the Senate Armed Forces Committee approved amendments to a defense bill that would let the Pentagon repeal the policy known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT).

A full Senate vote is expected soon. The House plans to vote on the full defense bill on Friday.

"Yesterday we were proud to see a majority of legislators vote to end government sponsored discrimination in the military," said Hayley Gorenberg, Deputy Legal Director of Lambda Legal. "But the job is not yet finished. There are critical steps that still must be taken to stop gay and lesbian soldiers from being discharged."

Under a compromise between the Obama administration, the Pentagon and congressional leaders, a full repeal will only happen after the military completes a review of the policy, and requires approval from the President, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen.

"The military is our nation's largest employer—government sanctioned employment discrimination must end," Lambda Legal Executive Kevin Cathcart said. "Servicemembers Legal Defense Network has worked tirelessly to see this day, and I have no doubt they will not give up until openly gay soldiers can serve our country with pride and without fear of discharge. Lambda Legal brought the first lawsuit against discrimination in the military in 1975. This has been a long struggle—we won't give up either."

A decision today by New York State's highest court, in which all seven judges concurred, expands the rights of non-biological same-sex parents.

The New York State Court of Appeals ruled that Debra H., a non-biological mother represented by Lambda Legal, is a legal parent and can seek custody and visitation from her former partner, Janice R. Prior to the birth of their son, the couple had entered into a civil union in Vermont, where both partners are recognized as legal parents of a child born in the relationship.

The court ruled that "New York will recognize parentage created by a civil union in Vermont." Marriages of same-sex couples are not available in New York, but the state recognizes unions performed in other jurisdictions. The decision allows Debra to go to trial court and seek custody and visitation, as well as provide her son, now six and a half years old, with financial support. Unfortunately, however, a majority of the court stopped short of overruling its 1991 decision in Alison D. v. Virginia M., which held that only a person related by biology or adoption to a child qualifies as a parent. Today's decision adds one more category of parent, those in an out-of-state legally recognized relationships with a child's biological parent, but does not go far enough.

"This is a terrific outcome for our client," said Susan Sommer, Director of Constitutional Litigation at Lambda Legal. "But it doesn't solve the dilemma for many New York children. You should not have to travel out of state to establish your legal relationship with your child. The New York legislature should follow the lead taken by many other states and pass legislation clarifying children's legal relationships with both their intended parents, regardless whether the parents have entered into a marriage or civil union."

Debra and Janice agreed to raise a family together in a two-parent household and conceived their son using in vitro fertilization. Debra was by Janice's side throughout labor and delivery and cut their son's umbilical cord; her last name was included in their son's name on his birth certificate. In the years that followed Debra gave him the nurture and care of a mother.

Janice had promised that Debra would formally adopt their child, and they met with an adoption lawyer prior to their son's birth. But when it came time for the second-parent adoption, Janice, who is an attorney, advised Debra "as a lawyer" that they didn't need to get the courts involved and Debra would always be the boy's parent. When the couple's relationship ended in 2006, Debra continued to parent her son, who moved with Janice into an apartment only a block away.

In May 2008, Janice abruptly refused Debra any further contact with the boy. Debra filed for emergency joint custody and restoration of parental access. The trial court ordered interim regular ongoing visitation and allowed Debra's petition to proceed to a hearing. When Janice appealed, Lambda Legal entered the case in early 2009 on Debra's behalf.

Many prominent legal and child welfare experts filed friend-of-the-court briefs in support of the rights of non-biological parents in circumstances such as this, including the New York State Bar Association, the New York City Bar Association, the National Association of Social Workers, and 45 family law professors on the faculty of every law school in New York State. The boy's court-appointed attorney also asked the court to give Debra the opportunity to protect their relationship.

On April 29, 2010, the last day of its legislative session, the Hawai`i House of Representatives voted to grant the state's straight and gay couples the right to join in civil union, following a similar vote earlier this session by the state senate. The historic vote took many observers by surprise.

"It was amazing being there. Everyone was on the edge of their seats," said Loren R. Javier, Lambda Legal's Western Regional Director. "In fact, even when the House went into caucus, the signs were that there were not enough votes. When the bill passed 31 to 20, everyone was visibly stunned. It wasn't until people silently walked out of the House chamber that the tears began to flow and there was much jubilation."

Equality Hawaii Co-Chair Tambry King, Lambda Legal Staff Attorney Tara Borelli and Equality Hawaii Board Member Suzanne King

Lambda Legal Western Regional Director Loren Javier, Equality Hawaii Board Member Don Bentz, Lambda Legal Staff Attorney Tara Borelli, and PFLAG Oahu President Carolyn Golujoch.

The bill, H.B. 444, "extends the same rights, benefits, protections and responsibilities of spouses in a marriage to partners in a civil union."

Now Republican Gov. Linda Lingle has 45 days—until July 6—to sign the bill, veto it or allow it to take effect without her signature. A veto override would require three additional votes in the House.

Lambda Legal Senior Counsel and Marriage Project Director Jennifer Pizer was in her hotel room in Honolulu putting the finishing touches on court papers when she got the text letting her know she will not need to file our complaint next week.

"We were already on O`ahu this week in final preparations for litigation if the legislature failed to act by today's end of session," Pizer said.

"We're delighted that, as long as Gov. Lingle does not veto the bill, our lawsuit won't be necessary."

"Today's vote was down to the wire, but it represents years of steady work by Hawai`i's lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community and by concerned state legislators," Pizer said. "There's no denying it's been a bumpy road, but like all arduous journeys, it makes arriving at the destination that much sweeter."

Lambda Legal began to fight for marriage equality in Hawai`i decades ago, joining as co-counsel in litigation that resulted in the landmark 1993 state supreme court ruling that denying the right of same-sex couples to marry is discrimination the government must justify. At trial in 1996, we proved the state has no adequate reasons to continue to exclude lesbian and gay couples from marriage.

