Web Feature

If you are HIV-positive and want to enter the United States on a short-term visa, make sure to plan your trip far in advance. The Department of Homeland Security has proposed additional rules that force those living with HIV to overcome serious obstacles before visiting the U.S. — which include unfair restrictions on them once they're here. Lambda Legal opposes these discriminatory and misguided regulations.

Based on outdated ideas regarding HIV/AIDS treatment and transmission, there is currently a ban on admission into the U.S. of people living with HIV. Some travelers are able to qualify for a waiver of the bar against admission, but that is a difficult and lengthy process. Last year, President Bush called for new rules that would make it possible for more people to get a waiver. But instead DHS has proposed an extremely burdensome process that would require an individualized, detailed, case-by-case assessment of every applicant's medical condition, treatment regimen, HIV counseling and financial assets before allowing entry.

The suggested regulations continue the stigmatizing discrimination against people living with HIV, create greater barriers to their entry into the U.S. and significantly curtail their legal rights once here. In fact, the proposed application would force applicants to waive all rights to change their visa status once in the U.S. — which would prevent them from requesting to stay longer, applying for a work visa while in the U.S., or obtaining U.S. citizenship down the road if they qualify for political asylum.

The U.S. is only one of 13 countries, including Sudan, Saudi Arabia and China, that bars people with HIV from entering the country. Lambda Legal has urged DHS not to adopt the proposed regulations and, instead, to revise them significantly to allow more people living with HIV to visit the United States — and to do so without waiving important rights.

Civil rights leader Dorothy L. ("Del") Martin died at UCSF Hospice in San Francisco, California on Wednesday, August 27. A pioneer and inspirational leader for LGBT and women's rights for over 50 years, she was 87 years old.

Martin and her wife, Phyllis Lyon, made international headlines in June when they became the first same-sex couple to legally marry in California. In 2004, after their first marriage was voided by the California Supreme Court, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal, and the American Civil Liberties Union represented them as plaintiffs in the California marriage lawsuit that succeeded this May.

But the extraordinary role they played in the fight for marriage equality was only the most recent example of their courage and leadership. Martin and Lyon were co-founders in 1955 of the Daughters of Bilitis (DOB), the first public and political lesbian rights organization in the United States. Martin was instrumental in shaping, leading and inspiring the modern LGBT and feminist movements.

In addition to her groundbreaking work as editor of DOB's monthly magazine, The Ladder, Martin also pressed multiple key civil rights initiatives, including the campaign to persuade the American Psychiatric Association to drop its categorizing of homosexuality as a mental illness, which was victorious in 1973. In 1972, Martin and Lyon published Lesbian/Woman, one of the earliest, positive books about lesbians in America. Martin was also a leader in the movement to end violence against women. She published Battered Women in 1975, and was co-founder of La Casa de las Madres, a battered women's shelter.

Del Martin declared her most important contribution was "being able to help make changes in the way lesbians and gay men view themselves and how the larger society views lesbians and gay men." Tributes to Martin's extraordinary civil rights contributions must similarly honor her beloved partner of over 50 years, Phyllis Lyon. Their hearts, lives and work were intertwined, sharing a fierce dedication to fairness and equal dignity for all, as well as humor, common sense and strategic vision.

When Gay Men's Health Crisis (GMHC) opened its doors 25 years ago, gay men were dying at alarming rates from what in a few months would be known worldwide as Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, or AIDS. It was a devastating time for our community, and we were fortunate to have an organization respond so quickly with information, support and advocacy for all of us who were being increasingly affected by the disease.

As someone who lived through those terrifying early years, I remember the leading role GMHC took in our communities on behalf of people with HIV. I was proud to collaborate with the organization when I came on board as executive director of Lambda Legal 15 years ago and am now proud to honor GMHC for its quarter century of service to our communities next month at Lambda Legal's 2007 Liberty Awards ceremony in New York City. 

