The Christian Civic League of Maine's Mike Hein calls Pam's House Blend: "a leading source of radical homosexual propaganda, anti-Christian bigotry, and radical transgender advocacy."
He is "praying that Pam Spaulding will "turn away from her wicked and sinful promotion of homosexual behavior."
(CCLM's web site, 10/15/07)
Ex-gay "Christian" activist James Hartline on Pam:
"I have been mocked over and over again by ungodly and unprincipled anti-christian lesbians."
(from "Six Years In Sodom: From The Journal Of James Hartline," 9/4/2006, written from the "homosexual stronghold" of Hillcrest in San Diego).
"Pam is a 'twisted lesbian sister' and an 'embittered lesbian' of the 'self-imposed gutteral experiences of the gay ghetto.'" -- 9/5/2008
Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth Against Homosexuality heartily endorses the Blend, calling Pam:
A "vicious anti-Christian lesbian activist." (Concerned Women for America's radio show [9:15], 1/25/07)
"A nutty lesbian blogger." (MassResistance radio show [16:25], 2/3/07)
Pam's House Blend always seems to find these sick f*cks. The area of the country she is in? The home state of her wife? I know, they are everywhere. Pam just does such a great job of bringing them out into the light.
--Impeach Bush
who monitors yours Bevis ?? Just thought I would drop you a line,so the rest of your life is not wasted.
From GLAD, a quick background about Rhiannon O'Donnabhain's landmark case:
Ms. O'Donnabhain deducted costs related to her sex reassignment when submitting her federal tax forms in April 2002. She received her tax refund in June 2002, but six months later she was audited.
Ms. O'Donnabhain contacted GLAD, whose attorneys assisted her in appealing the tax examiner's decision. After an initial indication by an Appeals Officer to allow the deduction, the local IRS office decided to seek a decision from Washington. The IRS Chief Counsel issued an Advice Letter on October 14, 2005, once again denying the deduction and the matter progressed to US Tax Court, where trial took place July 24 - August 23, 2007.
Both sides completed filing proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and responses to those submissions in February, 2008.
Now the press release:
GLAD Wins Case vs. IRS on Sex Reassignment Deductions U.S. Tax Court Sets Precedent, Says Treatment is Medical Care
The U.S. Tax Court today issued a long-awaited decision in O'Donnabhain v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, ruling that treatment for gender identity disorder (GID) qualifies as medical care under the Internal Revenue Code, and is therefore deductible.
"This decision treats Rhiannon O'Donnabhain the way she deserves to be treated -- like any hard-working American taxpayer with medical expenses," said Karen Loewy, senior staff attorney with Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), which represented Ms. O'Donnabhain.
"From the start, this has been a no-brainer. Every mainstream medical authority from the American Psychiatric Association to the National Institutes of Health recognizes the legitimacy of providing medical care for transgender people. Dismissing these medical expenses as illegitimate and not deductible was discrimination, pure and simple."
In an opinion reviewed by the full bench, the United States Tax Court affirmed that medical treatments for GID, including surgery and hormone therapy, are deductible medical expenses. Moreover, the Court stated that the IRS's position that such treatment is cosmetic in nature "is at best a superficial characterization of the circumstances that is thoroughly rebutted by the medical evidence."
"I'm overjoyed, not only for me, but for other transgender people," said Ms. O'Donnabhain. "We deserve respect, equal treatment for our medical care, and fair treatment by our government."
Born biologically male, Rhiannon O'Donnabhain began having conflicted feelings about her gender identity as early as age 8. After decades of deep suffering, O'Donnabhain was diagnosed in 1996 with GID and undertook a course of professionally prescribed medical treatments that included her 2001 sex reassignment surgery. She claimed the cost of her treatment as a deductible medical expense on her federal income tax return - but the Internal Revenue Service said no, calling the surgery "cosmetic."
The trial in O'Donnabhain v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue began on July 24, 2007 in Boston, and concluded with post-trial briefing in March 2008. At the trial, Ms. O'Donnabhain testified about her life-long struggle with her gender identity, and her health care providers testified that the treatment was critical to her mental health and ability to function at all levels. Experts testified about Gender Identity Disorder and its treatment.
Ms. O'Donnabhain paid approximately $25,000 out-of-pocket for her care, including therapy, hormone treatment, and surgery. The amount of the deduction she is seeking from the IRS is about $5,000.
