LAMBDA LEGAL ARCHIVE SITETHIS SITE IS NO LONGER MAINTAINED. TO SEE OUR MOST RECENT CASES AND NEWS, VISITNEW LAMBDALEGAL.ORG

Web Feature

A year ago, Janice Langbehn and her partner of 18 years, Lisa Pond, were departing on a family cruise with their three children when the unthinkable happened: Pond, a healthy 39 year-old, suddenly collapsed and was rushed to Miami's Jackson Memorial Hospital where she was diagnosed with a non-survivable aneurysm. Then matters got worse.

When Langbehn and her family arrived, the hospital refused to take information from her regarding Pond's medical history. The hospital also refused Langbehn and their children visitation for nearly eight hours, telling her that she was in an antigay city and state, and could expect no information or acknowledgment as family. Later, Langbehn was denied Pond's death certificate by the State of Florida and the Dade County Medical Examiner, even though it was crucial for their children's life insurance and Social Security benefits.

Lambda Legal has filed a lawsuit against Jackson Memorial Hospital, on behalf of Janice Langbehn and her children. "There is nothing that can make up for what my children and I endured that day," she says. "We only want the hospital to take responsibility for how they treated us and ensure that it doesn't happen to another family."

The case is Langbehn v. Jackson Memorial Hospital.

On May 14, 2008, Governor David A. Paterson of New York instructed all state agencies to revise policies and regulations to recognize marriages of same-sex couples performed in other countries or in states like Massachusetts and California.

This means that married same-sex couples in New York State will be treated just like other couples in terms of state services, benefits and obligations. For example, same-sex spouses are eligible for state-sponsored health benefits and must be treated no different from other spouses when it comes to getting vehicle registrations and dealing with government agencies.

This directive, issued by the governor’s legal counsel, follows victories in Lambda Legal cases (Godfrey v. Spano, Godfrey v. Hevesi and Lewis v. NYS DCS), and a victory in a case brought by the New York Civil Liberties Union (Martinez). These cases reaffirmed that out-of-state marriages are recognized under New York laws and established that the marriages of same-sex couples would be treated no differently than other marriages.

However, marriage equality has not yet been achieved: New York still does not allow same-sex couples to get legally married within its borders. For this to happen, the state legislature and the governor must change the law.

Resources

On June 17, same-sex couples began receiving marriage licenses from the state of California. Star Trek’s George Takei and his soon-to-be husband Brad Altman were first in a line of hundreds. Also receiving their marriage license were Lambda Legal Senior Counsel Jennifer C. Pizer and her partner Doreena Wong.

But an antigay ballot initiative threatens to change the California Constitution come November. We cannot let that happen. This is truly a historic occasion for our community, but we must stand together and do all we can to protect marriage equality. Visit EqualityForAll.com to find out how you can help.

Legal Documents

Resources

Media

K.K. Logan attended West Side High School in Gary, Indiana during his junior and senior year. He expressed a deeply rooted femininity in his appearance and demeanor, and his classmates and teachers supported him when he wore clothes typically associated with girls his age. But when senior prom rolled around, everything changed.

Logan attended the prom wearing a dress, but was literally blocked by Principal Diane Rouse who stretched her arms across the door of the off-campus banquet center where the prom was held. Logan's classmates rallied to his defense, as did members of the community who were outside taking pictures of their children, but he was never allowed to attend his prom. The high school justified its actions by referencing a policy that prohibits clothing that advertises one's sexual orientation. Lambda Legal filed a lawsuit on behalf of Logan. We're arguing that the school violated his First Amendment rights, including the freedoms of speech, symbolic action and expressive conduct, when it rejected him from his prom for wearing a dress.

Take Lambda Legal to the Prom

Prom Season Q&A: What LGBTQ Youth Need to Know

Q: What if we're two lesbians and we both want to wear tuxedos? Can the school set any dress code based on gender stereotypes?

A: While schools can set general dress standards for prom — like requiring formal attire — they shouldn’t force you to wear clothes based on your gender.

The First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

It's been nearly three years since Janet Jenkins began her fight to keep her relationship with her daughter, Isabella. But she's now one step closer to a reunion. The Virginia Supreme Court has rejected an appeal for sole custody by her ex-partner.

