The Most Detailed Map of Same-sex Married Couples in America

More than three years after a Supreme Court decision gave federal recognition to same-sex marriages performed in states that allowed them, the demographics of same-sex married couples largely remain a mystery.

In fact, no one has a definitive count of same-sex married couples in the United States.

One reason it’s hard to get a fix on the marriages is that detailed marriage records are not tracked at the federal level. They’re managed by counties and states, which report the count of marriages and not much else. The Census Bureau isn’t always a lot of help either. Methodological problems like sample size and false positives have long plagued census estimates of this relatively small group.

But a new research paper published by the Treasury Department on Monday has found an interesting way around these problems: tax records.marriage equality

By linking the tax returns of same-sex couples who filed jointly in 2014 with their Social Security records, researchers are able to give us the most accurate picture of same-sex marriages to date. And their estimate is this: In 2014 there were 183,280. same-sex marriages in America, roughly a third of 1 percent of all marriages.

Of course, implicit in this estimate is the assumption that all married couples file their returns jointly. But as a proxy for that, it’s pretty good. The Treasury Department estimates that 97.5 percent of married couples file joint returns.

One highlight of the study: Pretax household income of same-sex married couples is higher than that of heterosexual married couples. Most of that is driven by the average earnings of male same-sex couples: $176,000. On average, they make $52,000 more than married lesbian couples and $63,000 more than married straight couples.

Lee Badgett, an economics professor at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, said one reason is the gender pay gap. The math here is simple — for heterosexual couples, the gender pay gap affects one partner. For same-sex female couples, the gender pay gap affects both partners.

But that doesn’t explain why same-sex female married couples earn more than heterosexual married couples, over all. The other key component is geography. The tax data shows same-sex married couples clustering along the coasts, and in urban pockets across the United States. These are regions that also tend to have higher wages. In fact, heterosexual couples actually earn more than same-sex female ones when you compare married couples who live in the same three-digit ZIP code region.

Child care plays a huge role as well. Same-sex female couples are four times more likely to have children than same-sex male couples. That means that many women will have to make tough trade-offs between career and family. Combine that with the likelihood of lower pay to begin with and you start to understand why the income differences are so large.

New York Times, September 12, 2016 by Quoctrung Bui

Click here to read the entire article.

in Legal / Legislation / Recently Added  by Anthony Brown 1 comments

Supreme Court Blocks Order Allowing Transgender Student Restroom Choice

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday temporarily blocked a court order that had allowed a transgender boy to use the boys’ bathroom in a Virginia high school.

The vote was 5 to 3, with Justice Stephen G. Breyer joining the court’s more conservative members “as a courtesy.” He said that this would preserve the status quo until the court decided whether to hear the case. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented.

The court’s order has no effect on any other case.

new york probate process

The gavel of a judge in court

The move came amid a national debate over transgender rights. A North Carolina law that requires transgender people to use bathrooms in government buildings that correspond with the gender listed on their birth certificates has drawn protests, boycotts and lawsuits. A directive from the Obama administration threatening schools with the loss of federal money for discrimination based on gender identity has been challenged in court by more than 20 states.

The case in the Supreme Court concerns Gavin Grimm, who was born female but identifies as a male and will soon start his senior year at Gloucester High School in southeastern Virginia. For a time, school administrators allowed Mr. Grimm to use the boys’ bathroom, but the local school board adopted a policy that required students to use the bathrooms and locker rooms for their “corresponding biological genders.” The board added that “students with gender identity issues” would be allowed to use private bathrooms.

Click here to read the entire article.

New York Times – By ADAM LIPTAK

in Ethics / In the News / Legal / Legislation / Religious  by Anthony Brown 1 comments

GOP Passes ‘Most Anti-LGBT Platform’ in History, Log Cabin Republicans Shocked

Led by some of the nation’s most anti-lgbt politicians and even the head of an anti-gay hate group, Republicans late Tuesday voted on and passed the final draft of the GOP 2016 platform.

The Log Cabin Republicans issued a fundraising email immediately, shocked, apparently, telling supporters, “moments ago, the Republican Party passed the most anti-LGBT Platform in the Party’s 162-year history.”politics, corrosive politics

 

“Opposition to marriage equality, nonsense about bathrooms, an endorsement of the debunked psychological practice of “pray the gay away” — it’s all in there,” the email reads, as the Miami Herald’s Steve Rothaus reports.

“This isn’t my GOP, and I know it’s not yours either,” wrote Log Cabin President Gregory T. Angelo. “Heck, it’s not even Donald Trump’s!,” he claims, although that’s debatable.

