CENSUS: California has more same-sex couples than other states

SDGLN.com Staff
September 29th, 2011

Editor’s note: These estimates include only couples where one partner is identified as being the spouse of the person who owns or rents the house.

SAN DIEGO – California leads the nation with the most same-sex couples, according to the 2010 Census.

The Golden State had 98,153 same-sex couples, followed by New York with 48,932, Florida with 48,496 and Texas with 46,401. North Dakota had the fewest same-sex couples with 559, just ahead of Wyoming with 657 and South Dakota with 714.

Among the nation’s largest cities with a population over 250,000, San Diego ranked No. 5 with 5,910 same-sex couples. Los Angeles was No. 1 with 13,292, followed by Chicago with 10,849, San Francisco with 10,461 and Seattle with 6,537.

The U.S. Census Bureau this week released revised estimates on same-sex married couple and unmarried partner households: There were 131,729 same-sex married couple households and 514,735 same-sex unmarried partner households in the United States.

The 2010 Census marked the first time the Census Bureau tracked information about same-sex spouses.

Gay groups react

Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, noted that the organization worked closely with the Census Bureau to document data on same-sex households.

“The data … represent another step in erasing the invisibility of our lives. No longer are our marriages rendered invisible in the snapshot of our country provided through the census. And no longer can anyone ignore the presence of our relationships all across the country,” Carey said.

“While this marks a huge step forward, it is not the end of the journey. Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals still are not counted in the census or dozens of other surveys that are supposed to reflect the diversity of people in America. When LGBT people are not counted, we don’t ‘count’ when it comes to money for services, resources and programs.

“Census and other data are the basis for how the government spends billions of dollars each year. Without an accurate count, LGBT people are forced to go without funding for real, everyday services and remain virtually nonexistent in the eyes of our government. This is unacceptable. We continue to work with policymakers to ensure LGBT people are included in data collection on a broad spectrum of critical issues, including those involving our health, our families, our economic well-being, our safety and much more,” Carey said.

Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry, applauded the data.

“The Census Bureau’s most recent estimates of same-sex couples reiterate the need to end marriage discrimination once and for all. The number of gay and lesbian couples in committed, loving relationships, raising families together, continues to grow, leaving more and more families without the critical safety-net of marriage,” Wolfson said.

“These findings also confirm that those who most need the support marriage offers – particularly in these tough economic times – live in the places with the fewest protections. The South is home to more gay parents than any other region in the nation. And yet, these families are not only discriminated against by their home states, which exclude them from marriage and bar even lesser protections such as civil union and domestic partnership, but are also targeted for an additional layer of discrimination from the federal government under the so-called Defense of Marriage Act,” he said.

“When DOMA was stampeded into law back in 1996, no gay couples were married anywhere in the world; Congress was voting on a hypothetical. Now we have Census confirmed couples across the country who are harmed by this unconscionable law. In the United States, we don’t have second-class citizens, and we shouldn’t have second-class marriages. It’s time to follow the Golden Rule and the Constitution and end marriage discrimination once and for all.”

Census Bureau explains why it revised its numbers

The results of the 2010 Census revised estimates are closer to the results of the 2010 American Community Survey (ACS) for same-sex married and unmarried partners. The 2010 ACS estimated same-sex married couples at 152,335 and same-sex unmarried partners at 440,989.

The new, preferred figures revise earlier estimates of same-sex unmarried partners released this summer from the 2010 Census Summary File 1 because Census Bureau staff discovered an inconsistency in the responses in the 2010 Census summary file statistics that artificially inflated the number of same-sex couples.

In addition, a breakdown of couples who reported as same-sex spouses is now available. The summary file counts originally showed that there were 349,377 married couple households and 552,620 same-sex unmarried partner households.

Statistics on same-sex couple households are derived from two questions on the census and ACS questionnaire: relationship to householder and the sex of each person. When data were captured for these two questions on the 2010 Census door-to-door form, the wrong box may have been checked for the sex of a small percentage of opposite-sex spouses and unmarried partners. Because the population of opposite-sex married couples is large and the population of same-sex married couples in particular is small, an error of this type artificially inflates the number of same-sex married partners.

New methodology implemented

After discovering the inconsistency, Census Bureau staff developed another set of estimates to provide a more accurate way to measure same-sex couple households. The revised figures were developed by using an index of names to re-estimate the number of same-sex married and unmarried partners by the sex commonly associated with the person’s first name.