Jenkins and her former civil union partner, Lisa Miller, had raised a daughter together in Vermont. After their relationship ended, a Vermont court dissolved their civil union and awarded visitation rights to Jenkins. Miller then filed a different lawsuit in Virginia and successfully used that state's antigay constitutional amendment to have the lower court declare her the sole parent.

The conflicting court orders ultimately led to a decision from the Virginia Court of Appeals that recognized Jenkins’ parental status. The court rightly recognized that federal law protects parents against shopping around for a court to give them sole custody. It also reaffirmed the fact that Jenkins is a parent to Isabella. By rejecting Miller’s appeal, the Virginia Supreme Court let that ruling stand.

The case is Miller-Jenkins v. Miller-Jenkins.

Lambda Legal ramped up its efforts this spring on behalf of youth around the country, filing a federal lawsuit in upstate New York and successfully advocating for students in Georgia and Oregon, where schools in all three states had restricted student expression in support of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights. In this most recent flurry of youth–related advocacy, Lambda Legal continues to spotlight how peer harassment and antigay school censorship inflict intersecting and overlapping harms on students. In contrast, schools that respect students' freedom to engage in LGBT–supportive expression can reinforce antidiscrimination protections and contribute to safer school environments for all youth.

Litigation in New York's Northern Country

In upstate New York, Lambda Legal plaintiffs Charlie Pratt and Ashley Petranchuk have courageously stood up to antigay censorship, harassment and discrimination in their local schools, filing a federal lawsuit on April 8 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of York. [Their complaint] describes years of unlawful and unconstitutional discrimination by the Indian River Central School District — its governing body, officials and employees.

Charlie, now 20 years old, endured years of discrimination as well as antigay and sexist harassment as a student in the Indian River schools. Particularly in high school, students attacked Charlie relentlessly with antigay and sexist slurs, pushed him frequently and forcefully into walls and lockers, hurled food and other objects at him, spat on him, taunted him with offensive gestures, grabbed and pinched his buttocks, and repeatedly scrawled antigay language on his locker. Staff members joined in on the harassment, ridiculing Charlie with stereotypically effeminate gestures in front of other students and telling Charlie he was "disgusting" and "shouldn't be gay." Administrators refused to take appropriate or effective action, instead treating Charlie as the problem. At one meeting with Charlie and his parents, for example, the school principal suggested that Charlie "tone it down" to avoid the harassment. The principal also informed Charlie's parents that he could not ensure their son's safety at school, leading them to withdraw Charlie from school for his own protection at age 15.

As detailed in the [complaint,] school employees violated Charlie's rights under numerous statutory and constitutional provisions that bar sexist and antigay discrimination.  For example, by deliberately refusing to take appropriate measures in response to sexist and antigay harassment, the district and its employees infringed Charlie's rights under the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause, Title IX of the U.S. Education Amendments of 1972 and New York's Human Rights and Civil Rights Laws. This story of antigay injustice, however, involves more than claims for discrimination. While the violation of antidiscrimination provisions lies at the heart of Charlie's case, illegal restrictions on student expression compounded and exacerbated the harms he endured and now form an inextricable part of Lambda Legal's lawsuit against the school district.

At least twice during Charlie's abbreviated tenure at Indian River High School, the school principal refused to grant students permission to form an extracurricular gay–straight alliance (GSA) on campus, even though the school allowed and encouraged a multitude of other extracurricular groups to meet at school. Because the school received federal funds and allowed other student groups to meet at school, this refusal to permit a GSA violated the federal Equal Access Act (EAA). The EAA, enacted in 1984, protects public secondary students who participate in extracurricular organizations from discrimination based on the content or viewpoint of their speech. The EAA effectively codifies and reinforces basic First Amendment principles protecting student expression on campus.

As Charlie's experience illustrates, a school's refusal to allow LGBT–supportive student organizations like a GSA can exacerbate an already hostile environment and leave LGBT youth in a particularly dangerous and vulnerable position. Indian River school officials' mistreatment of Charlie resulted not only from their permitting pervasive antigay harassment, but also in their thwarting student efforts to peacefully organize against the abusive treatment. By blocking the formation of the GSA, Indian River High School sent a destructive and terrifying message to young people like Charlie: that they were not welcome at their own school, and that the school placed a higher priority on silencing LGBT students and their allies than it did on addressing harassment against them. Thus, antigay censorship in cases like Charlie's not only violates the EAA and the First Amendment, but also forms part of the unlawful and invidious antigay discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause and other antidiscrimination protections.