“When given a chance to follow the lead of our presumptive presidential nominee and reach out to the LGBT community in the wake of the awful terrorist massacre in Orlando on the gay nightclub Pulse, the Platform Committee said NO.”

As NCRM has been reporting all week, along with passing an amendment calling for an unconstitutional “religious freedom” bill, the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) to become law, the GOP platform committee passed a plank that effectively says children raised in a “traditional” family are better off than children raised by same-sex parents or single parents.

thenewcivilrightsmovement.com, July 13, 2016

Click here to read the entire article.

in Ethics / In the News / Legislation / Parenting  by Anthony Brown 1 comments

Portuguese president vetoes Portuguese surrogacy law

Portugal’s center-right President Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa Tuesday vetoed a law authorizing surrogacy in some cases where a couple cannot conceive, quashing Portuguese surrogacy law adopted by parliament in May.

 

LISBON: In a statement, the president’s office said the Portuguese surrogacy law did “not conform to the conditions set out by the National Council for Ethics for the Life Sciences” which had demanded tighter rules on surrogacy.

Parliament had adopted the bill allowing a woman to carry a child for another person or couple in some cases where women cannot conceive, provided the surrogate mother is not paid.international surrogacy

The legislation, which had supporters from across the left-right divide, was adopted by a slim majority, despite opposition from Portugal’s powerful Catholic Church.

The veto does not necessarily spell the end of the road for the campaign to legalize surrogacy.

Under the constitution, parliament can still override a presidential veto to promulgate a law if an absolute majority of all MPs back it.

While quashing the surrogacy law de Sousa gave his seal of approval to legislation giving lesbian couples and single women to have in-vitro fertilization (IVF).

Portugal is not the only European country where surrogacy is prohibited.

France, Germany and Italy prohibit surrogacy, which critics have dubbed “wombs for rent”.

Agence France Presse – June 8, 2016

Click here to read the entire article.

in In the News / International / Legislation / Surrogacy  by Anthony Brown 0 comments

Italian couple win international second parent adoption case

 

Two gay Italian women have won the right to international second parent adoption, a legal first for the country. All previous verdicts in Italy in favour of lesbian women being legally recognized as the parents of their partner’s children are at the appeal stages.

In its judgment on Friday, Rome’s juvenile court said Marilena Grassadonia, president of the Rainbow Families association, could adopt her wife’s twin boys via international second parent adoption. In turn, her partner adopted Grassadonia’s son. All three were conceived by artificial insemination.

In March, a man won his request to adopt his partner’s child, but rights watchers believed the ruling may have slipped through the net due to an administrative error, with the office of the prosecutor in charge of the case failing to file an appeal in time.adoption

Grassadonia was a vocal campaigner in Italy during the heated debate earlier this year over a contested civil unions bill.

The text, adopted by parliament’s upper house after a clause allowing gay couples second parent adoption was removed, will be examined by the lower house from 9 May.

Italy’s prime minister Matteo Renzi has said he will resort to a confidence vote on the government, if necessary, to make the bill law.

While they wait for a change in the law, courts have been finding in favour of gay couples since 2014 on the basis of current legislation that favours “emotional continuity” for children.

The Guardian – April 30, 2016

Click here to read the entire article.

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

The predictable reason why anti-LGBT bills become law

The cavalcade of crazy ginned up by folks fearful of equal rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Americans was predictable. That far-right conservatives have been wigged out ever since the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage last June is not surprising.  Anti-LGBT bills are popping up all over the country.

Nor is the move by states to pass so-called religious freedom laws. Nor is the push to deny transgender people the dignity of using the bathroom that matches their gender identity. LGBT-rights activist and radio host Michelangelo Signorile predicted as much a year ago in his book “It’s Not Over: Getting beyond Tolerance, Defeating Homophobia, and Winning True Equality.”

 

Also, “Nearly all of the states facing anti-LGBT bills / anti-transgender bills have only 1 or no openly LGBT people serving in their state legislatures,” the report notes.

“One of the reasons the LGBT movement has seen such rapid progress is because our allies have really stepped up. But allies aren’t enough. When LGBT people are serving in public office, and especially in state legislatures, they directly change the conversation,” Aisha Moodie-Mills, president and CEO of Victory Fund and Institute. told me. “Their visibility and their relationships with their colleagues mean the discussion quickly becomes about a real person with a real family. It’s not just political grandstanding on one side and allies pleading their case on the other. Representation matters. Our voices make a huge difference when we’re in those rooms.”rainbowsilhouetteparents

Knowing this then, the opposite actions recently by Gov. Pat McCrory (R-N.C.) and Gov. Nathan Deal (R-Ga.) have a bit more context.