“We understand how important it is for all groups to have accurate statistics that reflect who we are as a nation,” Census Bureau Director Robert Groves said. “As scientists, we noticed the inconsistency and developed the revised estimates to provide a more accurate portrait of the number of same-sex couples. We’re providing all three — the revised, original and ACS estimates — together to provide users with the full, transparent picture of our current measurement of same-sex couples.”

The 2010 Census preferred estimates have been peer-reviewed by Gary Gates, a demographer with the UCLA School of Law’s Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy, by Philip Cohen, a professor of sociology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and by Megan Sweeney, professor of sociology at UCLA. These experts concluded the methodology behind these revised estimates was sound.

All three sets of estimates are available at both the national and state levels and provide estimates of the presence of the couple’s own children. The 2010 Census revised estimates provide a 10-year benchmark, while the ACS estimates are useful for looking at a yearly time series.

in In the News / Parenting  by Anthony Brown 0 comments

North Jersey sees 30% growth in same-sex couples

Sunday, August 14, 2011    Last updated: Sunday August 14, 2011, 5:24 PM

BY HARVY LIPMAN AND DAVE SHEINGOLD
STAFF WRITERS
The Record

By the 2000s, though, they had noticed a dramatic rise in the number of gay couples living in the suburbs, a trend confirmed by new census numbers released last week.

According to those figures, culled from the 2010 census, the number of households in North Jersey headed by same-sex partners grew by 30 percent in the past decade. 

By the numbers

The number of same-sex couples rose in most North Jersey municipalities last decade.

Bergen County  2000  2010
Allendale 1 17
Alpine 8 4
Bergenfield 51 62
Carlstadt 11 14
Cliffside Park 72 56
Closter 10 15
Cresskill 5 7
Demarest 4 8
Dumont 20 25
East Rutherford 27 19
Edgewater 32 38
Elmwood Park 33 49
Emerson 14 17
Englewood 63 73
Englewood Cliffs 3 10
Fair Lawn 49 64
Fairview 34 35
Fort Lee 65 127
Franklin Lakes 14 28
Garfield 51 68
Glen Rock 15 20
Hackensack 112 145
Harrington Park 6 34
Hasbrouck Heights 19 9
Haworth 3 4
Hillsdale 19 23
Ho-Ho-Kus 8 8
Leonia 17 35
Little Ferry 24 27
Lodi 44 64
Lyndhurst 35 58
Mahwah 27 49
Maywood 24 32
Midland Park 6 8
Montvale 8 10
Moonachie 4 4
New Milford 16 37
North Arlington 28 39
Northvale 6 9
Norwood 6 7
Oakland 18 21
Old Tappan  6 8
Oradell 13 14
Palisades Park 37 41
Paramus 17 35
Park Ridge 7 11
Ramsey 20 20
Ridgefield 24 31
Ridgefield Park 21 34
Ridgewood 22 38
River Edge 24 19
River Vale 9 23
Rochelle Park 12 14
Rockleigh 0 0
Rutherford 48 65
Saddle Brook 15 40
Saddle River 6 7
South Hackensack 4 5
Teaneck 80 126
Tenafly 11 18
Teterboro 0 0
Upper Saddle River 12 13
Waldwick 10 16
Wallington 30 25
Washington Township 10 27
Westwood 19 21
Woodcliff Lake 1 5
Wood-Ridge 10 20
Wyckoff 17 24
     
Passaic County 2000 2010
Bloomingdale 14 23
Clifton 132 243
Haledon 13 20
Hawthorne 32 48
Little Falls 33 42
North Haledon 10 24
Passaic 142 107
Paterson 349 290
Pompton Lakes 15 29
Prospect Park 11  8
Ringwood 26 37
Totowa 13 25
Wanaque 22 20
Wayne 75 105
West Milford 58 63
West Paterson 20 32
Staff analysis by Dave Sheingold> 

Interactive map

Click here for other census results. 

And a substantial portion of those couples are raising children, like the Galluccios of North Haledon. Nearly one-fourth of North Jersey households headed by male partners and almost a third of female couples have related children living in their homes. 

“At the end of the ’90s and 2000s, there was a whole big push toward having children and it was very public, so the concept of gay couples having children was a natural progression,” said Michael Galluccio, who serves as a member of the school board at Manchester Regional High School. “It was the first time that there was an acknowledgment that we could be not only couples but families with children.” 