This isn't to say, of course, that free speech norms authorize any and all student conduct that might conceivably be deemed expressive. Firmly established legal principles require schools to protect students from substantially disruptive conduct by their peers — including harassment and bullying — regardless of any claim that the perpetrators are merely "expressing" themselves. Student expression that peacefully advocates for inclusion and respect of LGBT people, however, cannot be deemed disruptive and does not fit within any of the narrowly drawn limitations on free speech rights at school as recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Though the harassment at Indian River ultimately forced Charlie to abandon his high school education, his story, fortunately, does not end there. Several years after his withdrawal, his younger sister, Ashley Petranchuk, now a sophomore at the same high school, picked up where Charlie and others had left off. Appalled by the mistreatment her older brother endured, Ashley requested permission from school administrators to form a GSA, hoping that the club could help raise awareness and make the school a safer place for LGBT students. However, the assistant principal and principal turned Ashley down, claiming that others in the community would object to a GSA. Frustrated by the school district's ongoing violation of students' rights, Ashley and Charlie together turned to Lambda Legal, which filed its lawsuit on behalf of both of them. In addition to seeking compensation for the harassment and discrimination that Charlie endured, the complaint seeks damages and other relief for the violation of Ashley's and Charlie's expressive rights under the EAA, the First Amendment and New York State law.

Less than a week after the suit was filed, Indian River officials started to shift course. In a letter to Lambda Legal attorneys dated Monday, April 13, the district's attorney stated that Ashley could form a GSA the following Monday, as soon as she returned from spring break. Having secured this victory, Ashley and other students have not wasted any time. Within a week of returning to school, they put up posters to raise awareness of homophobia, made announcements on the school's public address system and held GSA brainstorming meetings to plan for the coming year. Significant work remains to be done in the case, of course, and Lambda Legal will continue to press multiple claims on behalf of Charlie and Ashley to redress the repeated violations their rights.  

Advocacy Across the Country

Charlie and Ashley's case is just one of three instances this past April of Lambda Legal's successful advocacy on behalf of students asserting their freedom of expression. 

On April 15, Lambda Legal wrote to McIntosh County Public School officials in Darien, Georgia, in support of high school student Cody Hanrahan, who had been denied permission to form a GSA. Within days of receiving Lambda Legal's letter, school officials indicated that they were willing to work with Cody and other students to allow the club.

Additionally, on April 17 — which marked the 13th annual Day of Silence — Lambda Legal contacted school officials in Oregon on behalf of South Medford High School student Connie McNair about discriminatory restrictions on their GSA's ability to publicize its activities and encourage student participation in Day of Silence activities. Lambda Legal's letter prompted a quick response from the school officials, who said they would meet to review the school's policies.


Lambda Legal will continue to work with students like Charlie, Ashley, Cody and Connie to protect their ability to organize and advocate at school on behalf of LGBT equality.  By safeguarding the expressive rights of students and student GSAs, Lambda Legal and the students it represents advance fundamental First Amendment values and move us closer to the day when all students, regardless of sexual orientation or gender idenity, can safely receive an education free from discrimination and harassment.

A wide array of organizations and individuals have filed over a dozen friend-of-the-court briefs at the Iowa Supreme Court on behalf of the six same-sex couples and their families in Lambda Legal's historic marriage case.

Former Lieutenant Governors Joy Corning and Sally Pederson were among the signers. They wrote: "We have a deep respect for the role of the Iowa Supreme Court and the judicial process. We signed our names to a brief submitted to the Court because we believe that the Court is the proper place to decide this matter."

We filed our case with the Polk County Court in December 2005, arguing that denying marriage to same-sex couples violates the equal protection and due process guarantees in the Iowa State Constitution.

In August 2007 the trial court ruled that denying marriage to same-sex couples was unconstitutional. The final decision in this case will be made by the Iowa Supreme Court.

