ACLU Sues Michigan Over Anti-Gay DP Benefits Law

Previously MadProfessah had blogged about a new discriminatory law signed into effect by Republican Governor Rick Snyder which would ban public employees (at the state, county, or city level) from receiving benefits based on domestic partner status. Now comes word that the American Civil Liberties Union is suing the Governor and the state of Michigan to strike down the law in court.

The case is known as Bassett v. Snyder:

The lawsuit charges that the new law discriminates by categorically denying domestic partners access to benefits and violates the constitutional right to equal protection by forcing gay and lesbian employees in committed relationships to carry the financial hardship and anxiety of being uninsured, while allowing heterosexual couples to marry and receive family health protections. In addition, the law only bars domestic partners from receiving health care coverage, while allowing government employers to offer benefits to all other family members, including parents, siblings, uncles and cousins.

“It’s unconstitutional for the state of Michigan to deprive a small number of workers the means to take care of their loved ones when other similarly situated workers do have access to family coverage,” said Amanda C. Goad, staff attorney for the ACLU LGBT Project. “In an economic downturn, the state should be passing laws to make it easier for families to take care of each other, not to take protections away.”

Proponents point to the “high cost” of domestic partner health care coverage as the motivating force to enact such a law. However, an analysis of programs across the state proves these numbers to be wildly inaccurate. In fact, studies show such coverage, in addition to attracting and retaining the best employees, costs well under one percent of the health care budget of public employers who voluntarily provide these benefits. In addition, unlike married couples, domestic partners must pay taxes to the state on their health insurance benefits – revenue the state would lose under the new law.

As Ari Ezra Waldman over at TowleRoad comments, this case is really about more than just domestic partnership benefits, it's about whether the state can discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation without a legitimate governmental purpose or compelling justification.

The answer is, of course, "heck no!"

Civil Unions Go Into Effect In Hawaii and Delaware

Today is January 1st, 2012, the first day of the year. Typically, legislation enacted during the previous years often goes into effect on January 1st of the next year. Today, civil unions become legal in Hawaii and Delaware.

Marriage equality is legal in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, Iowa, New York and the District of Columbia.

MI: Governor Signs Bill Ending DP Benefits For Public Employees

Governor Rick Snyder (R) was elected in 2010 and used his Republican majority
in both houses to strip domestic partner benefits from all unmarried public employees

Wow. This is incredibly horrendous news (especially if you live in, or know anyone who lives in, Michigan). The Republican Governor and State Legislature of Michigan have enacted a law which bans the state (and any local subdivision) from offering domestic partnership benefits to public employees.

AnnArbor.com reports:

Public employees, including state and local government workers and public school teachers, will no longer be allowed to extend their health care benefits to domestic partners.

It is unclear whether the bill applies to state universities, although Snyder asserts that it does not. House Republicans, meanwhile, say it does apply to university employees.

The move is a blow to gay and lesbian activists throughout the state.

"We’re so very disappointed in the governor," Kary L. Moss, executive director of American Civil Liberties Union's Michigan chapter, said in an interview. "This was the moment for him to show real leadership, to rise above what I believe is petty politics, to tell the rest of the country that Michigan is not living in the dark ages and to create an open, inclusive Michigan."

Governor Snyder vetoed a companion bill (HB 4771) which would have applied the domestic partnership ban (HB 4770) to state universities while he signed this bill into law.

POLL: Californians Favor Marriage Equality (Barely)

A new poll again shows that Californians strongly support legal protections and state recognition of same-sex couples but are also closely divided on the question of whether to allow such unions to be given the legal name "marriages."

Public Policy Polling did a statewide poll of 500 California voters between November 10-13 which had the following questions:

Q11 Do you think same-sex marriage should be
legal or illegal?
Legal............................................................... 48%
Illegal .............................................................. 43%
Not sure .......................................................... 9%

Q12 Which of the following best describes your
opinion on gay marriage: gay couples should
be allowed to legally marry, or gay couples
should be allowed to form civil unions but not
legally marry, or there should be no legal
recognition of a gay couple's relationship?
Gay couples should be allowed to legally
marry ..............................................................43%
Gay couples should be allowed to form civil
unions but not marry .......................................35%
There should be no legal recognition of a gay
couple's relationship .......................................21%
Not sure .......................................................... 1%

The margin of error is +/- 4.4 percentage points. This is more evidence that people who think that 2012 is the right time to attempt to repeal Proposition 8 are fooling themselves. I do think that there are more Californians who support marriage equality than not, but the polling shows that the difference is well within the margin of error.

One of my pre-conditions for attempting a Proposition 8 repeal by ballot measure is multiple polls of likely voters which indicate majority support for marriage equality outside of the margin of error. That polling result is yet to occur in California, though I do believe it will happen soon. (By the way, the other pre-conditions are: A 7-figure amount in the bank at the beginning of a ballot measure campaign AND a public, published plan with a representational organizational structure for the entity which will manage the ballot measure campaign.)

