Same-Sex Parents Lobby Congress For Equal Rights

NPR.org by 5.17,2012

On the edge of the National Mall on Thursday, dozens of moms, dads and kids pose for a group photo framed by the U.S. Capitol. They’re just some of the approximately 700,000 same-sex families across the country, despite laws in some states that make raising children difficult for gay couples. Now, they’ve come to Washington to ask lawmakers to make their lives a little easier.

“Today in the United States, there’s kind of a patchwork of state laws,” says Jennifer Chrisler, herself a same-sex parent and executive director of the Family Equality Council, which organized the lobbying day. Chrisler says public policy toward same-sex families is out of sync with reality.

“The 12 states where [same-sex] couples are most likely to be raising kids are states like Mississippi and Montana and Kentucky and Louisiana,” she says. “And those are the states that actually have some of the worst policy.”

In fact, the highest share of same-sex couples is in Mississippi, which bans gay adoption altogether.

Click here to read the entire article.

in Legal / Legislation / Parenting  by Anthony Brown 0 comments

For Obama, It’s About the Children

May 12, 2012, 4:43 pm

New York Times

By KENJI YOSHINO

In a historic interview last week, President Obama announced his support for same-sex marriage. As he discussed his journey toward that position, the president sounded many familiar themes, like the importance of distinguishing between civil and religious marriage and of living up to American ideals of fairness. At the core of his narrative, however, was a relatively novel element — an affirmation of gay couples as parents.

The president repeatedly attributed his “evolution” to his contact not only with gay couples but also with their children. He described thinking about staff members “who are incredibly committed, in monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together.” He discussed meeting same-sex couples and seeing “how caring they are, how much love they have in their hearts — how they’re taking care of their kids.”

Later in the interview, he wondered whether opponents of same-sex marriage had “had the experience that I have had in seeing same-sex couples who are as committed, as monogamous, as responsible — as loving a group of parents as any heterosexual couple that I know. And in some cases, more so.” Indeed, except for his marquee declaration that “same-sex couples should be able to get married,” the president never spoke of “gay and lesbian couples” or “same-sex couples” without alluding to the children of those couples.

The president’s invocation of children as a reason to support same-sex marriage is striking. His position may be controversial among some gay individuals, who, like some straight individuals, do not want their right to marry to be linked in any way to procreation. Yet a strong justification for the president’s stance can be found in the argument it implicitly seeks to rebut. Traditionally, the well-being of children has appeared squarely on the other side of the ledger, functioning as the prime secular argument against same-sex marriage.

Click here to read the entire article.

 

in Legislation / Parenting / Personal Stories  by Anthony Brown 0 comments

The Real Lesson of North Carolina’s Amendment 1

ColorLines.com by Kenyon Farrow, May 11, 2012

President Obama’s public support of same-sex marriage helped upright the frowns of many LGBT marriage activists. The president’s endorsement came the day after North Carolina voters passed a constitutional amendment to ban recognition of any form of relationship that is not a legally married hetereosexual couple. While the passing of Amendment 1 may seem like a big blow to same sex-marriage activists, the grassroots organizing that came together to fight it may actually be the most important win for North Carolina, and a sign that activists in the state are building a better social justice infrastructure for the future.

What’s most important for the gay marriage advocates to remember is that Amendment 1 was never just about same sex marriage—that was already illegal in North Carolina. The bill was written and heavily promoted by Alliance Defense Fund, a right-wing legal advocacy group, and bans all legal protections for unmarried people. It ends people’s ability to get health insurance under domestic partnership plans. The bill even threatens the rights of unmarried parents to visit their children.

While this has been true in many of the now-30 constitutional amendments at the state level, the LGBT organizations have failed, in their desire to win “marriage equality,” to get ahead of the right-wing message to really paint it for what it is: a religious conservative policy agenda to remove anything resembling state support for “inappropriate” gender, romantic or sexual relationships. That includes, but is not limited to, same-sex marriage.

Click here to read the rest of the article.

in Legal / Legislation / Parenting / Personal Stories  by Anthony Brown 0 comments

A Watershed Move, Both Risky and Inevitable

May 9, 2012
New York Times

President Obama’s endorsement of gay marriage on Wednesday was by any measure a watershed. A sitting United States president took sides in what many people consider the last civil rights movement, providing the most powerful evidence to date of how rapidly views are moving on an issue that was politically toxic just five years ago.