Other Signatory Highlights:

  • Rev. Paul Shultz, Director of the Wesley Foundation at the University of Iowa: "Couples who seek to care for one another and their families within the bonds of marriage should be embraced and celebrated." Read more from the brief.
  • Marti Anderson, President of the National Association of Social Workers, Iowa Chapter: "We support the right of same-sex couples to enter into civil marriage and receive all accompanying rights, protections, and privileges…and the rights of the children of same-sex couples to a secure and stable home established through civil marriage. The Iowa district court decision supports the rights of children of same-sex couples." Read more from the brief.
  • Randall Wilson, Legal Director at the ACLU of Iowa Foundation: "Iowa's legal tradition includes many instances of insightful and courageous court decisions supporting the right of equality. In our brief, we argue that this must not change."
  • Dr. Kevin Mumford, History Professor at the University of Iowa: "Providing loving couples with access to marriage will be another proud moment in Iowa history." Read more from the brief.

English version

Cada día, lesbianas y hombres gay mueren sin tener testamentos. Dejan parejas que, a través de su tristeza, tienen que enfrentarse a los parientes y el gobierno. ¿Perderán sus preciosos recuerdos? ¿Perderán sus hogares? ¿Serán excluidos de los seguros financieros? ¿Serán invalidadas sus relaciones de pareja íntimas por instituciones que están supuestas a ayudar?

¿Tienes un testamento que asegure que tus deseos se cumplan? Reconocemos que tu, como Lambda Legal, quieres justicia y igualdad. ¿Has hecho todo lo posible para asegurarte de ello? Si no lo has hecho, y mueres sin un testamento, la ley puede ignorar tus deseos y los de tus seres queridos. ¿Que estás esperando?.....

No vayas a mal entender. Sabemos que no es fácil. Hemos tenido que advertir hasta empleados de Lambda Legal (incluyendo algunos de nuestros abogados) que escriban testamentos definitivos. No compartimos este mensaje bajo la ilusión de que es fácil, si no porque sabemos que es NECESARIO. Por favor, toma este asunto en tus propias manos. Mientras Lambda Legal sigue luchando por tus derechos legales, haz tu parte para proteger tus derechos con un testamento definitivo.

Frank Vásquez compartió un hogar y negocio con su pareja de veinte-siete años. Cuando su pareja falleció sin dejar un testamento, todo cayó en peligro. Frank sigue su lucha en las cortes para preservar lo que ellos, como pareja, crearon.

Amelia Hervella y Margaret O’Neil eran parejas por casi dos décadas. Cuando Margaret falleció inesperadamente, su prima le quitaron a Amalia el hogar que compartió con su pareja. Ahora, Amalia nunca recibirá todo lo que Margaret intentó dejarle.

No permita que el dolor y el pesar sean multiplicados por la falta de un testamento. No importa la sencillez de tus deseos o que tan pocas tus propiedades, un testamento te puede ayudar a superar esos momentos difíciles.

¿Qué Estás Esperando?

Soy joven y todavía tengo tiempo para pensarlo. Lo haré cuando llegue a una cierta edad. No deje para mañana lo que puede hacer hoy. Nunca se sabe cuando una tragedia puede ocurrir. Escribiendo un testamento definitivo te ayudará estar listo.

No necesito un testamento definitivo porque mi novia y yo ya somos parejas domésticas y tuvimos una ceremonia de compromiso. Estamos protegidas. No es cierto. El estar registradas como pareja doméstica y tener ceremonias de compromiso no te aseguran las protecciones legales de un testamento. Tampoco lo hace el compartir un hogar, una hipoteca u otras finanzas.

No necesito un testamento porque no tengo mucho dinero o propiedades. Si tienes algo que valoras, sea de valor económico o sentimental, tu--no el gobierno o tus familiares--deberías determinar como distribuir estas posesiones después de tu muerte. Asegúrate que tus deseos estén protegidos por la ley. Obtenga un testamento.

No necesito un testamento porque no estoy en una relación de pareja. Testamentos no son solo para parejas. Testamentos ayudan en preparar planes funerarios y en encargo de tus asuntos personales y posesiones. Tu testamento debería indicar a quien quedar< de encargado.

No tengo testamento definitivo porque no quiero pensar en morir. No es fácil pensar en tu propia muerte o la de tu pareja. Pero sabemos que algún día va a ocurrir. Cada día, todos luchamos por vivir con nuestros principios y dignidad. Un testamento definitivo nos permite mantener nuestra dignidad al morir.