With lightning speed, the North Carolina legislature passed and McCrory signed into law legislation that not only strips the state of antidiscrimination protections for LGBT folks but also requires transmen and transwomen to use bathrooms based on the sex on their birth certificate and not on their gender identity. The Tar Heel State has no openly LGBT members of its legislature.

Meanwhile, down in the Peach State, Deal vetoed a so-called religious freedom bill. “I do not think we have to discriminate against anyone to protect the faith-based community in Georgia,” he said announcing his decision on March 28. Georgia has three openly LGBT legislators.

by Jonathan Capehart, Washington Post, April 29, 2016

Click here to read the entire article.

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

Gay rights – Why religious freedom bills could be just the beginning of the gay marriage debate

Gay rights vs. religious protections feels like the social battle of the moment right now, and it might not go away anytime soon.

In the wake of the June Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, dozens of states have considered or are considering legislation to give Christians and other people protections from doing something that violates their religious belief. It’s got LGBT advocates playing whack-a-mole across the nation as they argue that these laws amount to sanctioned discrimination of gay rights.

Three battles in the South over gay rights in particular have made headlines. Mississippi recently passed a sweeping bill allowing  businesses, religious institutions and state government employees to refuse service to LGBT people. Georgia’s Gov. Nathan Deal (R) vetoed a bill aimed at protecting religious institutions from having to perform same-sex marriages. And then there’s North Carolina and its bill limiting public bathrooms and locker room access for transgender people, which is a whole other issue for another day.

We spoke to Rochelle Finzel,  director of the children and families program with the nonpartisan National Conference of State Legislatures to get a better feel for why this seems to be taking up so much oxygen now — and what could come next. It’s important to note that Finzel and her staff don’t take any positions on policy; rather they track the legislative trends related to family law. Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity.marriage equality

THE FIX: There’s a perception that laws protecting religious institutions and officials from having to perform same-sex marriages is a new phenomenon this year. But really, the 13 states that legalized same-sex marriage through state legislation included religious freedom protections too, right?

Finzel: That’s right. In some states that was the compromise; the only way they were going to get their legislation passed to legalize same-sex marriage was to make sure those religious officials were protected.

What’s happening now, after the Supreme Court ruling where now all states have to recognize same-sex marriage, I think it raised those same concerns of: How do we make sure the law is protecting those whose religious beliefs do not necessarily support same-sex marriage? So these conversations have been a little bit broader than just the solemnization question.

THE FIX: So you’re saying these new bills are controversial in part because they’re expanding beyond protecting religious institutions to how to protect the average person on the street who doesn’t agree with same-sex marriage for religious reasons? Is that a new debate?

Finzel: From my vantage point, that’s new.

The bills that have generated the most controversy and the legislation that ultimately most states, besides Mississippi, have  vetoed, that’s been where that controversy has arisen. And certainly where you see the business community weigh in.

It raises the question of: Are we then allowing discrimination if a person is able to deny services or benefits to someone based on their religious beliefs? We’re protecting one set of beliefs, but then is it discrimination on the other end? And that’s been the real question. But we are very early on in this conversation on gay rights.

THE FIX: How do you see this conversation evolving?

Finzel: This is new territory for states. They’re trying to think about the implications of same-sex marriage across a whole host of issues, from the religious protections as well as some of the family law. I think certainly the emphasis and focus right now is just on same-sex marriage and recognizing same-sex marriage.

The next piece will be, now that we have same-sex marriage and also have same-sex parents, what are the implications in terms of custody, parentage, paternity and all those related issues — child support, child custody, adoption.

THE FIX: When the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in June, was your reaction like, ‘Oh man, get ready for this huge legislative battle in the states,’ or have all these developments surprised you?

Finzel: It may have happened more quickly than we had anticipated. But it certainly has been on our radar. We were thinking, ‘What will this do for family law?’ And I’m not so sure that anyone really has all of the answers to that question yet.

THE FIX: Why are bathroom bills happening in conjunction with all this?

Finzel: That’s a good question. Maybe it’s a question to pose to some of the advocates on these issues. Has that been part of their platform as well?

THE FIX: Is it fair to say the religious protection vs. gay rights discussion has been centered in the South, which tends to have a higher concentration of social and religious conservatives who don’t necessarily agree with same-sex marriage?