Same-sex partner households still represent a small portion of Bergen and Passaic county residents: just one in 160 households in Bergen County and one in 149 in Passaic County – or a total of 3,216 households in the two counties. 

Across New Jersey, one in 133 households is headed by same-sex unmarried partners. 

Steven Goldstein, the head of the leading statewide advocacy group for the gay and lesbian community, said that he too has seen a big increase in the number of same-sex couples living in the suburbs of New Jersey. 

“As we’ve gotten more rights, we’ve become more mainstream and been looking to move to the suburbs,” said Goldstein, who serves as chairman of Garden State Equality. “My partner and I did not want to continue to live in an 800-square-foot studio apartment in Manhattan with a bike taking up half the space for $1 million, so we looked to the suburbs. New Jersey is the ultimate suburban state. 

“What the census is really saying is that we same-sex couples can be as fabulously boring as everybody else,” said Goldstein, of Teaneck. “We complain about the parking in Garden State Plaza, we bitch about taxes and worry about getting a quality education for our kids.” 

Census may be low

 

The jump in the number of gay couples is just one piece of a broader change in the makeup of North Jersey families, with more households headed by single parents and an increase in the number of adult children living with their parents. 

Goldstein thinks the census figures fall short of the actual number of same-sex couples in New Jersey. 

“The census is an undercount,” he said. “For instance, Garden State Equality’s members include more same-sex couples in Asbury Park than the number reported by the 2010 census.” 

Goldstein said the problem lies in the way the census determines whether people are living as same-sex couples, which is by having the head of a household pick from a list of checkboxes to describe the relationships of each person living there. “Unmarried partner” is one of the choices, along with options like “other relative,” “husband/ wife,” “housemate” and “other non-relative.” 

“The census still doesn’t ask the question right out: Are you a same-sex couple?” he noted. 

Goldstein said he wondered whether the growth in New Jersey’s same-sex partner households will continue, given the passage of New York’s gay marriage act this year; New Jersey has yet to adopt such a law. 

“With New York having passed us on marriage equality, it will be interesting to see if the trend still holds true,” he said. 

The census’ data on the number of same-sex partner households with related children represent the first time the bureau has compiled that information. More than 900 same-sex couples in North Jersey reported having children living in their homes. 

Michael Patrick and Randy Dixon of Franklin Lakes are among them. The couple have lived in New Jersey for 11 years and have two adopted children: 9-year-old daughter Blake and 5-year-old son Gardner. 

“One of the reasons we moved to New Jersey was that at that stage it was one of the few states where you could adopt a child as a same-sex couple,” said Dixon. 

For that, they can thank the Galluccios. The couple, who lived in Maywood at the time, won a landmark case in 1997 when Bergen County Superior Court Judge Sybil R. Moses ruled that they could jointly adopt their foster son. 

The couple lived in California for several years, being married there, before they moved back to New Jersey in 2008. 

Jon Galluccio said that for the most part living in New Jersey has been a positive experience for the couple and their three children. 

“I would say it’s been 90 percent a great experience, maybe 95 percent,” he said. “That 5 percent is just the general crap that people have to deal with. With another family, it could be because they are Italian on an Irish block. For us, it’s because we are a gay couple.” 

Patrick and Dixon said they worried at first about what sort of reception their daughter would get in school. When Blake was small, they enrolled her in a private Montessori school. 

“As she got older, we finally decided that the Franklin Lakes schools have a great reputation, so we decided to put her in public school,” Dixon added. “We were pleasantly surprised to find there were no issues. Our daughter and son have play dates with other kids, our daughter’s friends come for sleepovers.” 

Living in an upscale, well-educated community helps, he acknowledged. “A lot of our neighbors work in the city and they know gay people. It’s not a big deal to them.” 

Nevertheless, the couple said they feel some pressure to be the best parents possible.

“One of the things that happens as gay parents is you feel you have to make sure you’re doing the best job and your children never are in any trouble,” Patrick said. “God forbid something should happen and people say, ‘It’s the gay parents.’ ”

Melissa B. Brisman, a Montvale attorney whose firm specializes in helping clients deal with reproductive legal issues, said she handles more than 50 adoptions annually for gay and lesbian couples. Another 75 or so homosexual couples a year hire her firm to help them have children through surrogate mothers.

Brisman estimated that gay and lesbian couples account for about a quarter of her clients.

“I own a surrogacy agency and we get a ton of gay men coming to surrogates to bear children,” Brisman said. The number of gay men using surrogate mothers to give birth is on the rise for a number of reasons, she added.