"In this landmark ruling, the Tax Court affirmed the consensus position of the medical establishment that transition-related medical care is essential for many transgender people," explained Jennifer Levi, Director of GLAD's Transgender Rights Project.
Loewy, along with Levi and GLAD Senior Staff Attorney Bennett Klein, represented Ms. O'Donnabhain along with lawyers from the Boston law firm of Sullivan & Worcester, who are serving as cooperating tax counsel in the case.
###
Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders is New England's leading legal rights organization dedicated to ending discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, and HIV status. GLAD is active in all six New England states.
"An Act Relative to Gender-Based Discrimination and Hate Crimes" (H. 1728/S. 1687) got a hearing last July in the Massachusetts Joint Committee on the Judiciary. Then, nothing. In light of the recent poll showing that 76% of Massachusetts voters, including 81% of women, support passing a law, isn't it high time that the bill got moved out of committee and passed by the legislature?
Word is that the obstacles to this happening are nothing out of the ordinary. Legislative inertia and a lousy political mood with the economy, wars, and some corruption flare-ups at the State House make it hard to get people's attention. But these are surmountable obstacles. Our friends at GLAD explain how you can help get the bill moving.
Transgender people can be fired in Massachusetts simply because of who they are - and it's perfectly legal.
On Thursday, January 21, 2010, we'll be gathering from 2 - 5 p.m. in Nurses Hall at the State House in Boston. You can help educate Massachusetts legislators about why this bill is needed now, and put a face on gender identity discrimination and hate crimes. Call now and make appointments to meet with your State Representative and Senator. You can find out who your legislators are here.
All the necessary materials and lobbying training will be provided when you arrive at the state house.
For more information or assistance with locating your legislators, contact the Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition at: www.masstpc.org. RSVP to Jesseb@masstpc.org if you plan to attend.
GLAD is proud to be a co-sponsor of this important effort in support of transgender equality. Mark your calendar for January 21!
GLAD Publishes Marriage Guide for New Hampshire Same-Sex Couples
As the historic day (January 1, 2010) approaches when New Hampshire’s same-sex couples will be able to marry, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) has published “How to Get Married in New Hampshire”, providing those couples with a legal how-to on everything from changing names to the impact of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. It is available on GLAD’s website at www.glad.org.
In addition to telling couples about logistics such as age requirements, the necessary paperwork and fees, the 41-page booklet enumerates the legal protections that marriage provides. It lists some special issues that same-sex couples should consider before marrying, including international adoption, membership in the military and the effect of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, immigration issues, and the fact that marriage must be reported on many official forms and records where people still may not be comfortable or safe disclosing their sexual orientation.
“How to Get Married in New Hampshire” is one of GLAD’s series of legal publications for consumers in the six New England states, covering issues from transgender non-discrimination, the rights of LGBT students, and HIV-related laws and protection. On December 31, 2009, GLAD will retire the legal publication “How to Get a New Hampshire Civil Union”. In October of this year, GLAD held marriage workshops for New Hampshire same-sex couples in Concord and Portsmouth.
GLAD won the Goodridgecase in Massachusetts, making it the first marriage state in the country in 2004, as well as the Kerrigan case in Connecticut in 2008, and worked on the marriage equality law in New Hampshire as well as in Maine and Vermont.
Couples wanting to discuss any legal issues or get further information can contact GLAD’s Legal InfoLine at 1-800-455-4523 from 1:30 – 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, or online.
Today, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in US District Court as part of their response to the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Motion to Dismiss Gill v. OPM, a challenge to Section 3 of DOMA. DOMA Section 3 prevents the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages. The DOJ has until December 4th to respond to today's filings.
Regardless of how the US District Court judge rules, GLAD expects the decision to be appealed to the 1st Circuit Court and perhaps ultimately to the United States Supreme Court, which may or may not decide to hear the case.
If GLAD is ultimately successful, the natural question is "how will the ruling affect me?"
GLAD Forcefully Responds to U.S. Motion to Dismiss DOMA Lawsuit; Seeks Final Ruling in Favor of Plaintiff Couples
Stepping up its litigation challenging Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) today filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts both an opposition to the federal government's motion to dismiss Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, and a motion for summary judgment seeking a final ruling on the law in favor of the plaintiffs.
"Both sides agree that our plaintiffs have taken on the commitments of marriage, played by the rules, paid into the system, and been denied benefits because of DOMA," says GLAD Legal Director Gary Buseck.