Mr. Obama faces considerable risk in jumping into this debate, reluctantly or not, in the heat of what is expected to be a close election. The day before he announced his position, voters in North Carolina — a critical state for Mr. Obama and the site of the Democratic convention this summer — approved by a 20-point margin a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. It was the 31st state to pass such an amendment.

As George W. Bush demonstrated in 2004, when his campaign engineered initiatives against gay marriage in a series of swing states, opponents are far more likely to vote on these issues than supporters. Mitt Romney, the probable Republican presidential candidate, was quick to proclaim his opposition to gay marriage after Mr. Obama spoke. And however much national attitudes may be shifting, the issue remains highly contentious among black and Latino voters, two groups central to Mr. Obama’s success.

Yet as Mr. Obama has clearly come to recognize, the forces of history appear to be changing. The president was at risk of seeming politically timid and calculating, standing at the sidelines while a large number of Americans — including members of both parties — embraced gay marriage. That is a particularly discordant image, many Democrats said, for the man who was the nation’s first black president.

Click here to read the entire article.

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

U.S. Senate passes LGBT-inclusive Violence Against Women Act reauthorization bill

National Gay and Lesbian Task Force – April 26, 2010

The Task Force applauds the U.S. Senate’s passage by a vote of 68-31 today of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) reauthorization bill, which for the first time includes explicit protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) survivors of domestic violence.

The 1994 federal law provides funds to enhance investigation and prosecution of violent crimes such as domestic violence and sexual assault, and it bolsters victim services programs. The Task Force Action Fund, along with a broad coalition of organizations including the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, has been lobbying for inclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity in the law.

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

Gov. McDonnell Says Marriage Equality Should Be Left To The States, But Claims Gays Make Inferior Parents

ThinkProgress.org, by Igor Volsky, February 24, 2012

Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) said that he respected Maryland’s right to decide the issue of marriage equality, just one day after that state passed legislation same-sex marriage. “The beauty of our regulators under the 10th amendment…is that states are the laboratories are democracy and innovation and they have the freedom to make different choices,” he said during a Politico forum this morning with Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley (D). “Martin and I have different views on this issue, on others, but that’s what’s great about having 50 states.”

But when O’Malley responded by suggesting that the well-being of children informed his own evolution towards marriage equality — “we concluded that it was not right and not just that the children of gay parents should homes that are protected in a lesser way under the law than other children,” he said — McDonnell remained unconvinced, insisting that gays and lesbians make worse parents than heterosexual couples and should thus be the last to adopt children:

MCDONNELL: Most of the data that I’ve read that the best environment for a child to grow up to be fully capable of achieving the American dream and having the best start at life in an intact two-parent family made up of a man and a woman. I would say that that’s what all the data would suggest…An intact two-parent family is in fact the best for our country. Should be the model, but when it doesn’t work we have safety nets.

Click here to read the complete article.

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

I.R.S. Denying Lesbians Legitimate Adoption Credit

New York Times
December 13, 2011
By TARA SIEGEL BERNARD

Since the federal government does not recognize same-sex marriage, such couples are viewed as strangers in many spheres of their financial lives. They need to file separate federal tax returns, for instance. And sometimes, that can come with certain advantages.

Take the adoption tax credit. If you adopt your spouse’s child, you cannot claim the credit. But since same-sex married couples are not considered spouses under federal law, they are permitted to use the credit — at least until their unions are recognized.

So when several lesbians seeking to adopt a partner’s child received letters from the Internal Revenue Service that said they could not use the credit, they couldn’t help but wonder: Is the government choosing to recognize our unions only when it’s to the government’s benefit?

As it turns out, the I.R.S. keeps close tabs on many refundable credits: The adoption credit is refundable in 2010 and 2011, which means that the credit reduces the amount of tax you owe, dollar for dollar. And if the amount of the credit exceeds your tax bill, you get to collect that extra cash. Because it’s such an enticing break, it’s also ripe for abuse.

