Pam Spaulding's Blog, page 143
November 10, 2010
NYC Alert: 3 "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Events
A trio of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" events will be coming soon to New York City, two tomorrow.
Pictured above is Iraq War veteran Anthony Woods, discharged under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell. He was a candidate for US Congress in 2008. He was photographed by Brooklyn photographer Jo Ann Santangelo. She will be having a display of photographs from her project "Proud to Serve," a recent 4 week, 10,167 mile road trip around the United States documenting the lives of LGBT veterans and servicemembers. Let us support those putting faces to the statistics.Exhibit opening and book release this Thursday, November 11, 2010 at 5:30 at New York City's The LGBT Center, Manhattan.
There will also be a roundtable discussion among activists and media professionals at the NYC Gay Center at 7:00. Clinton White House LGBT advisor Richard Socarides, Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart, Nathaniel Frank formerly of the Palm Center and Center for American Progress' Winnie Stachelberg are expected.
Hosts include The Center and its Young Leaders Council (YLC), Knights Out, The Service Member’s Legal Defense Network (SLDN), The Service Women’s Action Network (SWAN) and the Lesbian and Gay Law Associate of Greater New York (LeGaL).
As most of us know, DADT disproportionately affects women, and people of color.
Next week, plan to attend the Gay Veterans of Color Speak Out panel discussion at the New York City's LGBT Community Center on Monday, November 15th at 6:30 PM (208 W. 13th street).
A speaker slot is still open. Interested parties should contact organizers here. Transportation costs can be covered.
White House Packing Spoon for DADT Gun Fight with GOP
Example 3,623 of fierce advocacy from the White House can be seen in today's National Journal's "Need to Know" column (scroll down, front page):
DON’T ASK. White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer told National Journal that repealing the ban on gays serving openly in the military is “at least worth a shot” in the lame-duck session of Congress that starts next week. But lawmakers would have to hang around longer than some might like: The military’s study on the proposed repeal isn’t due till December 1.
Wow. Can you just feel the fierce advocacy?
The GOP is going to be attacking this vote with non-stop stories of all the enormous consequences of soldiers being raped in the shower rooms and how the gays will spread AIDS through the troops and how they will prey on straights during all those "intimate" nights of "sleeping alongside of one another." (Oh wait, "our side" gave them most of those talking points...)
Anyway, nothing says resolve and sure-footed commitment to doing the right thing like declaring it is “at least worth a shot.” That's the way you go into a fight demonstrating your a winning spirit and a take-no-prisoners attitude!
Is that what they will tell us on the 2012 campaign trail when we asked why nothing got passed? "Hey, we gave it a shot!"
H/T to GayAmericaBlog.
A journey into manhood with ABC Nightline, Wayne Besen, Ted Cox, William Bradshaw and Boyd Packer
And this particular journey will be (mostly) televised.
ABC Nightline ...
After watching the two segments embedded below, Wayne Besen asks ABC Nightline:
Do people really need to spend $650 to suppress their desires?
I was incredibly disappointed with ABC Nightline's segment that aired last night about the bizarre group People Can Change, which hosts Journey into Manhood (JIM) weekends. JIM takes closeted men with religious hang-ups into the woods, where they hug each other to allegedly become more masculine. The goal of this male bonding is to remake these repressed homosexuals into heterosexuals.
Money buys manhood for Mormon in mixed-orientation marriage? (Part 1):
Money buys manhood for Mormon in mixed-orientation marriage? (Part 2):
Ted Cox ...
Required reading: What Happened When I Went Undercover at a Christian Gay-to-Straight Conversion Camp
Ted Cox, the writer of that undercover report on his weekend Journey Into Manhood, was invited to present his findings to the Cal Poly Brights and the result was this brilliant presentation:
Ted Cox: Undercover in the "ex-gay" movement (Part 1 of 9):
+ Parts 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
Dr. William Bradshaw ...
Many Mormon Stories podcast listeners will already be familiar with one aspect of Dr. Bradshaw's life from Episode 191, which featured a recording of the most recent lecture he gave at BYU on the biological origins of homosexuality-a lecture he has arranged and given every year for the past several years. Dr. Bradshaw first became prompted to study the research on this subject when his son Brett came out about his homosexuality. Since that time, the Bradshaws have been active members in various LDS groups for families working to support their GLBT children. They are currently serving as the presidents of LDS Family Fellowship. Brett and his partner are married and living in California, where they are raising their daughter.