"Now we're asking the court to say once and for all that the federal government must end its blatant double standard of providing rights and protections to all married couples except gay and lesbian married couples."
"While the government has rightly abandoned the reasons Congress relied on in passing DOMA in 1996, it now seeks to dismiss our case by arguing that DOMA "maintains the status quo,"" says Mary L. Bonauto, GLAD Civil Rights Project Director.
"The reality is that DOMA itself radically changed the status quo by which the federal government recognized and accepted state determinations of who is married. There is no valid excuse for the federal discrimination imposed by DOMA and this can be resolved now and without a trial."
GLAD argues that under Equal Protection guarantees, there is no justification for splitting married people into two classes: those who are "married" under federal law and those whose marriages do not exist for any federal purposes.
"We believe that DOMA should receive 'heightened scrutiny' from the District Court for many reasons, including because it deliberately targets gay men and lesbians," said Bonauto.
More specifically, GLAD argues that
DOMA represents an unprecedented intrusion of the federal government into the states' traditional roles in determining the marital status of its citizens.
By prohibiting married same-sex couples from accessing the safety net, the federal government provides for all other married couples, DOMA Section 3 unfairly burdens their ability to protect and care for their families.
By targeting gay men and lesbians, DOMA discriminates explicitly on the basis of sexual orientation. GLAD argues that any discrimination based upon a person's sexual orientation should be viewed with suspicion by the court.
These legal arguments are supported by affidavits from each plaintiff confirming the facts previously established in the case and showing the intangible, often painful, burdens of federal discrimination. In addition, expert affidavits establish why discrimination based on sexual orientation discrimination should be closely reviewed by courts. Supporting expert affidavits include those by:
George Chauncey, Ph.D., professor of history at Yale University. Dr. Chauncey demonstrates that gay, lesbian and bisexual people historically have been subject to widespread and significant discrimination and hostility;
Gregory M. Herek, Ph.D., professor of psychology at the University of California at Davis. Dr. Herek explains that sexual orientation is immutable and that it bears no inherent relation to a person's ability to perform, contribute to, or participate in society;
Gary M. Segura, Ph.D., professor of American politics at Stanford University. Dr. Segura demonstrates that gays and lesbians do not possess a meaningful degree of political power and are therefore politically vulnerable; and
Michael Lamb, Ph.D., professor of psychology at Cambridge University. Dr. Lamb establishes that the children of same-sex parents are equally well-adjusted as those with different-sex parents.
GLAD also takes on all the claimed government interests invoked by the Congress when passing DOMA in 1996. As the brief points out,
"The reasons offered by Congress at the time, which the government sensibly does not even try to defend, are either nonsensical or just another way of saying that Congress wanted to denounce and impose harm on those gay men and lesbians who form long-term relationships and seek to have those relationships recognized and respected.
For example, it is absurd to suggest that barring federal recognition of marriages of same-sex couples will somehow promote responsible procreation. And the government itself has determined that DOMA, while excluding Plaintiffs and others like them from important federal programs designed to support couples and families, does not even produce net savings to the U.S. Treasury."
Gill v. Office of Personnel Management was filed on March 3, 2009 on behalf of 8 married same-sex couples and three widowers, all of whom had been harmed by DOMA.
GLAD's legal team is led by Mary Bonauto and GLAD Legal Director Gary Buseck, and Staff Attorneys Nima Eshghi, Janson Wu and Legal Fellow Samuel Bickett. Co-operating counsel on the case include Foley Hoag LLP (Boston), Sullivan & Worcester LLP (Boston), Jenner & Block LLP (Washington, DC), and Kator, Parks & Weiser, PLLC (Washington, DC).
Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders is New England's leading legal organization devoted to ending discrimination based on sexual orientation, HIV status, and gender identity and expression.
GLAD Celebrates Connecticut's Marriage Equality Anniversary
CT Married Couples to be Surveyed about DOMA
Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, which won marriage equality in Connecticut through their court victory in Kerrigan & Mock v. Department of Public Health, will mark the first anniversary with a little celebration and a little investigation.
"The past 12 months have seen amazing progress, with Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Iowa all achieving marriage equality," said GLAD attorney Bennett Klein, who argued the Kerrigan case before Connecticut's Supreme Court.
"As we share the joy and happiness of lesbian and gay couples in Connecticut, we know we have more to do to end discrimination, in other states and at the federal level."