“One is just that surrogacy is more readily available and acceptable,” Brisman said. She pointed out that several gay celebrities, including Elton John, Neil Patrick Harris and Ricky Martin, have publicly discussed having their children through surrogate mothers.

“The science is also better,” Brisman added. “Where once the odds of success were around 10 percent, now they’re around 80 percent.”

For many female couples, in-vitro fertilization using donor sperm is the path to having children, noted Dr. Serena H. Chen, director of reproductive medicine at the Institute for Reproductive Medicine and Science at Saint Barnabas Health in Livingston.

“I would say maybe 5 percent of our clients are lesbian couples,” Chen said. “It’s something we see on a regular basis, and it’s not something anybody blinks an eye at.”

in In the News / Parenting  by Anthony Brown 0 comments

Ohio appeals court overturns contempt finding and allows bio mom to withhold visitation from nonbio mom

Tuesday, June 14, 2011

Beyond (Straight and Gay) Marriage by Nancy Polikoff

An Ohio trial judge granted Julie Rowell temporary visitation with the daughter she raised for five years with her former partner, Julie Smith. The child was conceived through donor insemination while the couple was together. When Smith refused to allow the court-ordered temporary visitation, the trial judge held her in contempt of court. Last week, an Ohio appeals court in Rowell v. Smith overturned, in a 2-1 vote, the contempt finding, ruling that the trial court lacked the authority (and therefore the subject matter jurisdiction) to issue a temporary visitation order to a non-parent unless there was pending an action for dissolution of a marriage or child support.

This is an outrageous decision. The appeals court does not dispute that the court has the power to hear Rowell’s petition for custody of the child. But a custody case can drag on for a long time. Point of fact: this custody action began in October 2008. Procedural manuevering, as well as the standard length of time it takes to prepare a contested custody case, means that a final hearing on custody can take a very long time. Without a temporary visitation order, the nonbio mom loses contact with her child and thereby reduces the likelihood she will prevail at the ultimate trial.

This case is the story of a bio mom who simply refused to comply with a trial court’s order, requiring the nonbio mom to return to court for enforcement. To the credit of the trial judge, that judge refused to budge from the temporary visitation order and ultimately held the bio mom in contempt and ordered her jailed for three days unless she allowed visitation and paid Rowell’s attorneys fees. That contempt order was subject to review by an appellate court, and it is that review which resulted in this terrible opinion.

It is settled in Ohio that a nonbio mom can share custody with a bio mom when there has been an agreement to do so. The agreement can be proven through conduct. In February I wrote about In re Mullen, currently pending in the Ohio Supreme Court. That case will determine whether the presence of a known semen donor who now wants a role in the child’s life and who has teamed up with the bio mom can negate a nonbio mom’s claim.

The two judge majority in this opinion really stretched to decide the way it did. The forceful dissent cited rulings from the Ohio Supreme Court and other appeals courts allowing nonbio moms to obtain visitation and shared custody. The dissent chastises the majority for relying on a case in which grandparents sought visitation only and were denied it. In this case, the dissent notes, Rowell is seeking shared custody, which she is allowed to do, and a temporary visitation order is simply designed to maintain the status quo until custody can be decided. Since the court has subject matter jurisdiction to determine custody, it is also authorized by rule to make temporary orders such as this one.

Winning in court makes for good law, but the clients who go through these grueling cases mostly care about maintaining their parent-child relationship. A nonbio parent who wins and faces a recalcitrant bio parent doesn’t get what she and her child deserve. The most famous recalcitrant bio mom in the country is, of course, Lisa Miller of the infamous Miller-Jenkins cases. Several levels of courts in two states have ruled against her and still Janet Jenkins has no relationship with her child.

I hope this case goes to the Ohio Supreme Court and is reversed. If it stands, bio moms can drag out custody proceedings almost indefinitely and eliminate a child’s second mother by the sheer passage of time.

Posted by Nancy Polikoff at 5:46 PM

in In the News / Legal / Parenting  by Anthony Brown 0 comments

Octomom Case Rattled Fertility Medicine

June 3, 2011
New York Times
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

LOS ANGELES (AP) — The case of the doctor who lost his license for helping “Octomom” bear the world’s largest-surviving brood of babies has rattled the field of fertility medicine — a $3 billion industry with little regulation.

When the Medical Board of California revoked the license of Dr. Michael Kamrava on Wednesday, it was a rare outcome that came more than two years after his patient Nadya Suleman gave birth to octuplets.