Mi pareja y yo no tenemos testamentos porque no podemos llegar a un acuerdo sobre nuestras obligaciones económicas y familiares. Estos son temas difíciles. No se tiene que tomar decisiones fijas para hacer un testamento. Identifique las cosas en cual ambos están seguros y hagan un testamento definitivo que cubra esos asuntos. Un testamento es tu documento individual. Puedes conmemorar los acuerdos entre una pareja, pero también puede bregar cuestiones basadas solamente en los deseos individuos. Si tu y tu pareja llegaran a nuevos acuerdos, pueden modificar sus testamentos.

No tengo testamento definitivo porque no puedo pagar los gastos de un abogado. Esta es una verdadera preocupación para muchas personas. Pero los testamentos no son tan caros y tu NECESITAS un testamento. Ahorra el dinero para obtener este documento potente. La Línea Informativa de Lambda Legal puede ayudarte encontrar abogados y hablar con ellos sobre sus honorarios. En ciertos estados es posible hacer un testamento sencillo sin abogado. Podemos ayudarte a comenzar el proceso.

¿Qué Puedes Hacer?

  • Mantén copias de este tratado sobre tu computadora o refrigerador hasta que obtengas un testamento firmado.
  • Obtén recomendaciones de abogados por parte de familia, amigos, y colegas o llamando a la Línea Informativa de Lambda Legal en tu región del país.
  • Todos tus papeles legales deberían estar en orden incluyendo una carta de poder sobre asuntos mJdicos y un directivo mortal. De esta manera, la persona designada queda encargada de tus asuntos.
  • Visita nuestra pHabla con tus amigos y familiares sobre la importancia de tener un testamento.
  • Mantén tu testamento al día. Cada vez que tu situación cambie asegure que tu testamento refleje estos cambios. 
Joseph Robert Diaz and Ruben Espinoza Jimenez.
Joseph R. Diaz and Ruben E. Jiménez (l-r, Tuscon)

Joseph R. Diaz (far left), 50, and Ruben E. Jiménez, 46, have been together 17 years. Joseph has worked as a librarian at UA since 1992. Ruben has type–2 diabetes and high cholesterol and depends on health insurance through Joseph's group plan because his current job does not offer benefits. They have been unable to find any individual insurance policy that will cover Ruben’s health needs.

 
Keith Humphrey and Robert Klay.
Keith Humphrey and Brett Klay (l-r, Tuscon)

University of Arizona, Tucson, administrator and faculty member Keith Humphrey (near right), 35, and partner Brett Klay, 43, met nine years ago and are raising three children together, including two with special needs. Brett is a stay–at–home dad with health insurance as Keith's domestic partner. In August 2009, he was diagnosed with a torn carotid artery. Without insurance through Keith's employment, the couple does not know how they could afford the medical care Brett needs to recover.

 
Mia Labarbara, Deanna Pfleger and their children.
Mia Labarbara, Deanna Pfleger and their children (l-r, Lake Havasu City)

Deanna Pfleger (near right), 43, is a peace officer with the Arizona Department of Game and Fish. She and partner Mia LaBarbara, 42, will celebrate 20 years together in 2010. They are parents to two children, ages seven and 10. Mia recently lost her job and depends on Deanna's coverage more than ever.

 
Stephen Russell and William Scott Neeley.
Stephen Russell and Scott Neeley (l-r, Tuscon)

Stephen Russell (near right), 43, is a professor and director of the Frances McClelland Institute for Children, Youth, & Families at UA. He and 54-year-old partner Scott Neeley have been together since 1993 and are registered domestic partners in California. Scott is self–employed, and depends on his health insurance through Stephen's position at the university. When Scott recently needed tests to check for prostate cancer, the couple realized how vulnerable they would be without domestic partner benefits.

 
Sue Shapcott and Carrie Sperling.
Sue Shapcott and Carrie Sperling (l-r, Phoenix)

Carrie Sperling (near right), 43, is a visiting clinical associate professor of law at Arizona State University. Her partner, 40–year–old Sue Shapcott, left a successful business in Dallas as a golf instructor so Carrie could accept the position at ASU and depends on the domestic partner coverage Carrie receives there. The couple would pay far more in healthcare costs if Sue lost partner coverage from the university.

 
Susan Taunton and Beverly Seckinger.
Susan Taunton and Beverly Seckinger (l-r, Tuscon)

Beverly Seckinger (far right), 49, is professor and interim director of the School of Media Arts at UA. She and partner Susan Taunton, 55, have been together for 22 years. Susan can only work part–time while she cares for her 88–year–old mother, so she relies on Beverly's insurance through UA. Private insurers have previously rejected Susan due to her asthma, so the couple worries they will have to leave Arizona to seek work in a state offering domestic partner benefits to public employees.