GLAD and Love Makes a Family will join married couples, including many of the lawsuit's plaintiffs, at the State House for an anniversary photo at 3:30, followed by cake, champagne, and a toast in the Old Judiciary Room.
In addition to joining the festivities in Hartford at the State House, GLAD is rolling out a survey of Connecticut's married same-sex couples to find out how they are affected by the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
"All the couples who marry in those states will sooner or later run into federal discrimination because of DOMA. It may be when they try to file their taxes jointly, or are denied their spouse's Social Security benefits, or try to sponsor their spouse to immigrate to the U.S. or try to put their spouse on their health care plan," said Klein.
There are 1,138 federal laws that distinguish based on martial status when conferring benefits, obligations, and protections on married couples. Because of DOMA, married same-sex couples have access to none of the protections and responsibilities set aside for married couples.
In March of this year, GLAD filed Gill v. Office of Personnel Management on behalf of eight Massachusetts married couples and three widowers, who have all been penalized by DOMA.
GLAD's survey is being mailed out to Connecticut couples, and can also be filled out on its website at http://www.glad.org/doma/survey.
Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders is New England's leading legal organization dedicated to ending discrimination based on sexual orientation, HIV status, and gender identity and expression.
GLAD Deplores Rejection of Marriage Equality for Maine's Same-Sex Couples
Yesterday Mainers voted to overturn the marriage equality law that would have enable the state's same-sex couples to marry. Lee Swislow, Executive Director of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, which worked on both the legislative and ballot campaign, released this statement:
Today, Maine's same-sex couples and all their supporters are experiencing a world of hurt and pain. Same-sex couples have been denied full equality and full citizenship in their state. They have been told to remain outside. They must explain this vote to their children. At some point soon, we will all have to pick ourselves up and fight again.
We can all be proud of the fight. This campaign was run smartly, strategically, with heart and with broad and generous support from across the country. I salute every person who has given him or herself, every campaign staffer, every volunteer, every donor, every Maine couple who told their story. We all grew stronger together, and one day, very soon, we will win.
Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders is New England's leading legal organization fighting discrimination based on sexual orientation, HIV status, and gender identity and expression.
Several times over the next two weeks GLAD Civil Rights Project Director Mary Bonauto will debate Stand for Marriage Maine's Marc Mutty on the question of preserving Maine's marriage equality law.
The following debates leading up to the November 3 vote will be available to view or listen to online:
Thursday, October 22nd, 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.
Live debate on MPBN radio
Moderated by Susan Sharon, Assistant News Director at MPBN
Listen at www.mpbn.org
Monday, October 26th, 7:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.
Live debate on "207" on WCSH-TV and WLBZ-TV (NBC affiliate, Channel 6 in Portland, Channel 2 in Bangor)
Moderated by "207" hosts Rob Caldwell and Kathleen Shannon
Watch at www.wcsh6.com or www.wlbz2.com
Wednesday, October 28th, 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Live debate on WMTW-TV (ABC affiliate, Channel 8 in Portland)
Cosponsored by Maine Today Publications (Portland Press Herald, Maine Sunday Telegram, Kennebec Journal and Central Maine Morning Sentinel)
Moderated by WMTW-TV news anchor Tory Ryden
Watch at www.wmtw.com
Thursday, October 29th, 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m.
Live debate on WGAN-AM radio in Portland
Moderated by WGAN Morning News co-hosts Mike Violette and Ken Altshuler
www.wgan.com
Thursday, October 29th, 5:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Live debate on WGME-TV (CBS affiliate, Channel 13 in Portland)
Moderated by WGME-TV news anchor Greg Lagerquist
Watch at www.wgme.com
For more information on the No On 1 Campaign, visit www.ProtectMaineEquality.org
If I have time, I will certainly try to transcribe this.
But if you can, please take the time and listen to this discussion between long-time WCSH-6 reporter Pat Callahan, Stand For Marriage Maine's Marc Mutty, and GLAD's Mary Bonauto:
Admittedly my views are not exactly unbiased, but it sure does seem to me that Mutty, um, is very creative with the truth in his statements and that "Mary B" hit this interview easily out of the park.
Today the Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss Gill v. Office of Personnel Development, GLAD's lawsuit challenging Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). DOMA Sec. 3 prevents the federal government from recognizing legally married couples if the spouses aren't of different sexes.
As in other DOMA-related filings from the Obama administration, the DOJ insists that it is required to defend DOMA, even though the president deems it onerous.