He’s allowed to keep practicing until July 1.

There are no laws that prevent doctors from implanting multiple embryos and possibly producing another “Octomom”-type case, but national guidelines have been tightened in the wake of the case to restrict how many embryos can be implanted in patients.

in In the News / IVF / Legal / Legislation  by Anthony Brown 0 comments

Timo Miller website raising funds for defense of man who helped Lisa Miller evade court order to transfer custody

Beyond (Straight and Gay) Marriage – Nancy Polikof – May 14, 2011
Timo Miller, the Christian missionary and Mennonite pastor arrested last month for aiding and abetting the international kidnapping of Isabella Miller-Jenkins by her biological mother, Lisa Miller, has set up a website telling his side of the story and seeking funds for his defense.

A Vermont court ordered a change of custody after Lisa repeatedly defied the court orders providing for visitation between Isabella and her other parent, Janet Jenkins. After the last hearing in the case, but before the court issued its ruling, Lisa fled the country, allegedly with Timo Miller’s help. She and Isabella remain in Nicaragua.

The Timo Miller website compares Lisa to a mother goose who will “fight to the death to protect her young.” It describes same-sex couples raising children as follows:

Since God has not intended for two men or two women to raise children as a family unit, they can’t produce children on their own. This creates a problem in their agenda to create the perception that homosexual behavior is normal. Thus they resort to adopting children or using artificial insemination from a male donor in the case of a lesbian relationship. Can you imagine being a child growing up in the middle of such an environment?

According to the version of events on the website, Lisa “realized the emptiness of her lesbian lifestyle” and “the danger that lifestyle posed for her young daughter.” So she “repented of her immoral ways” and sought to make a new life. “Unfortunately for little Isabella,” the website continues, “the lesbian activists decided the situation was an opportunity to further their agenda. They filed lawsuits on behalf of Janet Jenkins (the former lesbian partner) to force visitation rights and eventually gain custody of Isabella in an attempt to prove that their “civil unions” have parental rights.”

One of the many things wrong with this version is that Lisa herself filed to dissolve the couple’s civil union and requested custody, with visitation rights to Janet. The website describes Lisa’s losses in the Virginia appellate courts as those courts “wash[ing] their hands of the situation because of some legal technicalities.” Those “technicalities” are the laws explicitly designed to prevent parental kidnapping by giving control over custody litigation to the state that issues the initial court orders. When Lisa filed in Vermont, she gave that court the power to decide Isabella’s custody and visitation. That’s not a “technicality.”

The website puts references to Janet’s parental rights in quotes (i.e., “parental”) and then says the accusations against Timo Miller beg the question of how “a biologically unrelated individual who has not gone through the adoption process” can even have parental rights. “Most states have specific prohibitions banning homosexual marriage,” it continues, “helping to prevent a situation like this from occurring.” If this turns out to be his defense, it will get him nowhere. In numerous situations, legal parentage does not require biology or adoption. And laws banning access to marriage for same-sex couples have never been interpreted to prohibit parenting by same-sex couples. (Some states do not allow both partners to be legal parents of their children  but that’s entirely separate from whether they can marry.)

The case summary page on the website concludes: “Will you stand beside Timo as he faces the accusations against him? Will you pray for him and his family? Has God blessed you with the ability to help financially?”

Miller won’t be able to build a defense around his religious convictions, but it looks like that’s what her’s going to try.

in In the News / Legal / Parenting  by Anthony Brown 0 comments

GOP continues attacks on partner benefits for state employees

Michigan Messenger – By Todd A. Heywood | 05.11.11

After the state legislature failed to override the Michigan Civil Service Commission decision to offer insurance benefits to unmarried partners of state employees, Republicans are trying a different tack. Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette has filed a lawsuit to void that decision.

The key issue here is whether the state’s anti-gay marriage amendment, passed in 2004, forbids such benefits from being offered. That amendment says:

“To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.”

It’s the “or similar union” phrase that is at issue here. Does a provision that extends insurance benefits to unmarried partners and their dependents constitute the recognition of a “similar union” to marriage? The state supreme court ruled in 2008 that offering benefits specifically to the partners of gay employees does violate this provision, but the policy being challenged here is not specific to same-sex partners. The courts have yet to rule on this broader kind of policy.