Dr. William Bradshaw (Part 4 of 5) - Homosexuality and the LDS Church:
Boyd K. Packer ...
Top LDS 'Apostle' Boyd K. Packer: Mormons will always oppose Satan's counterfeit marriages:
Shorter Boyd:
Pssst ... Hey, Boyd!
It Gets Better - Jesse from Salt Lake City, Utah:
Linkage:
Original MoHomie: Nightline's Journey Into Manhood
The weekend portrayed was a reunion of sorts, not an actual, regular JIM weekend. The report included some exercises, but not nearly all of them. There are more intense and personalized exercises throughout the weekend, I understand. The ones portrayed in the report reminded me of some in which I participated at an Evergreen Conference in 2006 or 2007, when Rich Wyler presented about the experiential weekend in a workshop.
Ex-Gay Watch: Journey into Manhood Investigated by ABC's Nightline
Patterned after the equally bizarre Mankind Project, Journey into Manhood is nothing new to those who keep up with pseudo-therapies which make wildly unscientific claims of success in changing people from gay to straight. JiM's founder, Richard Wyler, doesn't even try to claim a professional background that would qualify him as a therapist or a researcher. Claims made by the organization have as much factual weight as those made on behalf of "male enhancement" pills on late night cable - anyone can claim anything.
DallasVoice.com: 'Nightline' goes inside 'ex-gay' therapy program near Houston and then airs a puff piece about it
In case you missed it, Nightline aired a piece last night about "Journey to Manhood," a so-called ex-gay therapy program in New Caney, Texas, outside Houston. You can watch the piece by Dallas-based ABC News correspondent Ryan Owens here, or read a text version here.
Houston Press "Hair Balls" Blog: Nightline Examines Local "Gay Cure" Program; Gays Cry Foul
Last night's Nightline featured a report on the camp in New Caney that purports to help gay men get rid of all that glorious gayness.Journey Into Manhood -- with a name that says gays aren't men, you can guess where it's going -- gave ABC exclusive access to a session. In return, critics say, ABC delivered a puff piece.
Box Turtle Bulletin: Nightline features Journey Into Manhood tonight
Built on the premise that gay men are really just wanting to connect with their fathers, JIM is a hodge-podge of psychobabble and Cohen-style cuddling. It will be interesting to see how ABC handles this story, but the practices of Journey Into Manhood do not lend themselves to the light of exposure.
The New Civil Rights Movement: ABC News Toys With, Teases Americans Who Want To Go From Gay To Straight
ABC News' "Nightline," when Ted Koppel anchored, had been an intellectual, smart-person's look at the headlines and issues of the day. Now, it seems, Nightline is ABC's version of Christine O'Donnell's "mouse with human brains," a hybrid of Nancy Grace on HLN and 60 Minutes.
TruthWinsOut.org: Nightline: Journey into Manhood Poster Boy Cruises Men With Wife; Analysis of Puff Segment (UPDATED)
The problem is, it does not work, the techniques are based on junk science and the attendees, which pay $650 to be manipulated, can be psychologically harmed. JIM is a strange brew of New Age psychobabble mixed with fundamentalism, weaved into a scam that can accurately be described as consumer fraud, in my view.
Warren Throckmorton: Journey into Manhood on ABC Nightline tonight
Well, if they do what they normally do, this should be entertaining.I wonder if they will do the Cohen hold?
AfterElton.com: Watch: ABC's "Journey Into Manhood" Examine Going From Gay To Straight
This week the ABC News program Nightline examines the reparative therapy organization Journey Into Manhood. Below you can watch the report which includes both men who claim they've benefited from the therapy and those who say they've been hurt by it.
Queerty: Journey Into Manhood's Ex-Gays Still Actively Cruising Dudes
Conversion therapy outfits like Journey to Manhood, the ex-gay getaway retreat created by Richard Wyler and David Matheson, usually frown on reporters trying to infiltrate their secret dens of mischief. But Wyler and Matheson (pictured below) made an exception for Nightline, letting cameras roll as self-hating homosexuals engage in a $650 course of changing their sexuality. Well, letting cameras roll at a reunion - a made-for-TV regrouping of former clients.
