Today Representative Barney Frank introduced an inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) which would provide federal workplace protection for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people. The bill is being sponsored by a bi-partisan group of Congressional representatives that includes Reps. Tammy Baldwin and Jared Polis, who along with Rep. Frank, are the only openly gay members of Congress.

Kevin Cathcart, Executive Director of Lambda Legal, issued a statement, calling on "Congress to enact ENDA quickly to end discrimination in the workplace based on sexual orientation or gender identity."

Historically, workplace discrimination is the number one complaint of callers to Lambda Legal's Help Desk. An inclusive ENDA would provide a strong tool for Lambda Legal to protect LGBT people in every state from discrimination on the job.

Through our advocacy efforts with the United ENDA Coalition, Lambda Legal is encouraging constituents to contact their representatives through the U.S. Capitol to request that they cosponsor the new ENDA and work hard toward its passage.

After 20 years of marriage, father of three Eric Mongerson came out as gay. In the court’s “Final Order,” filed in September of 2007, a blanket restriction was imposed on the father that prohibited him from “exposing his children to his homosexual partners and friends.”

Lambda Legal filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case in February 2009, arguing on behalf of Children of Lesbians and Gays Everywhere (COLAGE) that restrictions in custody and visitation matters should not be determined based on sexual orientation and that court-ordered restrictions based on the sexual orientation of a parent’s friends and partner is contrary to state and federal law.

The Court agreed with Lambda Legal’s arguments in their opinion on this issue, ruling that, because there was no evidence that such a visitation restriction harmed the children, the imposed ban was arbitrary and contradicts existing public policy in the state. Writing for a unanimous court, Justice Robert Benham said:

“The prohibition against [the children having] contact with any gay or lesbian person acquainted with Husband assumes, without evidentiary support, that the children will suffer harm from any such contact. Such an arbitrary classification based on sexual orientation flies in the face of our public policy that encourages divorced parents to participate in the raising of their children.”

The case is Mongerson v. Mongerson.

President Obama issued a Memorandum on Federal Benefits and Non Discrimination directing the Director of the Office of Personnel Management and the Secretary of State to extend a small number of federal benefits to the same-sex partners of federal employees. While same-sex partners will be given access to some health care services and employee benefits previously available to different-sex spouses, health insurance coverage has not been included.

The Memorandum issued on June 17, 2009 provides that the domestic partners of civil service employees can be added to the long-term care insurance program and that employees can use their sick leave to take care of domestic partners and non-biological, non-adopted children. For foreign service employees, benefits included the use of medical facilities at foreign posts, medical evacuation, and inclusion in family size for housing allocations.

Despite this modest step in the right direction for recognition and benefits for the partners and spouses of LGBT federal employees, the new policies fall far short of treating such employees equally. The most obvious and perhaps the most significant benefit missing is full health insurance eligibility for the domestic partners or spouses of gay and lesbian employees.

As a presidential candidate, Obama vowed to fight hard for LGBT people and those with HIV. As part of our health care fairness campaign, Lambda Legal is conducting a national survey to document the unique health care experiences and needs of LGBT people and people living with HIV. The results will be used to educate elected officials and other decision makers about the specific problems health care reform must address.

To say Thursday March 5th was "intense" hardly captures the boisterous, often angry cacophony outside the California Supreme Court. I've rarely seen anything like the anticipatory drum roll of public attention in the weeks before — the community rallies and vigils, and the rising tide of media coverage. Have we ever had so many community "court watching parties," let alone a JumboTron screen in the plaza outside the court? It seemed like a Super Bowl of constitutional litigation, except that this contest is no game.  It's about a vulnerable minority defending our equal personhood and whether California's constitutional guarantees are solid or gossamer.

Inside the high court's majestic chamber the atmosphere was dignified, but as the legal arguments unfolded, passions and tension grew. Sitting huddled with our litigation team, puzzling over the layers of meaning in each question, I struggled to sort out the potential implications.

We should win. We have an extraordinary team. We worked long and hard on our strategy and papers, and have confidence in our legal arguments. More than forty friend-of-the-court briefs — representing hundreds of organizations, civic leaders and esteemed scholars — agree with our approach. Given California's history and constitutional structure, I believe our analysis is the most legally sound. And win or lose, we have made impressive strides, because whenever people notice and think about antigay discrimination we make progress.

