Web Feature

In her 14 years on staff at Lambda Legal, the Honorable Patricia Logue helped change the landscape of family law and constitutional rights for lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, transgender people and those with HIV. To her years of service to the LGBT community, she will be presented with the National Lesbian and Gay Lawyers Association's 2007 Dan Bradley Award, the NLGLA's highest honor given to outstanding leaders in the LGBT legal community. Logue was most recently Lambda Legal's Director of Constitutional Litigation.

Logue was appointed as an associate judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County last April and is a family law and constitutional rights authority. "Pat's contributions to upholding the civil rights of LGBT and HIV-positive people, and all people, are immense," says Kevin Cathcart, Executive Director of Lambda Legal. "We are extremely proud ofPat and all she has done for LGBT civil rights and excited that she has been honored with this award."

Logue received high marks in evaluations by numerous bar associations and was one of 31 judges selected out of a pool of 242 candidates. Logue has worked on many high profile United States Supreme Court cases, including Lawrence v. Texas, Lambda Legal's landmark case overturning all remaining sodomy laws in the country. She has also distinguished herself in family law cases such as Troxel v. Granville and student rights and safety cases such as Nabozny v. Podlesny.

Since 1993, Logue's expansive career at Lambda Legal has undergone many transformations. She originally opened Lambda Legal's Midwestern Regional Office in Chicago as Managing Attorney and has served nationally as Interim Legal Director and Senior Counsel. Prior to joining the staff, Logue served on Lambda Legal's Board of Directors for five years.

We are thrilled to see her years of hard work on behalf of our communities honored at this year's Lavender Law conference.

Lambda Legal Transgender Rights Attorney Cole Thaler spends much of his waking hours litigating precedent-setting cases or working as an educator or activist. He's just been honored for this work by the Southern Voice, which named him one of Atlanta's top 20 lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender leaders.

From the Southern Voice:

Cole Thaler, 30
Lambda Legal transgender attorney

Emerging from law books and a female identity into which he knew he did not fit, Cole Thaler chose to use his expertise and his experience to protect and expand the rights of transgender men and women.

"I came out and started my transition during law school, and that is what really led me to become interested in advancing the rights of the transgender community," he says.

In 2005, a new job with Lambda Legal moved Thaler to Atlanta, and into the forefront of the movement for transgender equality as the national gay civil rights organization's first full-time transgender attorney and advocate.

"It was really with the creation of my job position that the organization took a great leap toward its work on behalf of the transgender community. I'm based in Atlanta, but the cases and projects that I work on are national in scope," he says.

Thaler, who is gay, spends much of his working life on the road, educating others about trans issues in conference rooms, and defending the rights of his clients in courtrooms.

He retains an optimism that his work will bring transgender issues out of the closet.

"I'm very hopeful that we're going to see federal employment protections passed for the gay and lesbian and transgender communities in the next few years," he says.

Read more on the Southern Voice website.

As University of Wisconsin student Brett Timmerman approached a local Platteville sandwich shop, two young men verbally harassed and physically assaulted him. They spat on his face, struck him in the head and tackled him to the ground by the neck, simply because he was gay. His injuries included a ruptured eardrum.

When the authorities arrived, the young men falsely accused Timmerman of starting the fight. As a result, Timmerman was cited for disorderly conduct, only to have the charge later dismissed.

Lambda Legal recently reached a settlement with one of defendants, in the wake of what Timmerman described as "a long and emotional process." But the openly gay former college student remains strong in his convictions.
"I hope that the visibility of my case will help others understand their rights," he said.

Hate Crime Law Facts

• Wisconsin's hate crime law creates civil remedies for victims who have been assaulted because of their sexual orientation.
  
• Less than 50 percent of all states have a hate crime law covering sexual orientation.
  
• This case marks the first time Wisconsin's hate crime law was used to recover a civil settlement for a victim of antigay violence.

The Virginia Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals prior ruling that the state must honor the Vermont Supreme Court's order that gave Janet Jenkins the right to see her daughter.

Janet Jenkins (formerly Miller-Jenkins) and Lisa Miller (formerly Miller-Jenkins) were joined in a civil union in Vermont and later had a child. When the couple split up, Miller moved with their child to Virginia, where she asked a Vermont court to dissolve the union and sort custody of the child. The Vermont court granted Jenkins visitation. Miller then took her case to a Virginia court. Again, the court ruled in Jenkins' favor.