Good As You: To watch: 'Journey into Manhood' so as to not, uhm -- journey into another's manhood.
Tonight on "Nightline": De-gaying one's self via John Williams' Olympics theme song: Unfortunately, "pole vault" has a whole other meaning in these "ex-gay" games.
Upcoming Events ( courtesy of NorthStarLDS.org ):
North Star does not currently sponsor any specific activities or events. We do, however, provide a calendar of events sponsored by other individuals or groups which we have reason to believe are in general harmony with the mission of North Star and the values and standards of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.November 2010
Friday-Sunday, November 12-14
Journey into Manhood
Near Houston, TXDecember 2010
Friday-Sunday, December 3-5
Journey into Manhood
Near West Palm Beach, FL
LDS standards like these?
Q. How did [Journey Into Manhood] come about? Who developed and runs the program, and who are the staff?A. My own ( Ben Newman ) healing journey included more than two years in reparative therapy, a year in group reparative therapy, several years in a Twelve Step recovery group, and five years thus far as a participant, trainee and co-staffer in the New Warrior organization, which trains men from all walks of life in personal growth, emotional healing and living lives of "mission," integrity and connection to feeling. All of these resources were immeasurably helpful, each in different ways. My vision was to combine the best of these resources into an intensive weekend that would help men jumpstart their healing from unwanted homosexuality, and also would be available to men for whom weekly reparative therapy was just not accessible in their area.
I shared this vision with [Evergreen's] David Matheson, a friend who is a psych assistant in reparative therapy, and he was immediately enthusiastic. Together, we created the weekend outline and exercises. We brought in Arthur Goldberg, co-founder of JONAH (Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality), who helped spread the word. We also brought in two of my colleagues from my local New Warrior men's group, who had no experience with the homosexual issue but had significant experience facilitating deep emotional work with men.
J.O.N.A.H.? This JONAH?
Gah.
Uh oh - Peter LaBarbera is posting dirty pictures again
crossposted on Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters
Your "friend and mine," Peter LaBarbera has returned to the tactic that has made him a controversial laughing stock in pro and anti-lgbt circles.
He is back to posting risque pictures of Folsom Street Fair in San Francisco. Now while I won't repost the picture, I will post his explanation:
The cities with large homosexual populations, and which advertise themselves as “gay’ meccas, are the most perverse in the world. San Francisco is an example. Deviance begets deviance, pushing “tolerance” to preposterous extremes. Only the committed, and corrupted, social liberal sees this as acceptable. A couple of years ago when I and others went to observe Folsom and protest the public depravities, we were struck by how straight liberals came to accept these hideous “fairs” in the name of tolerance. One reporter, who told me she had been raised in a Christian home, acted as if we outsiders who were condemning the public lewdness were more suspect than the debauched behavior itself. (I doubt her mother would agree.) God does indeed give people over to a reprobate, depraved mind – and it is only through the inestimable grace of God that some men and women once lost in the twisted world of Gays Gone Wild (and its advocacy) leave it and return to sanity. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org
The photo below was taken by an Americans For Truth reporter who attended the annual Folsom Street Fair in San Francisco on Sunday, September 25, 2010. It confirms that public sex continues at the devent sex “fair” despite past pledges by fair organizers and the city to stop public nudity and open sex in the streets (following exposes by AFTAH and others in previous years). Children were photographed attending this event.
In the (redacted) center of the photo, a naked man is standing on the ground performing oral sex on another naked man, who is standing on the stage of a booth sponsored by ‘Steamworks,’ a local bathhouse (anonymous homosexual sex club). Behind him (at left), another barely-clad man grabs the genitals of a fellow “fair”-goer at Folsom
I can forgive LaBarbera for the inaccurate claim about what happens in cities with "large homosexual populations" and I won't be petty as to criticize the fact that he can't spell "deviant" (goodness knows he has used it a lot to describe the lgbt community) because I am "thrilled" that the "Porno Pete" side of his personality has returned.
For those who are not in the know, LaBarbera is famous (or infamous) for attending subcultural events like Folsom Street Fair, taking pictures of gay men in questionable activity (while making sure to ignore the heterosexuals engaging in the same activity) and posting them on his Americans for Truth webpage along with descriptions about what exactly the men were doing in the picture and at times, relating how long it took them to do said activity.