It's like "the Emperor's New Clothes." The right wing clamors that society must exclude gay people and label us as different and "less than," because heterosexual couples supposedly need that. But the more the subject is discussed, the more people realize they do not need "defending" against same-sex couples, or need gay people excluded and oppressed to have happy relationships themselves. They see that the Emperor's "new clothes" have no substance. Then many feel concern and regret about how we have been treated.

Our cases are designed to prompt this recognition and I think we saw evidence of it during the argument. For example, why so many questions about whether the state should "get out of the marriage business" and offer civil unions to all? That is not a serious proposal here or anywhere in this country. Millions of heterosexual couples are very attached to their marriages, as thousands of same-sex couples now are as well. But I see these questions as a promising sign, because they acknowledge that excluding gay people from marriage and relegating us to a subordinate status is not equality. Proposing the same status for all shows the justices know what equality demands. Whether or not their decision will meet this demand, our position is much improved from just a few years ago.

I was surprised to hear Chief Justice George ask whether this dispute is "just about nomenclature." Of course the answer is that there's nothing "just" about it. And the Chief Justice understands that, as he himself gave one of the most cogent explanations of this principle in his eloquent Marriage Cases decision of last year. The dispute is about civic equality — one of our core constitutional values. "Nomenclature" matters because words connote status and unequal status has profound, real-life consequences.

One of the advocates on our side offered a pointed hypothetical by asking if it would be mere nomenclature if male judges were called "justices" while female judges were renamed "commissioners." In last year's litigation, we similarly noted that the issue is the same whether the statuses are marriage versus domestic partnership or "parent" versus "registered guardian." This discussion left no serious doubt that gay people lose something precious if denied marriage. Plainly, a majority of the court still understands this.

The Court's questions showed how the justices were struggling with these important questions. For example, Justice Kennard asked, doesn't Prop 8 merely take away "just" one right — the right to marry — while leaving us with ample rights and duties through domestic partnership? Yet she and most of the public surely know that the magnitude of the fight on both sides is a measure of the significance of the right at stake. And to take the next step: if Prop 8 is upheld, what will the next initiative target? Our parenting rights, as in Arkansas this fall? Tax equality?

We believe that equality with exceptions is not equality. 

And we believe the California constitution has promised us all equality. As a matter of legal history, giving initiative power to California voters in 1911 did not transform California into a direct democracy without limits. Those who framed the initiative power aimed to counterbalance entrenched business power in the Legislature, not do an end-run around the equality guarantees. The initiative power created by a constitutional amendment did not and could not negate the courts' role as an essential check against majoritarian abuse of vulnerable minorities.

The two sides could not have presented more starkly contrasting visions of this state's constitution. Arguing in support of Prop 8, Ken Starr put a charming face on a horrifying jurisprudence that provides no protection at all to minorities. He admitted openly that his view of the constitution means a bare majority of voters could reinstate the racial restriction on marriage struck down in 1948.

The notion that the initiative process can be used this way has alarmed civil rights and religious leaders, academics, elected officials and so many others. Our shared concern has brought us closer together and strengthened our alliances. Our work on this litigation and in communities is nourishing and deepening relationships that will shape the next stage of our work, regardless of the litigation outcome, just as the public focus on this case has prompted people of good will to think again about what our society is about. Do we have an inspired constitutional system that promises "liberty and justice for all"? Or is it a "tyranny-of-the-majority" democracy in which those who are different are always at risk?

We have many new partners who recognize all too well the painful consequences of bigotry and abuse of power. Writing for the Southern Christian Leadership Conference — the group that carries the banner of Rev. Martin Luther King's social justice movement and a friend-of-the-court in this litigation — Rev. Eric Lee wrote: "As an organization with a proud history of social justice advocacy inspired by biblical values of compassion, respect for individual dignity, and freedom, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference believes … all couples must be treated equally and be free to have their marriages 'consecrated' by the faith of their choosing, or not, as they wish, without being subject to oppressive whims of popular or powerful majorities." His views ring true to many who have not thought favorably about marriage equality before.