Lambda Legal's work on behalf of people living with HIV predates my tenure with the organization. We won the first HIV discrimination lawsuit in the nation, and early on we helped force hospitals to treat people with HIV. We also played a key role in major U.S. Supreme Court cases interpreting the Americans with Disabilities Act, which protects people with HIV from discrimination.

Thanks to HIV testing, antiretroviral drugs, better HIV prevention and education services and stronger laws, life today can be better for people living with and affected by HIV. But I fear these advances may have made us a bit complacent — and prematurely at that. In its third decade, HIV continues to have devastating effects nationwide, not to mention the numerous other places around the world that have been ravaged by the epidemic.

Among people living with HIV in the United States, more than 45 percent are men who have sex with men, and the disease is having a particularly serious impact on black gay men and young communities of color. Despite the availability of treatments, an estimated 500,000 people with HIV in this country are not in regular care, primarily because they lack health insurance. And while there are some confidentiality protections and antidiscrimination laws, LGBT people and others affected by HIV continue to face discrimination in the workplace, denial of health care and other services, barriers to parenting and reproductive health and violation of privacy rights, among other things.

At Lambda Legal we continue to address these difficulties through litigation — our current case challenging the U.S. State Department's ban on Foreign Service applicants with HIV, for example. We also do a great deal of policy advocacy, closely aligned as always with service organizations like GMHC. Right now, for instance, we are working with a number of national and local HIV and health organizations to make sure the new testing guidelines issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention don't violate people's confidentiality or curtail access to important counseling services.

Over the years we've seen how homophobia remains a serious barrier to HIV prevention and treatment, sound public policy and antidiscrimination efforts. We've also learned that discrimination against people with HIV undermines the rights of all LGBT people. In other words, we are all living with and affected by HIV, and we need to come together once more to combat the crushing effects of this disease.

Which brings me to another important anniversary this spring: the 20th anniversary of ACT UP (AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power). While most of the organization has been quiet for more than a decade, founder Larry Kramer revived it a couple of weeks ago with protests in New York and San Francisco. On Wall Street — the site of ACT UP's first demonstration in 1987 — people shouted "Heath care for all!" They demanded lower drug costs and expansion of services for people with HIV. There was even a "die-in," where people lay down amid body bags and some were arrested.

It's great to see the fighting spirit and anger of the eighties coming alive again. What's tragic is that the fight itself feels all too familiar.

*Kevin Cathcart is a featured monthly columnist for 365Gay.com.

Read Kevin's previous columns:

March 2007: The ABC's of Discrimination

Beth R. and Donna M. were married in Canada on Valentine's Day 2004 surrounded by friends and family. The couple had one child together just before the marriage and another child in 2006. Donna was the biological parent, and both children were given Beth's last name and call her "mom." The two women shared a home, and both have always cared for and supported the children as parents.

In April of 2007, Beth filed for divorce. Donna responded by arguing that the marriage is void because New York State doesn't allow same-sex couples to marry within its borders. Lambda Legal argued that it is well-established New York law to recognize out-of-state marriages that are validly performed in places like Canada where same-sex couples can marry. The court agreed.

Significantly, the court also agreed that Beth's claim that she is legally a parent of both children cannot be dismissed. The best interests of the children require proceeding with her claim to ensure her ongoing relationship and support of the children.

New York courts have long held that out-of-state marriages, if valid where entered, will be respected in New York, even if the marriages could not have been performed here.

Courts have also recognized that the structure for ending a relationship is as important as the one for creating it. Same-sex couples and their children need this structure just as much as different-sex couples. The ruling in this case is a step toward marriage equality in the state of New York.

Lambda Legal's co-counsel on this case are: Wendy J. Parmet and Elysa Greenblatt of Parmet Knopf & Greenblatt, LLC, and Jo Ann Citron of Citron Law

View/print the PDF of the decision

Lawrence King, a 15-year-old student at E.O. Green Middle School in Ventura County, California, was shot and killed by a classmate in February. Brandon McInerney, only 14 years old, was charged as an adult in the shooting. Students say McInerney targeted King because he was openly gay.