While the case was on appeal, voters changed the Hawai`i Constitution to reserve to the legislature exclusively the power to provide marriage equality. The "reciprocal beneficiary" status created in the same period has provided some important legal protections, but in a confusing, patchwork manner with many problematic gaps.

"All these years later, same-sex couples and their families still have been far from the goal of full equality. Last night, they got one big step closer," Pizer said. "Marriage equality remains the essential finish point. And along the way, the incredible activists and allies in Hawaii have been pushing tenaciously for all the same legal rights and benefits available under state law to heterosexual couples through marriage. Thousands of Hawai`i families are terribly vulnerable right now, in need of the critical protections that civil unions will provide. We hope the governor will sign the bill promptly, or at least allow its basic, humane safeguards to take effect without her signature."

Lambda Legal joined with other LGBT legal and advocacy groups in filing two friend-of-the-court (amicus) briefs in major cases before the U.S. Supreme Court:

On April 1, 2010, Lambda Legal and other leading LGBT organizations, including Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), the Human Rights Campaign and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force joined the State of Washington in defending laws requiring public disclosure of the names of voters who sign petitions supporting state ballot initiatives. In particular, this brief refutes the false claims now presented to the Supreme Court in this and other cases that individuals who support anti-gay initiatives have been subjected to “systematic intimidation” by the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community.

In Doe v. Reed, anti-gay groups are asking the Supreme Court to overturn a decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ordering the release of the names of 138,000 people who signed petitions supporting a ballot initiative to repeal basic protections for same-sex couples in Washington State. In November 2009, Washington voters rejected this attempt – Referendum 71 – and preserved the state’s domestic partnership law. Under Washington’s Public Records Act, the signatures on referendum petitions are public. The antigay groups claim that their supporters would be exposed to harassment and intimidation by the LGBT community if their names were made public.

Our amicus brief argues that it is the lesbian and gay community that continues to suffer serious violence, harassment and discrimination, along with a 30-year barrage of ballot petitions aimed at stripping LGBT people and other minority groups of basic protections. The brief also attacks the notion of an alleged organized campaign of harassment and intimidation against supporters of anti-gay ballot initiatives, calling into question legal statements and press accounts cited by anti-gay groups (details available at www.glad.org/Doe-v-Reed).

“What is happening here is attackers screaming, ‘Help! Help!’ while they do the pummeling,” said Jon Davidson, Legal Director at Lambda Legal. “Let’s not forget who is really under assault. In trying to play the victim, anti-gay organizations are relying on exaggeration and outright lies to try to block an important check on anti-minority ballot initiatives. The requirement that petition signatures be available for public inspection prevents fraud and encourages open debate”

In the second case, Lambda Legal and Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) filed a brief on March 15, 2010 in support of the University of California Hastings School of Law in a case brought by the Christian Legal Society (CLS) to challenge the school's nondiscrimination policy. The law school's policy requires student organizations supported by the school to agree to accept "all comers" and not to discriminate against students based on their status or beliefs. In 2004, Hastings denied CLS registration as an official campus organization after CLS refused to comply with the school's nondiscrimination policy. CLS said that it could not comply because it requires that those who join its group to agree not to engage in "unrepentant participation in or advocacy of a sexually immoral lifestyle" including "homosexual conduct."

Registration as a student organization at Hastings gives groups the right to use Hastings' name and logo, access to a university email address, limited use of facilities, and modest university funds for travel and other expenses. CLS sued in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, saying that the school's written policy only limits school support to organizations that agree not to discriminate based on certain enumerated categories, including religion and sexual orientation but that the Christian Legal Society excludes members on the basis of conduct, not orientation. After losing at both the District Court and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, CLS appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The amicus brief by Lambda Legal and GLAD explains that CLS refused to accept all students as members and that excluding students who engage in same-sex sexual conduct does discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

"The Supreme Court already accepted, in Lambda Legal's Lawrence v. Texas case, that treating people badly because they engage in same-sex sexual conduct obviously discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation," said Davidson.

Davidson added, "CLS is demanding that even though it will not agree to the same reasonable conditions required of all other student groups Hastings assists, CLS must be provided a public school's support. CLS has no right to such preferential treatment. The Constitution does not obligate the government to subsidize those who discriminate."

On March 31, 2010, in a case brought by Lambda Legal and the ACLU, a federal court in Wisconsin ruled that a law barring transgender people from receiving medical care in prison was unconstitutional.

"The court understood that medical treatment is critical for transgender people and that medical decisions should be made by doctors—not legislators," says Dru Levasseur, transgender rights attorney for Lambda Legal.

Despite concerns raised by Department of Corrections medical personnel, Wisconsin legislators passed a law, effective January 2006, barring prison doctors from prescribing hormone therapy or sex reassignment surgery to transgender people in state custody.

"The state cannot decide to withhold treatment from people because they disapprove of their gender identity or medical needs," says Levasseur. "It's unconstitutional."

The ACLU and Lambda Legal brought its challenge in January 2006 on behalf of transgender prisoners, some of whom had been receiving hormones in Wisconsin prisons for years prior to the passage of the law. The lawsuit charged that the law was a violation of the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection as well as the guarantee against cruel and unusual punishment.

The court ruled that the statute's ban on medical care "constitutes deliberate indifference to the plaintiff's serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment."

According to the ACLU and Lambda Legal, Wisconsin was the only state in the country to have enacted a law denying transgender people access to medical care while in state custody.

"The court's ruling doesn't require inmates to receive hormones or surgery for sex reassignment; it simply means that doctors are the ones who make the decisions about treatment,” says John Knight of the ACLU. “The court’s decision is just common sense."