Finzel: I think it’s a discussion around the country. All states are — and especially where the Supreme Court ruling was the first time they had to recognize same-sex marriage — sort of deer in the headlights, like, ‘Okay, what do we do?’ And I would say that’s across the board.

There are some that are looking at family law, some looking at how we change the language of our statutes so they reflect a more gender-neutral portrayal of family structures. We see more activity in the Republican states, but it’s not that it hasn’t been introduced or discussed in Democratic states. Family issues are not partisan.

by Amber Phillips, Washington Post – April 13, 2106

Click here to read the entire article.

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

New York Surrogacy – The State of the State

Many LGBT individuals and couples are turning to surrogacy to have their families. New York surrogacy is complicated and evolving, but there is hope on the horizon.

Surrogacy is defined and the act of a woman, altruistic in nature, of gestating and giving birth to a child with the intention of giving that child to the intended parent or parents. There are two types of surrogacy: traditional and gestational. Traditional surrogacy is when the surrogate mother is also the egg donor and the child is biologically related to her. With a gestational surrogacy, a fertilized egg is implanted into the womb of the surrogate and she is not biologically related to the child. Most surrogates today are gestational surrogates.

Currently in New York State, The Domestic Relations Law, Article 8, Section 123 essentially criminalizes compensated New York surrogacy. The law states that no person may request, accept or facilitate the receipt of compensation for a surrogacy arrangement. The law does, however, allow for “altruistic” surrogacy, or non-compensated surrogacy, and authorizes limited reimbursement payments for medical and legal costs related to the surrogacy. But the law does not stop there. Lawyers who facilitate compensated surrogacy agreements can lose their licenses and be convicted of a felony. Monetary sanctions from $500.00 to $10,000.00 are also possible. This does not mean that gay individuals and couples in New York cannot enter into a compensated surrogacy contract. It means that the surrogate cannot live, or more importantly give birth, in New York State, forcing them to incur extra costs of traveling to other states in order to support their surrogate mother.

gay surrogacy

The good news is that a group of advocates and attorneys have created a solution to this problem. It is called the Child Parent Security Act (CPSA), a law that would not only legalize and regulate compensated New York surrogacy, but would also allow for the issuance of parentage orders to secure the parental rights of the non-genetically related parent. Currently, non-genetically related parents must have a second or step parent adoption to protect their families. As of this post, the CPSA is stuck in committee in the New York legislature, held back due to certain legislators’ misunderstanding of surrogacy. Many of these legislators are staunch supporters of the rights of the LGBT community; however, surrogacy for them is a “hot button” issue, as it currently is in Europe.

If you are thinking about surrogacy to have your family, there are a few legal issues you should know about prior to signing any contracts. The most important is that compensated surrogacy is governed by the laws of the state where your surrogate lives, or where she gives birth. It is critical to be aware of these ever changing laws and make sure that the current law is incorporated into your gestational carrier (GC) contract. These contracts will contain such other provisions as: a mandate for medical and psychological testing, details of conception and abstinence for the GC and her partner or spouse, termination of GC’s parental rights, provisions for death or divorce of intended parents (IPs), payment of expenses, compensation, review of GC’s health insurance, breach and remedy procedures, selective reduction provisions to name just a few. These contracts are purposefully dense as their purpose is to cover any and all possible situations that may arise in the relationship IPs will have with their surrogate. It is critical that you have an attorney who is versed in Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) law to assist you in the drafting and review of your surrogacy contract.

Finally, for those considering New York surrogacy, make sure to read through the Men Having Babies Framework of Ethical Guidelines for Intended Parents, an invaluable document created to assist IPs in navigating the process with dignity and awareness of your surrogate mother’s needs through the process. If you are looking for an attorney in New York who specializes in helping same sex couples have families, call Anthony M. Brown, head of Nontraditional Family and Estates division of Albert W. Chianese & Associations, at 212-953-6447 or email questions to Anthony@timeforfamilies.com.

in Featured Articles / Legal / Legislation / Uncategorized  by Anthony Brown 2 comments

Italian Civil Unions Bill adopted by Senate

Italian civil unions bill was signed off on by the Italian Senate on Thursday creating a civil union status for same-sex couples after a bitter debate that dominated Italian politics for months.  The victim of this Bill was second parent adoption protections for LGBT Italian families.

 

The vote was 173 in favor and 71 against, Italian newspaper La Repubblica reported.The bill must now must be approved by the Parliament’s lower house, but it is expected to encounter much less resistance there than it did in the Senate.