A coalition of 27 groups fighting for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights, including Lambda Legal, is urging prosecutors to try McInerney in juvenile court, and not as an adult.

"We call on prosecutors not to compound this tragedy with another wrong," the statement says. "The facts in this matter seem clear: one boy killed another in a climate of intolerance and fear about sexual orientation and gender expression….[but] prosecuting the alleged perpetrator as an adult will not bring Lawrence King back nor will it make schools safer for LGBT youth.

"We must respond to this tragedy by strengthening our resolve to change the climate in schools, eliminate bigotry based on sexual orientation, gender identity or expression and hold schools responsible for protecting students against discrimination and physical harm."

According to research released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, children sent to adult court are more likely to re-offend than those committing similar offenses who remain in the juvenile justice system.

On July 1, 2000, Vermont became the first state in the country to legally recognize civil unions for same-sex couples. The ruling came after a state supreme court decision in 1999, which ruled that denying same-sex couples the benefits of marriage was unconstitutional discrimination. The civil union law intends to grant many of the same state benefits, civil rights and protections to same-sex couples as to married couples. In 2005, Connecticut became the second state to legalize civil unions. New Jersey became the third in 2006.

Lambda Legal believes that civil unions are discriminatory and that they cause real harm to same-sex couples. They also keep all LGBT people relegated to second-class status by law. We have several fact sheets and publications that highlight our work and expertise as it relates to relationship law and civil unions.

Read more about our fight for relationship recognition and the part that civil unions play in the struggle.

• Civil Unions are Discriminatory Fact Sheet
• Open Letter From Kevin Cathcart on Lewis v. Harris
• Lewis v. Harris: Essay On a Settled Questions and an Open Question — Why Civil Unions are Unconstitutional
• Lambda Legal Testimony Before the State Legislature: Domestic partnerships failed, so will civil unions
• Lambda Legal Testimony Before the Civil Union Commission
• UPS: Tracking Civil Union Benefits

Legal Literature

• Stanford Law Review, Government Affixes a Label of Inferiority On Same-Sex Couples When It Imposes Civil Unions & Denies Access to Marriage
• Rutgers Law Review, Lewis v. Harris: Essay On a Settled Question and an Open Question — Why Civil Unions are Unconstitutional

The Ohio Supreme Court had its first opportunity to interpret the reach of the state's antigay amendment banning marriage for same-sex couples, as it applies to domestic violence cases. It decided that unmarried people need and require protection when they are abused.

After Ohio voters passed an antigay amendment to the state's constitution in 2004, a string of domestic violence cases cropped up. Criminal defendants attempted to use the language of the amendment to argue that they could not be prosecuted for domestic violence because they were not married to the person they were accused of abusing. Lambda Legal stepped in and submitted friend-of-the-court briefs in seven of these cases arguing that the defendants could not interpret the antigay amendment so broadly.

The Ohio Supreme Court, after examining the amendment's language, agreed with us. The amendment directs the state to "not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage." In its decision, the court made clear that giving unmarried people protection from abuse in no way constitutes a relationship that "approximates" marriage.

"We are thrilled that the court did not take the bait, and came to the obvious and correct conclusion that this amendment has no effect on the state's domestic violence law," says James P. Madigan, staff attorney in Lambda Legal's Midwest Regional Office in Chicago. "The decision makes clear that Ohio's antigay amendment cannot be used to attack individual benefits and protections. The court sent a strong message to those who would attempt to use the amendment to attack health insurance benefits for families, or the relationships between children and their same-sex parents: you can't get away with this."

While antigay amendments that bar same-sex couples from marriage are presented as efforts to "protect heterosexual marriage," the reality is that once they are passed, the floodgates are opened to attacks on all rights for the LGBT community. We hope the court's ruling will limit future efforts by antigay organizations to bring additional cases attacking the families of gay and lesbian Ohioans.