And even when the pictures show no risque activity at all, we can always count on Porno Pete to manipulate them to imply that they do, like he did in May during a tirade against Progressive Insurance for their pro-lgbt support.
He would like to think that what he does is an attack on Democrat Nancy Pelosi and the lgbt community at large. But his activity has been the subject of much criticism in religious right circles and derision in lgbt circles.
And it's beginning to remind me of some cheesy, but enjoyable television movie I recently saw. A prim and proper woman is possessed by an alternate personality which would force her to dress in black, seek out men, and kill them.
Oh come on. Can't you just see it? LaBarbera spends the entire year pretending to be an upstanding "pro-family" activist but every time Folsom Street Fair rolls around, the voices in his head start to talk to him. He tries hard to ignore them, but they become louder and louder until they overcome his will.
Under their spell, he enters a secret chamber in his house (paid for no doubt by his years of dubious "anti-gay activism) where in a closet is a complete leather outfit equipped with a secret camera and a pair of butt-less chaps.
He puts on the outfit and stares at himself in the full length mirror that sits in the middle of his secret chamber.
Peter LaBarbera, the proud "pro-family" activist is gone and in his place is Porno Pete, the radical, extreme anti-gay activist who takes no prisoners, but lots of pictures.
Someone cue the ominous soundtrack.
Hat tip to Truth Wins Out
Related posts:
Peter LaBarbera - the self-destruction of an anti-gay activist
Peter LaBarbera's pictures contradict his ramblings
Porno Pete LaBarbera continues lying vendetta against Progressive Insurance
November 9, 2010
Sec Def Gates pushes for legislative DADT repeal because it will give the Pentagon 'flexibility'
Right: a conversation about the absurdity.
Number one, it's hard to take anything Secretary of Defense Robert Gates says regarding repeal at this point, since he's been part of the foot-dragging maneuvers to begin with. Number two, for him to cite legislative repeal as giving the military more "flexibility" in handling implementation of repeal only raises more questions about what the Pentagon's "needs" are related to rollout. (The Advocate):
In making his case, Gates referenced a two-week period in October when the Pentagon went through "four different policy changes" after a federal judge issued an injunction on the law and then denied a stay request until she was overruled by a higher court.What does he mean? What flexibility in implementation and preparation would be hampered by the courts? Does he want to leave asinine ideas like separate-but-equal quarters on the table for the homophobes in the ranks at the Pentagon's disposal? Left alone, Gates's remarks leave much to be desired (and that's being charitable)."So I, I think we have the least flexibility - we have the least opportunity to do this intelligently and carefully and with the kind of preparation that is necessary, if the courts take this action as opposed to there being legislation," Gates concluded.
The New Problem of the Gaytheist
Crossposted on ZackFord Blogs.
You don't have to like religion, practice religion, or even identify with religion to be religious. You could simply believe in God in your own way, or pray every once in a while, or even just believe in some kind of spirituality or other form of higher power or greater connectedness, and guess what? You're religious. You can also just never say anything about any such topics and you'll be assumed religious (though perhaps not the right one, right Mr. Obama?).
...
At the Soulforce Symposium, I asked the panel about what I feel to be conflicting identities, being both gay and atheist. My friend, Cathy Renna, offered that she's long witnessed a disenchantment with religion in the LGBT community, to the extent that it was once taboo to admit attending services on a Sunday morning. And she's surely right, and it might only be in recent years that the LGBT community has placed a much greater focus on embracing and reconciling with religion. It could just be a pendulum swinging back towards a pro-religion point of view, but it would only have had to be as recent as the past six years for it to define my whole experience.
Now, let's face it, it's no surprise that LGBT folks would feel alienated from religion. After all, arguably all anti-gay and anti-trans sentiments are securely rooted in religious teachings and the willful ignorance that is religious thinking.
But not wanting to practice a religion and being an atheist are two very different things. Just because members of the LGBT community no longer want to be a part of religion doesn't mean they've stopped believing, or stopped being "religious," at least as I defined it above. It doesn't make them atheists, and it definitely does not automatically make them welcoming or inclusive of atheists.