A press release on the Attorney General’s website says the AG will argue two points about the January decision of the Michigan Civil Service Commission:

1) The decision exceeds the Constitutional authority granted to the Commission. The Michigan Constitution grants authority for the Commission to establish compensation rates for State employees. It does not empower the Commission to compensate or otherwise provide benefits to non-family members or non-employees.

2) The decision violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Michigan Constitution. By arbitrarily granting state health plan eligibility exclusively to “non-family” adults and their dependents, the Commission has violated the equal protection rights of actual family members and their dependents not eligible under the plan. If an unmarried state employee lives with a sibling or a cousin, for example, that relative is not eligible for health benefits, yet such benefits are available to any non-family member.

Both Senate Majority Leader Randy Richardville (R-Monroe) and Speaker of the House Jase Bolger (R-Marshall) were quoted in the press release supporting Schuette’s lawsuit.

Denise Brogan-Kator, interim executive director of Equality Michigan, says the law suit is “ridiculous.”

“First, he talks about what he thinks is the Michigan Civil Service Commission’s unconstitutional order,” Brogan-Kator said. “That is not true, in my opinion, I think it certainly meets the letter and the intent of the law and the supreme court decision.”

On top of that, Brogan-Kator took Schuette to task on the cost estimates of the proposal, which would take effect Oct. 1. The governor’s office has said the benefit plan could cost the state as much as $6 million a year.

“He continues to throw around this projected cost that some one literally made up and there is no support for,” she said. “It is purely a scare tactic.”

She also found some irony in the fact that had a citizen sued over the decision, the Attorney General would have to defend the decision.

“How much is this going to cost us?” she asked.

Brogan-Kator is not alone in her criticisms of the lawsuit. Jay Kaplan, staff attorney for the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Project of the ACLU of Michigan, was also critical.

“We believe that the lawsuit brought by the Attorney General, not only is misguided but it completely mischaracterizes the action that was taken by the Michigan Civil Service Commission,” Kaplan said. “This particular contractual provision had been put on hold for more than 6 years, with the passage of Michigan’s Constitutional amendment denying same-sex couples the right to marry. In addition to recognizing what had been collectively bargained for, the action taken by the Michigan Civil Service Commission also recognizes the diversity of the State of Michigan’s workforce and the importance of treating all employees fairly in terms of compensation and access to health insurance benefits.”

“The decision to extend health insurance benefits is not only lawful, but it’s the right decision, as families (both traditional and non-traditional) are always stronger when health insurance is accessible,” Kaplan continued. “Estimates show that less than 2 percent of all eligible households are likely to opt in to this program, making the already inflated cost estimates from Senator Richardville and House Speaker Bolger even more out of line with reality.”

“Family members who are considered to be dependents of state employees can be covered for health insurance benefits in Michigan (whereas non-family dependents are not) and we believe that the Attorney General’s allegations regarding equal protection are legally flawed,” Kaplan said. “At a time when many Michigan residents are suffering the effects of our economic downturn, it is inappropriate for the Attorney General to try to take away health care benefits from state employees and their families that were bargained in good faith.”

The AG’s lawsuit is not the only attack on such partner benefits being launched by state Republicans. Last week, the Michigan House approved an amendment to the education omnibus bill which would penalize state universities and colleges if they offer benefits to unmarried adult partners — called other eligible individuals by both the MCSC and state universities. Under the amendment educational institutions that do not certify they have ended those programs would lose five percent of their state appropriations.

The legislature will have to vote again on a conference committee bill which would combine the Senate and House versions of the education funding. It is not yet determined whether the amendment will be included in the compromise legislation.

Michigan State University, which was one of the state’s first public bodies to create an other eligible individual insurance program following the 2008 supreme court ruling, issued the following statement from Kent Cassella, the MSU spokesperson.

“We are reviewing the text of the amendment and evaluating what the potential impact might be. MSU has an Other Eligible Individuals program that allows employees to add one other adult to their policy subject to certain restrictions. The governor and house have already proposed cuts as deep as 22 percent for public universities in the coming year. We do not believe the state should consider imposing any additional cuts on top of the already steep reductions proposed and significant reductions taken in recent years.”

But Republican lawmakers are defending the amendment.

In an interview with Craig Fahle on WDET Monday morning, House Appropriations Committee Chair Chuck Moss (R-Birmingham) defended the amendment.

“Well the universities can make their own policy; they just have to pay for it. If they want the money, they are gong to have to comply with the law. The Civil Service Commission found a way to go around it, which in my mind — once again — if you don’t like the law, that’s a legitimate point of view, go change it,” Moss said. “But it’s illegal.”