As the President has stated previously, this Administration does not support DOMA as a matter of policy, believes that it is discriminatory, and supports its repeal. Consistent with the rule of law, however, the Department of Justice has long followed the practice of defending federal statutes as long as reasonable arguments can be made in support of their constitutionality, even if the Department disagrees with a particular statute as a policy matter, as it does here.
Uh huh. Whatever. At least they didn't compare my civil marriage to incest this time, according to Chris Geidner. Progress?
GLAD responds:
Nothing in the government's brief is unexpected, and nothing in it addresses the fact that DOMA is the sole exception in a long history of the federal government deferring to the states' determination that people are married. We disagree with any argument that DOMA is constitutional. Married same-sex couples are being treated differently from other married couples. To us, that's a clear-cut violation of the promise of equal protection.
This case is about seeking justice for the widows and widowers who are denied death benefits, for people who can't get on their spouse's health plan, for parents who can't file taxes jointly and pay thousands extra each year that they could put away for their children's education or family emergencies. We're pleased that the issues have now been joined and the case is moving toward resolution, because every day, an increasing number of families - not just our plaintiffs - are being harmed by DOMA.
We're proud of this case the National Law Journal has called "carefully planned" and the case with the potential to have "the greatest national impact". There's a long road ahead, and we will keep you posted of all the developments along the way.
Here's what happens next, according to an e-mail from GLAD.
So, at this point we have 14 days to file an opposition to the motion dismiss. The government will then file a reply to our opposition. After that, our first hearing will be scheduled, and we can expect that to take place early next year. Having said all of that, it's possible that both sides will get and receive extensions on that schedule.
The following release was sent out this morning from GLAD:
Public Education Ad Released Today Highlights Broad Support for Marriage Equality in Maine
A 60-second television spot began running statewide today, highlighting the core values of community and fairness which are the underpinnings of the broad support for marriage equality in Maine. The ad is funded by EqualityMaine Foundation, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) and Maine Civil Liberties Union Foundation (MCLU).
In the spot, parents and children, gay and straight, talk about Maine's values of fairness, respect, and strong families. "You know, in Maine, no one tells anyone else how to live," says Dan Lawson of Monroe. Alexander Johnston of Cape Elizabeth, who appears along with his wife and two daughters says, "Everyone should be able to marry the person they love."
Other Mainers expressing their support for marriage equality include a waitress, a firefighter, and a lobsterman, as well as same-sex couples, some of whom appear with their children. The ad's script is attached and it can be viewed at www.youtube.com/GLADVideo, as well as at http://www.glad.org/current/vi... and http://www.youtube.com/user/Eq...
EqualityMaine Foundation, GLAD and MCLU have been working on a three-year public education initiative supporting marriage equality and what marriage means for Maine's gay and lesbian couples and their children.
"We've been talking with Mainers for three years about our state's gay and lesbian families," said Betsy Smith, Executive Director of EqualityMaine Foundation. "We're simply taking that conversation and going directly into Maine kitchens and living rooms where families most often have these discussions."
"There's a lot of understanding in Maine that gay and lesbian families need the protections that only marriage provides," said Mary Bonauto, GLAD's Civil Rights Project Director, who lives in Portland. "We see this real sense of fairness all across the state."
"This ad captures the tenor and tone of what we hear over and over again from Mainers about marriage equality," said Shenna Bellows, executive director of MCLU. "More and more people understand that in Maine, we believe that all families should be treated equally and that people should simply be able to marry the person they love."
# # #
Below the fold, the script for this ad- the text is sooo powerful and effective when read...
I absolutely love this ad; it's very strong, uses REAL Mainers and their families (not actors from away), and has a simple clear message and appeal.
7:25am on WCSH6, commercial break from "Today"- First Viewing On Air!
A preview of the ad here, exactly as it is running this morning on my television and thousands of others across the Pine Tree state. Take a look and see what you think:
PORTLAND, Maine (AP) -- The first television advertisements in an anticipated referendum on Maine's gay marriage law begin airing Thursday across the state.
Carisa Cunningham from Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders said the advertisements are airing in multiple markets in Maine. Details will be announced Thursday afternoon by the EqualityMaine Foundation, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders and the Maine Civil Liberties Union Foundation.
Maine's gay marriage law was scheduled to take effect next month, but it's been sidetracked as state election officials verify petitions submitted to force a statewide referendum.