The case is Diaz v. Brewer.

The number of states providing protections for couples in committed same-sex relationships keeps increasing, and that has led to increased security for thousands of couples. That security has often included better support in the everyday financial struggles faced by all families, including the need for health insurance. But for some same-sex couples, even getting married and living in a non-discriminatory state might not be enough to gain spousal health coverage from employers who already offer it to different-sex married couples. There are employers who must treat you equally and those who should do so. Whether they must depends on many factors, and you may have to consult an attorney for an evaluation. This document is intended to give you some general background that may be helpful for understanding the law that covers spousal health benefits. For more general information, see “Protecting Same-Sex Relationships.”

Background

To begin to evaluate whether marriage will help you obtain spousal health coverage from an employer, consider the following:

  • Is the employer public (meaning governmental) or private? Private employers are regulated differently.
  • If the employer is private, is the employer “insured” or “self-insured?” Generally speaking, an “insured” employer purchases health insurance for employees from an insurance company subject to regulation by the state. By contrast, a “self-insured” company creates its own health insurance program, which is likely subject to regulation under a federal law called the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). ERISA trumps state law and employers have argued it leaves the door open to discrimination that is otherwise barred by state law. Figuring out whether an employer is self-insured is not always easy. For example, an employee’s health insurance card may be issued by an insurance company that sells insurance in a particular state and is regulated by the laws of that state, but the employer may have hired the company to be the administrator of its self-insured, federally regulated program. On the other hand, a self-insured employer may elect to offer different options for health plans, including one subject to state law rather than federal law, so employees can switch to the most favorable plan.
  • Even if an employer is self-insured and provides no favorable health plan options, the “summary plan description” for the health plan may include terms that clearly create coverage for your partner. Or, if the workplace is unionized, the “collective bargaining agreement” (CBA) may do the same. In either case, this is where ERISA may help rather than hurt, because the employer may have a contractual obligation that is enforceable under ERISA to provide coverage, as was true in the case of Lambda Legal’s representation of UPS employees. But keep in mind that an employer looking to be harmful might change the terms of the plan.

For help identifying an attorney who may help with the evaluation, contact Lambda Legal’s Help Desk at 866-542-8336.

Other Considerations

It's important to remember that all private employers should provide spousal or domestic partner health coverage, no matter what state they are in. Just because federal law may allow a self-insured private employer to discriminate, that does not mean the employer is required to discriminate. Instead it means that the employer can choose whether or not to discriminate, and it should choose to do the right thing, even if that means changing the terms in its health plan. Over half of Fortune 500 companies provide health benefits to employees’ same-sex domestic partners. To advocate with your current employer for these benefits, see the benefits section in Lambda Legal’s Out At Work: Toolkit for Workplace Equality.

Despite so many employers choosing to do the right thing, the federal government still undermines that good choice, mostly through the power of taxation. Unless an employee’s spouse or domestic partner meets the standards of dependency as defined by the IRS, health coverage provided by the employer for a same-sex spouse or domestic partner is considered taxable income to the employee. That can push employees into a higher tax bracket, and needs to be factored into the family budgets. On the bright side, some employers have begun to explore whether to “gross up” or “round up” an employee’s wages or salary to compensate for the federal government’s added harms to the couples. That means the employer would increase an employee’s wages or salary to roughly offset the extra tax burden from the federal government.

For the most part, despite the federal government’s added tax burdens undermining employers’ efforts to support their employees, same-sex couples often still do come out ahead with spousal or domestic partner health coverage. That underscores the importance of advocating for employers to do the right thing, especially because it’s a mistake to assume that suing for a marriage to be respected is the solution. The great news is that the number of states providing protections to lesbian and gay couples is increasing, so the options continue to increase, too. In the meantime, make sure you have done the best you can to protect yourself and your family appropriate legal documents like a health care proxy.

PLEASE NOTE: This document offers general information only and is not intended to provide guidance or legal advice regarding anyone's specific situation. This is an evolving area of law in which there is bound to be uncertainty. If you have additional questions or are looking for contact information for private attorneys to advise you, contact Lambda Legal's Help Desk toll-free at 866-542-8336 or legalhelpdesk@lambdalegal.org.

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - Web Feature