Equality Michigan’s Brogan-Kator disagreed with Moss.

“The Michigan Supreme Court said explicitly that universities and other state employers could not provide benefits to the partners of their gay employees by virtue of them being their partners. That’s why the universities and the state had to go around and do these, other eligible employee programs,” Brogan-Kator said. “It is not a wink and nod, but because it is living up to the reality imposed by the marriage amendment and the supreme court.”

ACLU’s Kaplan also assailed the legislation.

“The ACLU of Michigan strongly opposes any efforts by the Michigan Legislature to penalize universities that have voluntarily chosen to provide health insurance benefits to designated others of employees, which may include same-sex partners,” Kaplan said. “This action interferes and usurps the authority and autonomy of public universities to decide what kinds of benefits and compensation it offers to employees. At a time where Michigan families are feeling the effects of the economic downturn, why are members of Michigan legislature trying to eliminate the ability of universities to provide access to health care for their employees’ families? This insensitive and intrusive action taken by the Michigan House would also make it more difficult for Michigan universities to attract and retain the best and brightest talent for its faculty and staff, since universities in most other states are able to provide health insurance benefits to employees’ families, including same-sex partners.”

in In the News / Legislation  by Anthony Brown 0 comments

Arrest made in Miller-Jenkins custody battle

Keen News Service, April 22, 2011 – By Lisa Keen

A man accused of helping a former lesbian sneak a child out of the country, violating a court order that the mother turn the child over to her former same-sex partner, was arrested April 18 and will be arraigned in federal court in Vermont on Monday, April 25.

According to court documents, the FBI arrested Timothy David Miller in Alexandria, Virginia, on charges that he aided in the international parental kidnapping of Isabella Miller-Jenkins by one of her two mothers, Lisa Miller.

The FBI statement says Lisa Miller took her child to Mexico in September 2009 “with the intent to obstruct the lawful exercise of parental rights by Janet Jenkins,” her former civil union partner. The statement says Timothy Miller provided assistance with Lisa Miller’s travel from the U.S. to Toronto and then to Mexico City, and provided shelter for her. The Millers then continued on to Managua, Nicaragua, later that month.

A warrant for Lisa Miller’s arrest was issued in April 2010.

Sarah Star, a Vermont attorney representing Jenkins, said Friday that, despite Timothy Miller’s arrest, “We still don’t know where they are now.”

Jenkins issued a statement saying she hopes “Isabella is safe and well” and that she is looking forward to “having my daughter home safe with me very soon.”

But Star said she was not sure what measures might be available to law enforcement officials to attempt to locate and extradite Lisa Miller back to the U.S.

The FBI indicated it has not established whether Lisa Miller is related to Timothy Miller. Timothy Miller reportedly lived in Crossville, Tennessee, and has a wife and four children. But evidence suggests he and the family were living in Nicaragua in November 2008. The Rutland Herald, a Vermont daily newspaper, said Timothy Miller worked as missionary in Nicaragua.

According to one FBI affidavit, the “Lynchburg Christian Academy Payroll Account” provided “multiple payroll checks to Lisa Miller. The Academy is an affiliate of the later Jerry Falwell’s Thomas Road Baptist Church.

The FBI documents indicate agents believe Lisa Miller was going by the name Sarah, and that her daughter was being referred to as Lydia.

A Vermont judge transferred full custody of the daughter to Jenkins in November 2009, after Lisa Miller failed to comply with a court order that she allow Jenkins visitation with the child.

The Miller-Jenkins case took on national prominence after Lisa Miller moved from Vermont to Virginia in an effort to use Virginia’s newly enacted law banning recognition of same-sex relationships as leverage in her battle to prevent Jenkins from having visitation. But Virginia courts, including the state supreme court, ruled that the federal kidnapping law trumps Virginia’s “Marriage Affirmation Act” and the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

Isabella Miller turned 9 this month.

in In the News / Legal / Parenting  by Anthony Brown 0 comments

Same-sex adoptions lose ground after Va. board vote

Washington Post – 4.20.11

By Anita Kumar

RICHMOND — The State Board of Social Services has voted overwhelmingly against new adoption rules that some say would allow same-sex couples to adopt in the state for the first time.

In a 7-2 vote Wednesday afternoon, the board opted against the new rules, first proposed by former governor Tim Kaine. In Virginia, only married couples and single men and women, regardless of sexual orientation, can adopt. The proposed changes would require private and faith-based groups, such as Catholic Charities and Jewish Family Services, to allow gay parents to adopt or foster children.