As a result, the I.R.S. conducted more audits by mail last year, and required many couples — gay and heterosexual — to provide more documentation. (In fact, 68 percent of the nearly 100,000 returns on which taxpayers claimed the adoption credit were audited by mail, according to a report by the Government Accountability Office, which reviewed the I.R.S.’s strategy to ensure taxpayers were rightfully claiming the credit.)

But at least two of the reasons that the I.R.S. gave to the lesbians who it turned down were not rooted in the law, according to Patricia Cain, a professor at Santa Clara Law and an expert on sexuality and federal tax law, who blogged about the topic and has assisted some couples who were denied.

The most common explanation for the denial, she said, was that the birth mother did not terminate her rights as part of the adoption. And while it’s typical for many birth mothers to do so when her child is being adopted, that’s obviously not something a lesbian birth mom would do when her partner is simply performing a “second parent” adoption. Nor is there anything in the tax code that requires the termination of parental rights, Professor Cain said.

Another reason the I.R.S. provided for the denials: the adoptive mother is the domestic partner of the birth mother. But again, she said there is nothing in the tax code that says domestic partners cannot claim the credit. “Nobody thinks the adoption credit was created to help lesbian mothers,” Professor Cain said. “But they are certainly entitled to it as long as the clear meaning of the statute grants it to them.”

The report from the Government Accountability Office said that the I.R.S. didn’t adequately inform its tax examiners regarding certain aspects of the adoption credit. So you can argue that the I.R.S. probably didn’t give them specific instructions on how to handle adoptions with same-sex parents either. A spokesman for the I.R.S. said that they were aware of an isolated number of cases where they made a mistake, and that they corrected the errors after they were notified by the taxpayers. In a statement, the agency said that it regrets the inconvenience and that it has provided more training to the examiners on this issue.

The credit, which is for as much as $13,360 in 2011, can only be used once. So if two men, two women, or two other unmarried people adopt a nonbiological child, only one adoptive parent can claim the entire credit or they can split it.

If you or your partner receive any notices from the I.R.S. requiring more information during this coming tax season, send your response to the I.R.S. within the time period allotted. “Most taxpayers, after pushing back hard, have had the credit allowed,” Professor Cain added.

That is the result that Beth Jennings is hoping for. She said that her partner, Coleen Jennings, adopted her biological daughter, Hazel, in 2010, four months after she was born. A couple of months after filing her return, she received a letter from the I.R.S. stating that the adoption credit was under investigation.

After sending more documentation, her partner was denied the credit, a decision they are now appealing. And when they called the I.R.S., Ms. Jennings said the agent seemed confused about the reason for the denial, even though they provided all the required paperwork and went as far as having their lawyer sign an affadavit. “There is probably a place in the flow chart for the guy answering the phone, and it probably stopped or didn’t include this scenario,” Ms. Jennings said, referring to instructions on how to assist same-sex couples.

The I.R.S. said that any taxpayers who feel that they were improperly denied the credit should contact the I.R.S. And if you need more assistance, you can also contact advocacy organizations like the National Center for Lesbian Rights, which may be able to provide more guidance.

Have you or your partner (or spouse) encountered any problems with claiming this credit? If so, let us know in the comment section if and how you were able to resolve the issue.

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

Dr. Doyle of CT Fertility Calls for Ethical Surrogacy Standards in Groundbreaking Paris Conference, Challenging the French to Embrace the Practice

  9.28.2011 – PRWEB.com

American experts, a surrogate mother, French parents and academics weighed in on a topic that divides France, where surrogacy is still illegal. Instead of pros or cons, they concentrated on providing guidelines on how surrogacy can be carried out ethically. The ethical principles Dr. Doyle outlined include fully informing and protecting surrogates and donors from medical and psychological risks, treating them with dignity and respect, and considering the long term well being of all involved, including the surrogates’ families, and the children they help create.