When Miller took her case to Virginia's Supreme Court, she invoked Virginia's antigay marriage law to have herself declared the child's sole legal parent. We represented Jenkins and defended her relationship with her daughter, and won.

Lambda Legal, along with Arent Fox LLP and ACLU-VA, used the federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act to prove that the Vermont court alone has jurisdiction in the matter, preventing court intervention in another state. "I'm relieved that this tug of war with my daughter is over," said Jenkins. "This has been a very long four years. My daughter and I need some time to be together – she needs her other mom."

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

Plaintiff couples in Lambda Legal's Iowa marriage lawsuit: Varnum v. Brien

Nearly two years after six same-sex couples were denied marriage licenses by Polk County Recorder Timothy Brien, an Iowa court ruled that it is unconstitutional to deny same-sex couples the right to marry.

This is the first successful decision in a marriage equality case in the American Midwest and shows that fairness and equality for all are valued across our nation. The decision brings to life the Iowa Constitution's promise of equality for same-sex couples and their families.

This case now moves forward, and the Iowa Supreme Court will ultimately have the final decision.

Get the Facts:

Read Lambda Legal's Q & A about what a "stay" on the decision means in this case, and what you can do if you already applied for a marriage license.

Background:

Lambda Legal filed this lawsuit on behalf of six same-sex couples seeking the right to marry in Iowa. We argue that under the equal protection and due process guarantees of the Iowa Constitution it is unlawful to bar same-sex couples from marrying. The couples in this case have been together between five and more than 17 years. Three of the couples are raising children, others are planning families, and all want the responsibilities of marriage and the protections only marriage can provide.

History:

• December 2005 Lambda Legal files marriage lawsuit in Iowa district court for Polk County; case will ultimately be decided by the Iowa Supreme Court.
• April 2006 Twenty-six state legislators represented by an antigay legal organization move to intervene in the case as defendants.
• August 2006 Court denies legislators' application, ruling that none of the legislators had interests in the case sufficient for intervention.
• August 2006 Plaintiffs move to amend their petition in order to add three of their children as parties, among other amendments.
• September 2006 Defendant resisted plaintiffs' motion to add the children as parties.
• November 2006 Defendant moves for summary judgment.
• December 2006 Court grants plaintiffs' motion to amend, including plaintiffs' motion to add three of their children as parties.
• January 2007 Plaintiffs file resistance to defendant's motion for summary judgment and cross-moved for summary judgment as well. Plaintiffs also file affidavits from leading child development and other experts who explain the need for marriage rights for same-sex couples. In support of plaintiffs' summary judgment motion, Iowa faith leaders, scholars and religious groups file friend-of-the-court brief as does the Iowa Civil Liberties Union on behalf of a group of Iowa historians and law professors.
• March 2007 Defendant files reply brief.
• April 2007 Plaintiffs file reply brief.
• May 2007 Summary judgment hearing.
• August 2007 Victory! The Iowa District Court for Polk County rules in favor of equality!

Dawn and Jen BarbouRoske have been together for more than 16 years. After Jen delivered their first daughter, McKinley, eight weeks early, they realized how vulnerable their family was because they were not married. The couple had to leave their daughter in the neonatal intensive care unit at the hospital while they had an attorney draw up documents to protect Dawn's parental rights. After facing this and other hardships that different-sex couples don't have, Jen and Dawn joined five other same-sex couples in Lambda Legal's lawsuit.

In December 2005 we responded to the needs of same-sex couples and their children in Iowa because we believe that the people and the laws of the state support equality. The case, Varnum v. Brien, argues that denying marriage to same-sex couples violates the equal protection and due process guarantees in the Iowa state constitution. The summary judgment hearing comes on the heels of the Iowa legislature's approval of a bill that will make it illegal to discriminate in employment, public accommodations, housing, education and credit practices based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Meet the Plaintiffs:

Plaintiff Couples in Lambda Legal's Iowa Marriage Lawsuit

An Ohio appeals court ruled that lesbian mother Denise Fairchild should never have been able to attack the validity of the shared custody agreement she made with her former partner Therese Leach.