We will not know the jurists' thinking until we receive the decision. One of the lessons we learn early in law school is not to assume that questions reflect judges' actual views, but to realize they may instead be attempts to speak through a lawyer to other judges. We do know, though, that whatever happens will be important to California law — and in our lives. And it will be part of a much larger effort to win full equality nationally — an effort in which we are making obvious progress. We are poised for a marriage decision from the Iowa Supreme Court — an independent court in an independent, heartland state. There is promising legislative activity on marriage equality in many places including Vermont, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island, and other important steps to protect same-sex couples being considered in at least Hawaii, Illinois, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Washington. Congress and the new administration are poised for a long-awaited shift on issues affecting same-sex couples.

Our challenge to Prop 8 poses a new question, and the Court's answer will break new ground. Win or lose in this case, we believe our analysis is correct and will be adopted.  We hope it will be adopted within weeks. We are confident it will be eventually.

We will receive a decision in Strauss v. Horton no later than June 3, and likely earlier. While we wait, we continue to expand community relationships, plan next legal steps and engage more fair-minded people in the productive conversations that test-case litigation always inspires.

Central Alabama Pride (CAP) has held a gay pride parade in Birmingham every year since 1989, and its Pride banners have been displayed in accordance with city policy — the same policy that allows the display of banners for a variety of events and organizations, including religious events and organizations.

But in May of 2008 — 19 years after CAP's first Pride parade — Mayor Larry Langford announced that he would neither sign a proclamation nor provide a permit for gay pride based on his religious beliefs that do not "condone that lifestyle choice," going so far as to forbid city workers from attaching Pride banners on city poles.

CAP filed a complaint against the city in August but Birmingham decided to allow a national antigay firm to represent the city. Lambda Legal joined the case as co-counsel at the request of CAP and their attorney, Birmingham civil rights lawyer David Gespass. We are challenging Mayor Langford's actions, claiming free speech and equal protection violations for denying CAP the same city resources that are available to other groups.

The case is Central Alabama Pride, Inc. v. Larry Langford 

The inauguration of Barack Obama as the 44th President of the United States has filled many Americans with excitement and great hope. On January 20, 2009, President Obama took his oath to preserve, protect and defend the U.S. Constitution, and Lambda Legal joins all Americans in congratulating him and wishing him well as he leads our nation forward.

As president, Barack Obama will soon exercise his power to appoint federal judges. Lambda Legal has sent a letter to the President and the leadership of the Senate Judiciary Committee, explaining the monumental need for fair and impartial nominees to the federal bench who will address issues facing lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, transgender people and those with HIV, without bias.

In the letter, Lambda Legal urges the new President to nominate judges and justices who adhere to precedents established in cases of importance to the LGBT community – precedents that, among other things, preserve the right to privacy and protect against antigay bias. In addition, the letter strongly urges President Obama to consider diversity in nominating judges and, in particular, to nominate self-identified LGBT people to federal judgeships.

Lambda Legal, along with our sister organizations, has also written the Obama-Biden Presidential Transition Team urging the reversal of policies that assault the civil and human rights of people living with HIV/AIDS in the United States.

Since the beginning of the epidemic, people with HIV and their advocates have called on U.S. presidents to take visible leadership in condemning discrimination and supporting vital services for people with HIV. It’s time for human and civil rights to be a central part of the U.S. national strategy to end AIDS. Lambda Legal is advocating for the new administration to:

• Immediately issue an executive order to ensure that all federal agencies are complying with the federal Rehabilitation Act and are not imposing medically-unwarranted restrictions on employees and applicants living with HIV.
• Direct the Department of Justice to issue official guidance to state officials, clarifying that a state’s exclusion of people with HIV from occupational training schools and licensing in professions such as barbering, massage, food services and home health care violates federal antidiscrimination law.
• Direct the Surgeon General to re-issue findings reflecting the conclusive scientific evidence showing that needle exchange and syringe access programs reduce drug abuse and prevent HIV infection and urge Congress to lift the ban on federal funding that limits these programs and costs lives.
• Direct the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Attorney General and the Secretary of Transportation to promptly issue regulations implementing the ADA Amendments Act in accordance with its remedial purposes.