Paris, France (PRWEB) September 28, 2011

Surrogacy in France is illegal and still controversial, yet an increasing number of French people who cannot have children on their own are turning to various surrogacy and egg donation arrangements abroad. Attempts to change the law are hotly debated and even presidential candidates are taking sides. Yet in a recent groundbreaking Paris conference hosted by the French organization ADFH, several American and French experts weighed in for the first time not on the merits of the practice, but on how it could be done in a more ethical manner. While political debates often over-simplify, “every surrogacy journey is different,” said Dr. Michael Doyle, an American IVF and surrogacy expert, as he laid out the ways clinics, agencies and prospective parents can assert control and shape their surrogacy journey in line with their moral convictions.

The “Ethical Surrogacy Journeys” seminar took place on September 19, 2011, in a packed wedding hall at Paris’s 3ème municipal building. In addition to Dr. Michael Doyle, the panel also included Karen Synesiou of Center for Surrogate Parenting, Dr. Kim Bergman, a psychologist who works with parents and surrogates at the Growing Generations agency, Colleen Iversen, an American surrogate mother, Alexandre Urwicz and Hervé Lancelin, co-presidents of ADFH, Dominique Mennesson, a French parent and the president of CLARA, and the French sociologist Irène Théry.

“We must remember, realize and embrace that this is not just a financial transaction, that this is much more than a sequence of medical procedures, since we are creating new families and bonding existing families to each other,” said Dr. Doyle. “The role of the medical clinic is to maximize the efficiency and quality of the services, minimize the risk that each party is subjected to, and to control the costs of that process. It is essential that the physician fully informs everyone involves concerning the medical steps, alternatives and risks”, he added, “even though fortunately these risks are now extremely rare and can be further minimized with adequate screening, tests and treatment protocols.” For instance, “minimizing the risk for surrogates involves transferring the fewest number of embryos of the highest quality, which increasingly in the United States is a single embryo transfer. It is also important that we support and consider the well being of all the parties, including the surrogate’s entire family, and the future children that will result from the decisions that we make today,” said Dr. Doyle.

Colleen Iversen shared her experience being a two-time gestational surrogate for a couple that with severe infertility problems. As one of the CT Fertility’s staff she witnessed the couple’s failed attempts have a baby on their own, until she finally stepped up and offered to become the couple’s surrogate herself. “I didn’t do this for financial gain,” said Colleen. Similarly to many gestational surrogates she met working at the clinic, Colleen had several easy pregnancies carrying her own children, and felt empathy towards this couple and a strong urge to help fulfill their dream of becoming parents. “Was I compensated? Yes. But was I putting my body through risks? Yes. My 5th and final pregnancy resulted in hospital bed rest where I was unable to care for my children, unable to go to work, and the health of the baby inside of me became my sole focus until the birth,” she recounted. Indeed she understands why the financial compensation is something that intended parents insist on: “if they hadn’t paid me I think they would have felt terrible putting me through all those cycles, and would have given up prematurely.” Despite the medical risks and hardships, looking back at her experience Colleen stated that she was honored to be a surrogate and “knowing that I have forever changed the lives of one family will never lead me to regret my decision to do this.”

Questions from the audience included requests for practical advise, but also concerned that surrogates may be exploited, perhaps by business women who may wish to hire a surrogate just to avoid disrupting their careers. Both Karen Synesiou of CSP and Dr. Doyle clarified that such women will not be accepted to their program, as prospective parents are also screened for their motivation and their willingness to support and treat the surrogate with respect. “There will always be unscrupulous people who may wish to exploit and take advantage of others, and it is the responsibility of those of us in the practice to maintain the highest possible ethical and professional standards and refuse to cooperate in these individuals,” replied Dr. Doyle and was greeted by applause from the audience. He challenged the self-declared feminist who asked the question not to doubt the ability of other women to make decisions that are in their best interest. “I speak from my experience with the numerous women I have worked with, as Colleen has just articulated, who say surrogacy has been one of the most empowering experiences of their life.”

Another questioner voiced concerns about babies that may be abandoned due to birth defects, and that surrogacy could lead to more questionable practices like cloning. “It is easy to take a topic like surrogacy that may seem different and challenging, and link it to things like cloning, birth defects, or embryo biopsy, that are not specific to surrogacy,” replied Dr. Doyle. “These may be worthy topics for ethical discussion some other time, but should not be used to attack the very valid notion of surrogacy which we hope you can as a culture and as a nation embrace.”

in IVF / Legal / Legislation / Surrogacy  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

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