Fairchild and Leach filed for joint custody of their son in 2001, after they both parented him since his birth in 1996. When the couple split up, Fairchild tried to keep Leach from seeing their son, arguing that Ohio's 2004 antigay constitutional amendment banning marriage between same-sex couples invalidated their agreement. The appeals court ruled, however, that the joint custody agreement was protected from such a tactic, and treated Fairchild's request as improper under the law.

Lambda Legal has represented Therese Leach through two prior victories at the trial court level where the court ruled that the amendment doesn't affect the custodial rights of non-biological parents.

When the Hudson Valley LGBTQ Community Center opened its doors to the public two years ago its goal was to provide educational forums, counseling groups and publications for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender communities. But, according to the city of Kingston's assessor, this wasn't enough to warrant the center's property its mandatory tax exemption — even though New York courts affirmed long ago that real property used by LGBT centers for such purposes are exempt. The assessor's decision was later ratified by the Board of Assessment Review.

The center is run completely by volunteers providing educational and social services to the LGBT and, in fact, the entire community, but is now faced with a discriminatory tax bill for almost $9,000.

This fight for tax exemption is another example of how the LGBT community must continually fight to prove it serves worthy charitable and societal goals.

Lambda Legal, along with the Workers' Rights Law Center of New York, Inc. and Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver and Jacobson LLP, represent the center.

In a victory for registered domestic partners in California, the state supreme court has rejected a challenge that would have forced surviving partners to pay increased property taxes when one partner dies and the other inherits the couple's home. The court's decision is final, and no further appeals are possible.

While we are pleased with the court's decision, this case represents another instance of domestic partnerships falling short of marriage. There is no ready-made safety net for LGBT people when it comes to many big life issues. Read about life planning options to find out what you can do to protect yourself and your loved ones.

Case History:

The case began in March 2005 when Sutter and Orange Counties challenged the Board of Equalization rule that protects domestic partners from increased property taxes when one partner dies and the other inherits the couple's home. California law has long provided this protection for surviving heterosexual spouses. Represented by NCLR, Lambda Legal and the law firm of Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, Equality California and three same-sex couples intervened in the litigation to defend the rule. Orange County later left the litigation, but Tehama and Madera Counties joined it. In 2006, Sacramento Superior Court Judge Jack Sapunor rejected the challenge and upheld the rule, and the assessors appealed. Last October, the Third District of the California Court of Appeal unanimously upheld Judge Sapunor's ruling. In this latest ruling, the California Supreme Court denied further review, permitting the Court of Appeal's decision to stand.

Last week, a New York court affirmed dismissal of a case brought against Westchester County Executive Andrew Spano by the antigay Arizona group the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) on behalf of three Westchester County taxpayers. The ADF brought suit against Spano in 2006 after he issued an executive order to officially recognize out-of-state marriages of same-sex couples to the same extent the County recognizes marriages of different-sex couples. The ADF claimed that the executive order was illegal. Lambda Legal intervened on behalf of Michael Sabatino and Robert Voorheis, a Westchester couple who had married in Canada. In 2007, the trial court dismissed the ADF's complaint, but the antigay group appealed to the Appellate Division.

In its decision, the Appellate Division said: "The Executive Order at issue here requires that same-sex marriages be recognized to 'the maximum extent allowed by law.' By its terms, therefore, the Executive Order can never require recognition of such a marriage where it would be outside the law to do so. Since it is within the authority of the County Executive '[t]o see that the laws of the state, pertaining to the affairs and government of the county…are executed and enforced within the county' the Executive Order is not illegal."

Even though the state still does not allow same-sex couples to enter into civil marriage within its borders, New York State's longstanding marriage recognition rule requires respect for out-of-state marriages of same-sex couples. Lambda Legal has had a number of other victories on this front, including Godfrey v. DiNapoli, Lewis v. New York State Department of Civil Service, and Golden v. Paterson, a case brought against Governor Paterson by the ADF challenging a May 2008 directive that state agencies respect out-of-state marriages of same-sex couples. This latest victory in Spano is the second New York Appellate Court ruling on marriage recognition in the state, following a victory in a case brought by the NYCLU (Martinez v. County of Monroe); the higher court ruling allows government officials to continue to respect out-of-state marriages of same-sex couples without discrimination.

"Today the court has re-affirmed that our relationship will be honored in the community where we live and where we make our life together as a married couple," says Sabatino. "It is a relief to know that we will continue to enjoy the rights and benefits of our marriage."