The virus of religious thinking does not let go so easily, and the human brain is incredibly adept at functioning under the conditions of cognitive dissonance. A person who believed that homosexuality is a sin that then decided that the Bible was wrong about that could easily never question that the whole rest of the Bible is just as fallible. That person might trust religion less, but never bother to think critically about any of the rest of it, and certainly not abandon it.
But being an atheist? That's a whole different ballgame.
First, you should know that there's a whole atheist community. It's true. In fact, just like the LGBTQQIAA community has diversity, we have atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, nonbelievers, skeptics, brights, humanists, and more. There's a lot of overlap—I identify with at least five of those labels—so we don't use a a long acronym, just a single scarlet A. We have a coming out process and it can often be as difficult or worse than coming out as gay (and unlike the coming out process for homosexuality, it hasn't been studied at all). We suffer incredible oppression in the United States; in fact, we are the least trusted minority and our vision of America is the least popular, even compared to Muslims and homosexuals [sic]. We're also the only minority group for which tolerance has not grown over the past 30 years.
And yet, here we are. We vigilantly disclose our identities specifically so we can create change. We challenge people's core beliefs and welcome heated debate. And we are a community. We make an active choice to identify openly and we seek each other out. We need each other's support.
This community is a very different picture than the group of folks who just don't participate in religion anymore. It's a whole different identity, a whole different community, and a whole different set of challenges.
And you know what's great about the atheist community? Even though it is predominantly heterosexual (like the rest of society), it is overwhelmingly supportive and inclusive of LGBT issues. I would go so far as to say that the atheist community understands that anti-gay attitudes are among the most dangerous and unscientific views still held by most of modern society, and they speak out in defense of the LGBT community all the time. The atheist community is by far one of the strongest LGBT allies of any other minority community.
But then I come back over to the gay community and the reverse is not true for me as an atheist. HRC's putting out a "Clergy Call 2011 for Justice and Equality." The Task Force has a whole "multi-faith" mini-conference as part of Creating Change this year, as if CC weren't faith-centric enough. There's the MCC and UU, Catholics for Equality and Soulforce, and a slew of other pro-religion organizations that work on behalf of LGBT equality. Now, don't get me wrong, as a gay man, I appreciate those efforts greatly. But as an atheist, they totally alienate me. They make me feel unwelcome because they are antithetical to my point of view. And I seldom see partnerships with the atheist groups eager to help!
As an atheist, I want to dismantle the power that religion has, not reinforce it. I don't want people to reconcile their homosexuality with their faith; I want them to see that homosexuality is a brilliant example for how flawed and unnecessary faith is. I hate the idea that religions or religious beliefs are something deserving of respect, and I have no intention of respecting them or catering to them in order to achieve legal equality as a gay man. I want to work with other LGBT activists, but I don't want to have to sit through prayers or endure a faith hegemony to make my difference in the movement. And yet, that is increasingly the environment with which I am faced in the LGBT movement.
...
If you buy into the ex-gay movement even just a little, you are faced with two choices. You can try to change your sexual orientation or you can fail to change your sexual orientation. If you fail, they have nothing left for you, and certainly no validation for embracing an identity other than heterosexuality.
While it's not as overt, I feel like the LGBT movement similarly offers a kind of non-choice for atheists. I can work with faith and I can work without faith, but there is very little room for me to work against faith. While there may be some who aren't thrilled with religion, they like holding on to their own faith, nonetheless. Frankly, there is a certain baseline of anti-atheist prejudice (I call it "faithism") and religious privilege that is just as prevalent in the LGBT community as the rest of society.
Many atheists within the LGBT community struggle to be out (or even come out), recognizing the challenges of openly identifying as atheist within the LGBT community, and particularly of identifying as both atheist and LGBT in greater society. Surely for most, LGBT issues are more salient to them, impacting their relationships, families, housing, and employment. It's all too easy to subscribe to the silence and invisibility for nonbelievers that is already in place.
Gaytheism is a borderland that is not always fun to live in. On one side of the Venn diagram are the LGBT issues that are so salient and important to me that I am passionately dedicated to addressing, but which is a community that still ostracizes me for my way of thinking. On the other side is the atheist community, a group that completely appreciates who I am and supports my point of view, but who are less organized, less committed to the issues most important to me, and likely not the place I'll find a life partner or a job in activism or education. And I can't have it both ways and still maintain my own integrity, because I can't both disavow faith and simultaneously reinforce it and feel like I'm making any meaning out of my own life.