Charlie observed that the ad does not tell viewers to "Vote No On 1". I would add that there is no logo from the campaign attached to the ad.
The reason for this is because EqualityMaine, MCLU, and GLAD produced the ad and it is in no way connected to the official campaign.
Just a quick note will do to urge the AG to join Massachusetts in suing the feds over the unconstitutional DOMA.
Thank you.
(Some background from Lurleen): The Hartford Courant recently summed up the situation:
A national grassroots campaign is urging Connecticut's attorney general, Richard Blumenthal, to join Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley and sue the U.S. government over the discriminatory and blighted Defense of Marriage Act.
Better known as DOMA, the nearly 13-year-old federal law that denies married same-sex couples federal marriage benefits, according to Defend the Law. That Massachusetts-based organization, founded by a Boston College law student, is asking Connecticut residents to contact the attorney general between Aug. 10 and 14 to urge him to file suit, and protect marriage equality in the state.
More on the case from Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders here.
On Friday, July 31, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders filed an amended complaint in Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, its lawsuit challenging Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act.
In the amended complaint, GLAD officially added tax plaintiffs Mary and Dorene Bowe-Shulman and Marlin Nabors and Jonathan Knight. GLAD also removed its claim involving passport plaintiffs Keith and Al Toney. Due to a change in State Department policy in May of this year, Keith Toney has been able to get a U.S. passport in his correct married name.
As a result of the July 31 filing, the Department of Justice response will be due on or before September 18, 2009. The amended complaint, as well as complete information about Gill v. OPM can be seen at www.glad.org/doma.
PRAYERS FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs pray that this Court: 1. Declare that the FEHB Program, the HCSFA, and the FEDVIP Program permit coverage of same-sex spouses under their authorizing statutes and regulations. 2. Declare DOMA, 1 U.S.C. § 7, unconstitutional as applied to the plaintiffs. 2 Enjoin the defendants from continuing to discriminate against the plaintiffs by treating them differently from similarly situated individuals who are married to persons of the opposite sex. 3 Issue an injunction ordering defendant Michael J. Astrue to review the applications for benefits of plaintiffs Jo Ann Whitehead, Randy Lewis-Kendell, Herb Burtis, and Dean Hara without regard to DOMA, 1 U.S.C. § 7. 4 Award plaintiffs Mary Ritchie and Kathleen Bush judgment in the amount of $14,518, plus interest and costs as allowed by law, and such other relief as this Court may deem just, including the award of reasonable litigation costs incurred in this proceeding under 26 U.S.C. § 7430. 6. Award plaintiffs Melba Abreu and Beatrice Hernandez judgment in the amount of $14,018, plus interest and costs as allowed by law, and such other relief as this Court may deem just, including the award of reasonable litigation costs incurred in this proceeding under 26 U.S.C. § 7430. 5 Award plaintiffs Marlin Nabors and Jonathan Knight judgment in the amount of $2,520, plus interest and costs as allowed by law, and such other relief as this Court may deem just, including the award of reasonable litigation costs incurred in this proceeding under 26 U.S.C. § 7430. 6 Award Mary Bowe-Shulman and Dorene Bowe-Shulman judgment in the amount of $3,332, plus interest and costs as allowed by law, and such other relief as this Court may deem just, including the award of reasonable litigation costs incurred in this proceeding under 26 U.S.C. § 7430. 7 Award attorney's fees and costs to plaintiffs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412 or any other applicable statutory provision.
10. Grant such other relief as is just and appropriate.
UPDATE2: Hearing underway! GLAD's twitter coverage here.
UPDATE: Watch videos of MTPC's pre-hearing presser from this morning here. Follow GLAD's twitter cover of the proceedings here.In advance of Tuesday's legislative hearings on "An Act Relative To Gender-Based Discrimination And Hate Crimes" (H. 1728/S. 1687), MassNOW, Jane Doe, MA Coalition Against Sexual Assault & Domestic Violence, MA Soc. for Prevention of Cruelty to Children and others held a press conference at the State House in Boston. The video is below the fold.
It is incredibly heartening to see not just LGBT organizations, but women's organizations standing up for the rights of and embracing all women.
Reminder: if you live in MA, it's not too late to call your state legislators and tell them why it is vital that they support H. 1728/S. 1687! The judiciary committee hearing is on Tuesday, July 14th at 2:30 pm at the State House in Boston. If you want to testify, it is advisable to arrive an hour or two early to sign up.