But if the legislation is adopted in its current form, it will not be an end to the fight over same-sex couples’ rights. The government of Prime Minister Matteo Renzi traded away provisions important to LGBT activists in order to clear the path for Thursday’s vote, including a person’s right to adopt the child of a same-sex partner. LGBT groups are vowing a new fight against Renzi’s ruling coalition and litigation challenging provisions that they see as discriminatory.

international

“Pontius Pilate could not have done better,” a broad coalition of LGBT groups said in a statement denouncing the compromise issued shortly before the Senate vote, calling for a protest on March 5. If this bill is adopted, the groups said, would make Italy “unlike almost any other country in [the European Union] and unique among its founding countries, [ignoring] completely the existence and needs of the sons and daughters of gay couples.”

“Now our battle — concluding the associations — will continue in the streets and in the courts,” they vowed.

The open wounds left by this fight will not only keep the battle alive in Italy, but could become a problem for major European institutions.

Daniele Viotti, a member of the Parliament of the European Union from Italy’s ruling Democratic Party, said in a statement to BuzzFeed News that he was calling on the E.U.’s executive body — called the European Commission — to enact regulations that would require member states to recognize adoptions and other “public documents related to civil status” from one another. The E.U. technically has no jurisdiction over family law in member states, but these issues affect freedom of movement for LGBT people throughout the continent which does fall under the E.U.’s domain.

“I think Europe will ask Italy for more and I hope Italy will be ready for more,” said Viotti, who is also co-president of the Parliament’s LGBT rights caucus. “Dropping stepchild adoption is dreadful because it leaves children without protection. The fight is not over.”

But Viotti said, the European Commission has “become a lot more timid” in pushing LGBT rights. The Commission is also now facing a grassroots effort by conservatives, called “Mum, Dad, and Kids.” The group is using a relatively new mechanism, installed to make the E.U. more democratic, to mount a petition drive to pressure the E.U. to define marriage as between a man and a woman.

by J. Lester Fedder – Buzzfeed.com, February 25, 2016

Click here to read the entire article.

in In the News / International / Legislation  by Anthony Brown 0 comments

Mitch McConnell’s Stance in Scalia Confirmation Fight Could Help and Hurt G.O.P.

WASHINGTON — Senator Mitch McConnell’s strategy to maintain the Republican majority has been clear: trying to prove that his party can govern. But by saying he will block a Supreme Court nominee for Scalia who has not even been named, Mr. McConnell is headed toward partisan warfare instead.

The death of Justice Antonin Scalia has energized a right flank that has been long suspicious of Mr. McConnell and forced him into a fight that is likely to derail his smooth-functioning Senate. The tactic could alienate moderate voters and imperil incumbent Republicans in swing states, but in the supercharged partisanship of a Supreme Court fight, he probably had no choice. By framing his decision as deferring to voters in the next election, people close to him say he has minimized the political risk.

“It was necessary,” said Josh Holmes, Mr. McConnell’s former chief of staff, who now works as a Republican consultant. “The suggestion that the American people should have a say here isn’t exactly risky ground to be treading.

scalia

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia speaks at an event sponsored by the Federalist Society at the New York Athletic Club in New York October 13, 2014. REUTERS/Darren Ornitz . SAP is the sponsor of this content. It was independently created by Reuters’ editorial staff and funded in part by SAP, which otherwise has no role in this coverage.

“As for the politics,” he continued, “if anyone thinks the center of the electorate is clamoring for Obama to name another left-wing jurist they’re nuts. The liberal left will be as loud as they ever have been, but the reality is that the consternation will be confined to the activist left.”

Mr. McConnell’s other calculation is that if Democrats maintain the White House and take back the Senate, he will at least have denied President Obama a closing victory on the court. If Republicans take over, any heat he will take in the next year for the highly unusual move of blocking a nominee will have been worth it.

He has spent his leadership of the slender Republican majority balancing the demands of conservatives, who view Mr. Obama’s presidency as an eight-year constitutional crisis, and his obligations to vulnerable Republicans up for re-election this year. He has chosen the conservatives.

But events in the coming months could confound that decision. Mr. Obama’s nominee will put a face on what Democrats will call a clear case of obstruction, giving them someone to rally around. And a divided court must render decisions on abortion-clinic access, affirmative action at universities and Mr. Obama’s executive actions on immigration. Every deadlocked 4-to-4 decision will spotlight the Senate’s inaction, amplifying Democrats’ cries of irresponsibility but also highlighting the stakes for conservatives set against enabling a left-leaning court majority.

New York times, By Jennifer Steinhauer – February 14, 2016

Click here to read the entire article.

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