Lambda Legal will continue to press the new Administration, to ensure that these steps are taken and other critical HIV civil rights issues are addressed.

As the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama has the opportunity to address many crucial issues facing LGBT people and those with HIV, and to make good on promises to ensure equality for all Americans.

Lambda Legal fights to protect the independence of our courts, so that our communities get a fair hearing based on constitutional principles, equality and fairness. For more information, visit our Fair Courts Project.

Lambda Legal filed a federal lawsuit against Johnson City, Tennessee and its police chief on behalf of Kenneth Giles, a man who had his photo released along with 39 other men who were arrested in a public sex sting operation.

After the Johnson City Police Department released photos of the suspects and other personal information to the media, the local news ran the story prominently along with the pictures and addresses of the men involved. Since the press release, one man has committed suicide and several others have lost their jobs, including Giles.

A one-year review of the police department's press releases by Lambda Legal revealed that out of approximately 600 other releases, none pertaining to arrests was accompanied by photos or personally approved by the chief.  The unwarranted actions of the JCPD are the latest in a long history of the police going beyond legitimate law enforcement measures to take extraordinary action designed to target gay men for humiliation and harassment. (See "Instances of Bias in Law Enforcement," below).

Lambda Legal is arguing that the JCPD violated federal equal protection law by singling out these men for harsher treatment by making their images available to the media. "In America, the police do not get to add an extra punishment to people they don't like," says Lambda Legal Supervising Senior Staff Attorney Greg Nevins. "They also do not get to ignore the principle of innocent until proven guilty."

The case is Giles v. City of Johnson City, et al.

Instances of Bias In Law Enforcement:

• In three separate cases over the last dozen years, the federal and state courts of California have found evidence of police departments' selectively targeting gay men for enforcement of public sex laws while failing to devote the same enforcement efforts to public sex between men and women.
• Police have often sought to punish men arrested for lewd conduct, often before conviction of any crime, through unusual public exposure of these arrests. One common practice has been sending reports of the arrests of gay men to their employers and landlords.
• Law enforcement officials have falsely suggested that gay men are more responsible than heterosexuals for sexual assaults on children. According to a study of abused children in the Denver area where the abuser could be identified, only 2 of the 269 children were abused by a gay man or lesbian.

Background to Giles v. City of Johnson City, et al.

Celebrate National Freedom to Marry Day in your own neighborhood this year with same-sex couples arm-in-arm on your street, in bridal gowns or tuxedos, trailed by a festive entourage. Engage your neighbors. Turn the heads of your friends. Express your need for marriage equality today.

Take it from those of us who have donned the dresses, the suits, the gowns, the winter gloves and scarves, carried the signs, rung the bells, blown the celebratory wedding bubbles, and tossed handfuls of birdseed at our brides and grooms: Street theater is effective in capturing attention and opening dialogue about lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender lives and relationships. Your neighbors will talk with you on the street, some for a long while and some only briefly, and they will talk with their friends and families later, at home.

Strolling wedding parties are also a great way to celebrate commitment to one another in an interactive, focused way. This toolkit contains suggestions, samples, and ideas for beginning, organizing, and carrying out your stroll.

Have fun, and show your community there is a role for everyone in gaining full marriage equality. And together, let us make gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender lives and relationships known!

Strolling Wedding Party Guide

Sample Documents

Talking Points Along the Route

Contact List and Checklist

On May 17, 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling in Brown v. Board of Education that “separate but equal” treatment for African-American people was unconstitutional. Exactly 50 years later, lesbian and gay couples in Massachusetts will begin getting married after the state’s high court ruled that it’s unconstitutional to provide anything other than marriage for same-sex couples.

The issues are different -- but the attack on the courts from right-wing groups is exactly the same. Extreme right-wing politicians and groups label any judge who disagrees with them -- and puts basic fairness above their political agenda -- an “activist judge.” See for yourself, below, just how little has changed in the right-wing playbook over the last 50 years. And go to www.LambdaLegal.org/JudgingDiscrimination for more on Lambda Legal’s Judging Discrimination campaign, which takes on these distortions and tells the real story.