Some members of the board, including Democratic appointees who make up the 5-4 majority, had told The Washington Post on Tuesday they would be guided by advice from Republican Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II. He said in a memo last week that the proposed new adoption rules would violate state law.

Cuccinelli’s position reverses a 2009 decision made by his predecessor, William C. Mims, a former Republican legislator and now a Virginia Supreme Court justice. Mims did not return messages Tuesday.

Gov. Robert F. McDonnell had also opposed the proposed regulations.

Board chairwoman Bela Sood, who was appointed by former Democratic governors Kaine and Mark R. Warner, said that despite members’ philosophical disagreements, they had to rely on the attorney general’s views. “We have to depend on them,” she said. “They are very clear and direct.”

The proposed regulations would protect against discrimination on the basis of gender, age, religion, political beliefs, sexual orientation, disability, family status, race, color or national origin.

Gay rights and adoption advocacy groups have been pressuring McDonnell and the board — writing them, taking out ads and holding news conferences — to approve the regulations.

“No person who wants to become a parent should be forced to leave the state to do so, and no child should be denied a loving home because of such discrimination,” James Parrish, executive director of Equality Virginia. told the Post on Tuesday.

By Anita Kumar  |  05:45 PM ET, 04/20/2011

in Adoption / In the News / Legal / Legislation  by Anthony Brown 0 comments

Human Egg Donor Antitrust Class Action Lawsuit Complaint Filed Over Alleged Price Fixing Of Human Egg Donor Services.

Human Egg Donor Services Antitrust Class Action Lawsuit ComplaintApril 13, 2011

 

A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Society For Reproductive Medicine (“ASRM”), Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (“SART”) and Pacific Fertility Center (collectively “Defendants”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (styled Lindsay Kamakahi v. American Society For Reproductive Medicine, Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology and Pacific Fertility Center, Civil Action Case No. 11-Cv-1781) challenging, as allegedly per se illegal under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, an alleged horizontal price fixing agreement among purchasers of human egg donor services (“Donor Services”) in connection with ASRM’s alleged promulgation of certain rules setting forth the maximum compensation its members should pay for donor services (“Maximum Price Rules”), SART’s alleged adoption of such Maximum Price Rules and SART-member fertility clinics’ alleged agreement to follow such rules, according to the Human Egg Donor Services antitrust class action lawsuit complaint.

The Human Egg Donor antitrust class action lawsuit complaint is reportedly brought on behalf of a putative class of persons (the Plaintiff Class), as follows, unless otherwise excluded:

All women who, at any time during the time period starting four years prior to the filing date of the complaint to the present (the “Class Period”), sold Donor Services for the purpose of supplying AR Eggs to be used for reproductive purposes, within the United States and its territories, to any Defendant Class member.

The Human Egg Donor antitrust class action lawsuit complaint reportedly refers to Donor Services as the time, inconvenience, labor and discomfort incurred by women who agree to supply their own human eggs for assisted ferility and reproductive procedures (“AR Eggs”).

The Human Egg Donor antitrust class action lawsuit complaint is also reportedly brought against a putative class of defendants (the Defendant Class), as follows, unless otherwise excluded:

All SART-member Fertility Clinics and all AR Egg Agencies that agreed to comply with SART/ASRM rules on donor egg compensation and who paid for Donor Services at any time during the time period starting four years prior to the filing date of the complaint to the present.

For more information on the Human Egg Donor Services antitrust class action lawsuit complaint, read the Human Egg Donor class action lawsuit complaint.

in In the News / IVF / Legal  by Anthony Brown 0 comments

French Couple Issues Appeal in Surrogacy Case

April 7, 2011 – New York Times
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

KIEV, Ukraine (AP) — A French family detained in Ukraine for trying to smuggle out twins born to a surrogate mother is asking any sympathetic country to grant the children citizenship.

The family was detained last month while trying to take the 2-month-old girls into Hungary.

France does not recognize the citizenship of children born to surrogate mothers and is refusing to issue passports for the girls.

In an appeal issued to news media on Thursday, the family urged any nation in the world that recognizes surrogate births to grant citizenship to the girls.

The girls’ father and his father are free on bail while they await trial in the city of Uzhorod in May. The girls’ French mother has not been charged, but she remains in Uzhorod.

in In the News / Legal / Surrogacy  by Anthony Brown 0 comments