Update: Anyone feeling lazy about acting in support of this bill, a reminder of how dedicated the opposition is rests below the fold.Your help is needed now to pass transgender non-discrimination legislation in Massachusetts. Our friends at GLAD explain how you can help.
Next Tuesday, July 14, "An Act Relative to Gender-Based Discrimination and Hate Crimes" (H. 1728/S. 1687) will be heard by the Massachusetts Joint Committee on the Judiciary.
This bill will explicitly prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity and expression.
Please join us at the State House in Boston next Tuesday at 2:30 p.m. as we stand together with parents, employees, victims of violence and allies in the passing of this bill and the right for all Massachusetts citizens to work, go to school and live without fear. If you have not already done so, contact your legislators today and share your own story about why you support this bill.
A large show of support at the hearing on Tuesday will demonstrate to legislators that Massachusetts is ready to join the twelve other U.S. states, including Maine, Rhode Island, and Vermont, that protect all citizens equally under the law.
Update: H/T to Law Dork who provides a link to the complaint and has a summary of the AG's press conference. Highlights and reactions from various organizations at bottom of post.In a case led by Attorney General Martha Coakley, The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is suing the US federal government, calling Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional. The case is called Commonwealth v. United States Department of Health and Human Services
Massachusetts, the first state in the nation to legalize gay marriage, has become the first to challenge the constitutionality of a federal law that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, saying Congress intruded into a matter that should be left to individual states.
"In enacting DOMA [the Defense of Marriage Act], Congress overstepped its authority, undermined states' efforts to recognize marriages between same-sex couples, and codified an animus towards gay and lesbian people," the state said in a lawsuit filed today in US District Court in Massachusetts.
The suit said that more than 16,000 same-sex couples have married in Massachusetts since gay marriage became legal in the state in 2004 "and the security and stability of families has been strengthened in important ways throughout the state."
"Despite these developments, same-sex couples in Massachusetts are still denied essential rights and protections because the federal Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA] interferes with the Commonwealth's authority to define and regulate marriage," the lawsuit said.
First the Department of Justice released the gratuitously homophobic Smelt brief. Then we read reports that DOJ had rebuffed efforts by GLAD and Lambda Legal to "sit down with top folks at Justice to talk about [other active federal DOMA lawsuits] and what it meant and to engage in more cooperative lawyering". No surprise then that some of us were curious to see what aroma the next LGBT-related DOJ brief would emit.
The DOJ's response to GLAD's DOMA challenge, Gill v OPM was expected today, June 29th. However, because GLAD is amending their filing, we'll have to wait until fall for DOJ's response.
The government's response to our DOMA complaint will not be due June 29. Per agreement between the parties, GLAD will be filing an amended complaint in late July. It will include all of the tax plaintiffs (some of whom were not originally included for administrative reasons), reflect the fact that the passport plaintiffs' issue has been resolved, and perhaps make some other changes. The amended complaint will be posted [on GLAD's website]. The government's response will be due on September 18, or 45 days after the amended complaint is filed.
Surely with this delay President Fierce Advocate's DOJ will have had plenty of time to comprehend the difference between professional duty and gratuitous and damaging verbal violence. Right?
UPDATE: The DOJ is scrambling - The Plumline reports Justice is now scheduling a private meeting with "major gay rights organizations" (GLAD and Lambda Legal are named) over the DOMA controversy. Greg Sargent:
It remains to be seen, however, whether the meeting will achieve in a long term sense what gay rights lawyers told me they were and are looking for - an ongoing, less-confrontational interaction with the administration in the context of specific cases. It's also an open question whether the meeting will resolve broader tensions in what has been an unexpectedly rocky relationship.
UPDATE 2: I just spoke with Tracy Russo @ the DOJ and she said that the upcoming meeting between the groups and Justice has been in the works before Sargent's story broke (and as things have heated up over the last while). Obviously from his initial post, GLAD and Lambda Legal were rebuffed, but not in the dark. At this point it's safe to say that the intent is to engage at a higher level on substantive differences and common interests re: DOMA, which is what is sorely needed right now.