Given that I am a man of integrity, what choice do I have but to push? Push the LGBT movement to open its eyes not just to the unreligious, but to its atheist subcommunity en masse. I have to encourage other LGBT nonbelievers to come out. I have to try to help organizations understand how their religious messages or strategies can be very exclusive. I have to convince the LGBT movement to accept and welcome the support of the many atheist and humanist organizations eager to be involved with the effort for LGBT equality. Maybe I even have to create one that represents LGBT issues specifically on behalf of nonbelievers.
So, I'm just putting it all out there for you, LGBT movement. I'm going to be a little thorn in your side. I'm going to call you out on your religious privilege. I'm going to cause some consternation for your believers. I'm going to say things that aren't popular and that aren't even always welcome. It is very much my intent to push and to change as much it is my intent to support and cooperate. We're stuck with each other, so we'd best make the most of it.
But if nothing else, remember this: I'm not the only one. I know when prayers and Amens are making me feel uncomfortable and unwelcome; I can identify those triggers, respond to them appropriately, and continue on. But there are a lot of members of our community who aren't where I am, who feel silenced and alienated by all the attention you pay to religion. I want to create a movement that understands and appreciates their point of view as much as any other, and I want to work together to make that happen.
I hope you do too.
Video break: Falwell's university gets a rap anthem: 'If College is a Watch, Liberty's a Rolex'
Follow Christ 'cause he knows best,
And this school is so blessed,
Only college in the whole country with a Snowflex,
Perfect is the aim and you should expect no less,
If college is a watch, Liberty's a Rolex.
GLAD Files Second Suit Against Federal DOMA for Married Couples in Three More States
Today Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) filed its second major, multi-plaintiff lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and the government's denial of protections and responsibilities to married gay and lesbian couples. Today's action specifically addresses married couples in Connecticut, Vermont, and New Hampshire, and comes on the heels of GLAD's Massachusetts Federal District Court ruling this summer finding DOMA Section 3 unconstitutional.More below the fold."DOMA must fall. In 1996, when Congress passed DOMA, the stated goal was to harm gay people and same-sex families with this law, and sadly, it has succeeded. Married gay and lesbian couples fall through the federal safety nets that exist for other married people," said Mary L. Bonauto, Civil Rights Project Director for GLAD. "We have to keep the pressure on and get DOMA off the books before it does even more harm."
In Pedersen et al. v. Office of Personnel Management, GLAD represents five married same-sex couples and a widower who have all been denied federal rights and protections simply because they are married to a person of the same sex.
"Getting married was extremely meaningful to Ann and me," said Joanne Pedersen, who, with her spouse Ann Meitzen, is a plaintiff. "We were shocked to discover that the federal government essentially looks on ours as a second-class marriage."
Filed today in Federal District Court in Connecticut, this suit addresses DOMA's denial of marriages in connection with federal employees and retirees benefits programs, Social Security benefits, survivor benefits under federal pension laws, work leave to care for a spouse under the Family Medical Leave Act, and state retiree health insurance benefits that are controlled by federal tax law. Several plaintiffs who have paid additional federal income taxes because they cannot file a joint federal tax return as a married couple will join the suit once they are officially turned down for refunds from the IRS.
Also today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton, and Garrison, and the New York Civil Liberties Union, filed a different lawsuit challenging DOMA, Windsor v. USA.Pedersen v. O.P.M. Complaint Pedersen v. O.P.M. F.A.Q."Every day that DOMA stands, it arbitrarily divides married couples into two categories," said Gary D. Buseck, GLAD's Legal Director. "And the extra burdens that DOMA has imposed on Massachusetts families since 2004 are now being endured by families in Connecticut, Vermont and New Hampshire."
Passed in 1996, DOMA Section 3, now codified at 1 U.S.C. section 7, limits the marriages the federal government will respect to those between a man and a woman. Section 2 of DOMA -- not at issue in GLAD's lawsuit -- allows states to establish public policies about what marriages they will and will not respect.
In both Gill et al. v. Office of Personnel Management, GLAD's earlier DOMA case, and now in Pedersen, GLAD argues that DOMA Section 3 violates the federal constitutional guarantee of equal protection. GLAD also contends that DOMA Section 3 is an unprecedented intrusion by the federal government into the law of marriage, always considered the province of the states.