Andre LeJeune and Corey Davis

Leading up to oral arguments before the California Supreme Court as early as next year, Lambda Legal, lead counsel NCLR and the ACLU submitted our reply to the state's attempt to defend its discriminatory policy denying same-sex couples the freedom to marry.  Our brief demonstrates how the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage violates the California Constitution's guarantees of liberty, due process, intimate association, expression and equality. 

Karen Shain, Ericka Sokolower-Shain and Judy Sokolower

In addition to our reply brief, we've also responded to an unusual request from the court asking both sides to answer four questions. One question asks how the court should interpret Proposition 22, a ballot measure passed in 2000 that prevents the state from respecting same-sex couples' out-of-state marriages. We explain why Proposition 22 does not apply to marriages entered in California.  If the state Supreme Court agrees, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger should be hard-pressed to find a plausible excuse to veto a marriage equality bill passed by the California Legislature, as he did last year.

Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon

The California Supreme Court agreed to hear these marriage cases last year after the California Court of Appeal reversed a decision by San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard A. Kramer finding that barring same-sex couples from marriage violates the California Constitution by discriminating on the basis of sex and infringing the fundamental right to marry. Lambda Legal, NCLR, the ACLU, Heller Ehrman LLP and the Law Office of David C. Codell represent 15 same-sex couples, Equality California and Our Family Coalition. The California Supreme Court is considering six marriage cases under the title In re Marriage Cases.

Read the Briefs:

Respondents' Consolidated Reply Brief on the Merits
This brief replies to the briefs filed by the State of California, Governor Schwarzenegger, the Proposition 22 Legal Defense Fund and the Campaign for California Families and demonstrates why it violates the rights of privacy, due process, intimate association, expression and equality under the California Constitution to deny same-sex couples the freedom to marry.

Respondents' Supplemental Brief
This brief responds to four questions posed by the California Supreme Court, including what the differences are between domestic partnership and marriage; what the fundamental right to marry protects; whether the name of marriage could be changed; and the impact, if any, of the federal Full Faith and Credit and Privileges and Immunities Clauses on this case.

The California Court of Appeal ruled that a gay Orange County man who mistakenly thought his ex-partner had registered their domestic partnership is entitled to the same protectionscovering heterosexual spouses who discover their marriage isn't valid.

Darrin Ellis and David Arriaga were in a committed relationship for more than five years, and in 2003 met with their attorney to draft estate planning documents and a declaration of domestic partnership. When Ellis tried to dissolve their relationship three years later, Arriaga requested that the court dismiss the case, saying their relationship wasn't validly registered. Ellis believed his domestic partnership was registered with the state, only to discover upon their separation that his partner never mailed the form.

Lambda Legal argued that Ellis should have the same recourse available to heterosexuals who honestly believe they were validly married, but later discover they were not. This protection allows good faith "putative spouses" to fairly divide property through family court, rather than being treated as legal strangers.

In 1999, Guadalupe "Lupita" Benitez was referred by her personal physician to North Coast Women's Care Medical Group for infertility care. After preparatory treatments, including medication and unnecessary surgery — a process that lasted for 11 months — her doctors admitted they would not perform donor insemination for her because she is a lesbian.

In 2004, Benitez won a legal ruling saying that doctors in a for-profit medical group must comply with California's antidiscrimination laws and treat all patients equally, whatever the doctors' personal religious beliefs may be. But the doctors asked that the decision be reviewed, and the San Diego Court of Appeal ruled in their favor. The doctors claim a right to opt out of California's civil rights law because they are fundamentalist Christians and object to treating a lesbian patient the same way they treat other patients.

Lambda Legal, along with O'Melveny & Myers LLP and Albert Gross of Solana Beach, is now defending Benitez before the California Supreme Court. "What happened to me is something that could happen to any person at any time. Patients should be able to trust that when they go to a doctor, they'll receive appropriate medical care," Benitez said.