What is wrong with these people in the White House and its DOJ? Do they want all the gay dollars to stay at home and away from the "10,400-ft. spa" fundraiser next week? Why on earth would you refuse to meet with lawyers from GLAD and Lambda Legal to discuss the federal cases in play regarding DOMA? (Plumline, via Americablog):
The refusal of meetings raises new questions about the Obama administration's commitment to gay rights. Activists say the administration's lawyers should want to meet to discuss such cases, in hopes that opposing lawyers find a way for the administration to legally grant benefits around DOMA, even as it defends the act in court.
But Gary Buseck, the legal director for the gay rights group GLAD, tells me that he was rebuffed after asking Justice Department lawyers earlier this spring to discuss a big case he's working on: A lawsuit in Boston on behalf of eight married couples and three surviving spouses who have been denied federal legal protections available to spouses under DOMA.
Gary Buseck, the legal director for the gay rights group GLAD, tells me that he was rebuffed after asking Justice Department lawyers earlier this spring to discuss a big case he's working on: A lawsuit in Boston on behalf of eight married couples and three surviving spouses who have been denied federal legal protections available to spouses under DOMA.
"We thought it would be a good idea to sit down with top folks at Justice to talk about this lawsuit and what it meant and to engage in more cooperative lawyering," Busic tells me. "They told us that they didn't want to meet with us." The government's response in the case is due later this month, and gay rights activists are watching closely to see if it's similar to the one in the California case that's generating so much controversy.
Jennifer Pizer, the marriage project director for Lambda Legal, had a similar experience on another high-profile case, also in California. She's representing a U.S. Court of Appeals lawyer who's fighting the federal Office of Personnel Management. The OPM is refusing benefits to her spouse under DOMA - even though two Federal appeals court judges have said employees of their court are entitled to health benefits for same-sex partners.
"We have communicated through a couple of different channels asking [OPM] to provide legal analysis to support their position," Ms. Pizer told me. "We said, `At a minimum, give us your legal analysis so we can engage with you.' The response was, `No, we're not changing our position.' That's not what we expect from an administration whose leader speaks so emphatically about thinking discrimination is wrong."
My god. This is getting worse by the minute. This wasn't about strongarming the admin; these lawyers simply wanted to consult with them. If they aren't even willing to talk to try to work within the tricky legal framework, why should we expect anything more without withholding the purse-strings?
I will not be attending the Democratic National Committee dinner next week. I was invited as a guest, and I want people to understand that GLAD has never given money and will never give money to any political candidate or political party. Moreover, GLAD has never tied, and never will tie, our community's fortunes to any political party. We have long realized that responsibility for our freedom and equality is primarily in our own hands - and we have to work for it. That is what GLAD has been doing for 31 years, and I think we have a track record of success in New England to prove it.
It would be counterproductive at this point for me to attend the dinner. I see and understand the anger of many in the community. At GLAD, we're angry, too. We're angry because we see and live and feel the discrimination every day. Many states and our national government enforce existing anti-gay laws or simply fail to see discrimination against lgbt people as both personally devastating and a stain on our nation's commitment to equal justice under law. Every day we hear from people who suffer unconscionable treatment, and we do our best to defend and advocate for them on a whole range of issues - marriage, jobs, transgender rights, safe schools, HIV and AIDS, and bias-related violence.
Our way, and my way, of dealing with that anger is to focus on the work. And we are working very hard - fighting DOMA Section 3 with our lawsuit, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, in which we represent widowers, retirees, parents and spouses who are hurt in very concrete ways by DOMA. So, as you can imagine, we had a very particular interest in reading how the Obama Department of Justice would tackle the Smelt DOMA challenge in California, even though it does not deal with concrete harms imposed by DOMA. All we knew in advance is that it would be different from the Bush administration's response, and it was. At the same time, some things in this new brief were startling; while others were silly, wrong or offensive or all of the above.
But litigation is never a pretty business; and we have been preparing at GLAD to take on and defeat any and all arguments made in support of DOMA. We are not daunted by anything the Obama Justice Department had to say. In my view, it is good that the community has let the administration know that we expect a lot from them and that we want leadership on lgbt equality and not arguments that reflect backward and unenlightened thinking. At the same time, it is unrealistic to think - at least in the context of litigating about the constitutionality of a federal statute that has already been upheld by several courts - that any administration is going to simply be able to roll over and surrender. It just doesn't work that way. There are certain rules in this particular process, and GLAD is prepared to engage the Administration in the courts according to those rules. And we are convinced also that we can win!
In a case led by Attorney General Martha Coakley, The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is 
First the Department of Justice released the 
UPDATE: The DOJ is scrambling - 