While Pedersen v. OPM focuses on certain federal programs, DOMA Section 3 cuts across virtually every area of federal law. Married same-sex couples cannot, for example, rely on the protections accorded to military families to provide for their spouses, or sponsor a foreign spouse to reside in this country.
Each of the plaintiffs in Pedersen was qualified for and applied for a spousal benefit or protection like other spouses. However, because the relevant agencies had no choice but to apply DOMA, and DOMA prohibits any federal recognition of the lawful marriages of gay and lesbian couples, all the protections were denied.
The current plaintiffs in Pedersen v. OPM are the following:
Joanne Pedersen (57) and Ann Meitzen (60) of Connecticut have been together for 12 years, and were married in 2008. Joanne, a retiree from the Department of Naval Intelligence, is unable to put Ann, who has serious and chronic lung conditions, on her health insurance plan.
Jerry Passaro (45) of Connecticut was married in 2008 to Tom Buckholz, his partner of 13 years. Tom died two months later of lymphoma. While still grieving, Jerry discovered that because of DOMA, Tom's employer could not provide him survivor benefits on Tom's pension. He has also been denied Social Security death benefits.
Raquel Ardin (56) and Lynda DeForge (54) of Vermont have been together for over 30 years, and were married in 2009 by Raquel's 89-year-old father, who lives with them. Lynda, a postal employee, was denied family medical leave to care for Raquel, who needs regular and painful injections into her neck because of a military service-connected injury. Lynda could not use FMLA to care for Raquel after knee surgery this year.
Janet Geller (64) and Jo Marquis (70) of New Hampshire have been together for 31 years and were married in May 2010. Both are retired schoolteachers. Jan is unable to receive a health benefit from Jo's retiree plan because of DOMA, which places additional financial burdens on them during their retirement.
Two other couples will soon be added to the case.
Suzanne (39) and Geraldine (40) Artis of Connecticut have been together for 17 years and married in 2009. They have three school-aged sons. Suzanne is a school librarian. Geraldine, a teacher by profession, has recently undergone three back surgeries and is unable to work. They pay at least $1500 more in income taxes each year because of DOMA.
Bradley Kleinerman (47) and James "Flint" Gehre (44) of Connecticut have been together for 19 years and married in 2009. They have three sons that they adopted after serving as foster parents. Flint, a former police officer and teacher, is now a stay-at-home dad, while Brad works in human resources. Because of DOMA, they pay at least $1500 more in income taxes each year.
GLAD's legal team in Pedersen is led by Mary L. Bonauto and GLAD Legal Director Gary D. Buseck, with Staff Attorneys Janson Wu and legal fellows Liz Monnin-Browder and Ashley Dunn. Co-operating counsel on the case include Sullivan & Worcester LLP (Boston), Jenner & Block LLP (Washington, DC), and Horton, Shields & Knox (Hartford).
More information about the case, including the complaint and biographical information about the plaintiffs can be found at www.glad.org/doma.
ACLU: Bereaved Spouse Challenges DOMA As Unconstitutional
More after the jump.Edith "Edie" Windsor, who shared her life with her late spouse, Thea Spyer, for 44 years, will file a lawsuit against the federal government tomorrow for refusing to recognize their marriage. The lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of the "Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA), a federal statute that defines marriage for all federal purposes as a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife. Windsor and Spyer were married in Canada in 2007, and were considered married by their home state of New York.
Spyer died in 2009. Due to DOMA's discriminatory policies, Windsor was not able to claim the estate tax marital deduction that is available when the surviving spouse is of the opposite sex. In her lawsuit, Windsor is seeking to have DOMA declared unconstitutional and to obtain a refund of the federal estate tax that she was forced to pay following Spyer's death. The lawsuit will be filed with the assistance of the American Civil Liberties Union, the law firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP and the New York Civil Liberties Union.
"After Thea died, the fact that the federal government refused to recognize our marriage was devastating," said Windsor. "In the midst of my grief at the loss of the love of my life, I had to deal with my own government saying that we weren't a family."
Windsor, a senior computer systems programmer, and Spyer, a clinical psychologist, met in the early 1960s, and lived together for decades in an apartment in Greenwich Village. Despite not being able to get legally married, they got engaged in 1967. Over 30 years ago, Spyer was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, and Windsor helped her through her long battle with the disease. After building a life together for more than 40 years, they were finally married in Toronto in May 2007. Their relationship is the subject of a documentary entitled, "Edie & Thea: A Very Long Engagement."
"We treasured every moment of our 44 years together and were thrilled to be able to finally have the chance to spend our last years together as a legally married couple," said Windsor. "It meant so much to us that our commitment to each other had finally been recognized."
Windsor was the sole beneficiary of Spyer's estate. Because they were married, Spyer's estate normally would have passed to her spouse without any tax. But because DOMA refuses to recognize otherwise valid marriages of same-sex couples, Spyer's estate had to pay more than $350,000 in federal estate taxes. Earlier this year, Windsor requested a full refund from the government. The IRS rejected that claim, citing DOMA.
"Edie and Thea were together for 44 years, the last two of which they were lucky enough to spend as a married couple," said James Esseks, Director of the ACLU Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Project. "All Edie is seeking is the same treatment for her marriage that the federal government appropriately gives to married straight couples. It is completely unfair for the federal government to pretend that Edie and Thea were strangers, and to tax them that way."In the lawsuit, Windsor alleges that DOMA violates the equal protection guarantee of the U.S. Constitution because it recognizes marriages of heterosexual couples, but not of same-sex couples, despite the fact that New York State treats all marriages the same.
"If Thea were 'Theo' instead of 'Thea,' then Edie, as Thea's spouse, would have inherited Thea's estate tax-free," said Roberta Kaplan of Paul, Weiss. "Edie and Thea were denied equal treatment, and it is obviously unjust that there should be a tax simply for being gay."
"No one should have to fight with the government after losing the person she's loved for more than four decades," said NYCLU Executive Director Donna Lieberman. "Edie and Thea made the same life-long commitment that other married couples make, and their marriage deserves the same dignity, respect and protection afforded other families."
Another lawsuit raising the same legal challenge to DOMA is being filed tomorrow in federal court in Hartford, CT. Brought by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, that case includes five married couples and one widower from three states who are harmed by DOMA in a variety of significant ways, including denial of health care coverage and social security benefits.
Both of these cases follow similar litigation in Massachusetts, where a federal district judge ruled last summer that DOMA violates the federal Constitution. That case, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, challenged the federal government's refusal to recognize the marriages of same-sex couples legally married in Massachusetts and is now on appeal. The case was also brought by GLAD. Windsor's case pursues the same legal theory in the context of federal estate taxes.
Windsor is represented by Kaplan and Andrew Ehrlich of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, LLP; Esseks and Rose Saxe of the ACLU LGBT Project; and Arthur Eisenberg and Alexis Karteron of the New York Civil Liberties Union.
For more information on this case, please visit: www.aclu.org/Edie
For more information on GLAD's case, please visit: www.glad.org/doma
Mike Signorile talks to gays who voted Republican; Rosie calls to respond
The phones were jammed with people who voted GOP who wanted to offer their explanations for casting votes for politicians like David Vitter in Louisiana, for Rand Paul in Kentucky, for Rick Scott in the governor's race in Florida, and for various other, Senate, House and local races.Rosie O'Donnell called into the show in response to the above, and Mike posted an update:This clip includes a few of those calls, two from Kentucky and one from Maine, where the caller voted for Paul LePage, the Republican governor-elect who has actually floated that the Maine Human Rights Act -- which gives basic anti-discrimination protection to gays -- should to be revisited, in addition to be against marriage equality, which Maine could have been on the brink of voting in again (after voter rescinded the newly-passed law in a ballot measure) if Republicans didn't take the statehouse and the governorship for the first time since 1964.
Todd from Phoenix, a gay man, called to tell me that he didn't like my criticism of the GOP voters, that he too voted Republican, and that gay issues (marriage in particular) just don't matter to him. Then Rex from South Carolina called to say, "I used to be just like Todd" until I heard Rosie O'Donnell interviewed on the show, telling her story. Rosie happened to be listening at that moment and called in to explain how it was Evan Wolfson of Freedom to Marry who convinced her why marriage equality is important.
Pam Spaulding's Blog
- Pam Spaulding's profile
- 1 follower