Names Of Referendum 71 Signers Released

Finally! After losing a Supreme Court decision Doe v. Reed last year, the heterosexual supremacists who forced the voters of Washington State to vote on whether that state's comprehensive domestic partnership law should go into effect have lost their battle to keep secret the names of the voters who signed the petitions to get the measure on the ballot.

A federal judge ordered the state of Washington to release the names on Monday, and the Secretary of State released a DVD with 138, 000 names of petitioners to the press.

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports:

The 138,000 people who signed petitions to force a vote on a 2009 domestic partnership law are unlikely to face harassment if their names are disclosed a judge said Friday while ordering the release of signatures.

U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle said the petitioners who advocated for privacy provided only a few experiences of indecent statements and other uncomfortable conversations. Also, there was only speculation that those incidents were connected to the issue, he said.

Disclosure would become the exception, rather than the rule, if just a few instances of harassment were used as the standard for preventing the release of names, Settle said.

And the heterosexual supremacists lost the referendum campaign in 2009 as well. Washington voters approved the referendum (upheld Washington's comprehensive domestic partnership law) and it has been in effect since November 2009.

POLL: NC Anti-gay relationship amendment ahead 61-34

After years of being stopped by a Democratic majority in one House of the North Carolina legislature, a constitutional amendment to ban the recognition of "[any] domestic legal union between members of the same sex (i.e. same-sex marriages and domestic partnerships) was passed by the new Republican majority September 12th.

This week comes the bad news that despite a majority of North Carolinians either supporting marriage equality or domestic partnerships almost two-thirds support this virulently anti-gay constitutional amendment:

PPP's first look at the proposed marriage amendment in North Carolina since the legislature placed it on the ballot finds it leading 61-34. Republicans are overwhelmingly in favor of it (80/17) and independents (52/43) and Democrats (49/44) support it as well, although by more narrow margins.

The interesting thing is that 51% of this same set of voters supports legal recognition for gay couples. 22% favor gay marriage and another 29% civil unions, with only 46% completely opposed to granting same sex couples legal recognition.  The problem for those trying to defeat the amendment is that 37% of voters who support gay marriage or civil unions are still planning to vote for it.  That suggests a lot of folks aren't familiar with how wide reaching the proposed amendment would be and it gives those fighting it a chance- they just have to get their message out effectively to the majority of North Carolinians who do support legal recognition for gay couples that the proposal goes too far.

This is really a classic example of how small differences in poll question wording can lead to huge differences in how people respond. Last month we asked the following question "State legislators have proposed an amendment to the North Carolina Constitution that would prohibit the recognition of marriage, civil unions, or domestic partnerships for gay and lesbian couples. If the election was held today,would you vote for or against this amendment?" When you ask it that way only 30% of voters are supportive and 55% are opposed. Voters are against 'prohibiting' recognition for gay couples. But if you word it in such a way that all you're doing is defining marriage as between one man and one woman, voters are ok with that.  You're asking about the same thing in both cases, but the semantics make a huge difference and Republicans clearly know what they're doing with the language that's on the ballot.

One key group of voters those fighting the amendment will really have to reach out to is black Democrats. 70% of them support it to 25% opposed. White Democrats on the other hand oppose it by a 57/37 margin.

The only anti-gay marriage amendment to have been defeated was in Arizona, and it similarly attempted to ban both marriages and domestic partnerships. That measure failed in 2006 when senior citizen groups came out against the measure. But in that state the measure was actually stripping people of exstant domestic partnership benefits. I don't believe North Carolina has any state recognition of same-sex couples (or opposite-sex couples) outside of marriage, so the amendment is banning a "theoretical" problem which will be easy to demonize in  Bible Belt state.

Chilean President Offers Civil Unions Bill

Great news from South America. The President of Chile, Sebastián Piñera, has introduced legislation to legalize same-sex civil unions.

AFP reports:

"All forms of marriage deserve respect, dignity and the support of the state," said President Sebastian Pinera, who signed the proposal and sent it to Congress.

"This puts opposite-sex and same-sex couples on the same footing, because in both cases it is possible to develop love, affection and respect."

Pinera, who brought conservatives to power after 20 years of center-left rule in the country, grated on his own election campaign when he announced his intention to legalize civil unions for gay couples. He said two million people in Chile live together without marrying.

But the president has repeatedly stressed his opposition to gay marriage.

"I deeply believe that marriage is by nature between a man and a woman, but that conviction does not prevent me from recognizing that other forms of affective relationships exist," he said.

The law would permit gay couples who join into a civil union to have access to inheritance and other social benefits.

Chile is reportedly 80% Catholic and did not legalize divorce until 2004(!). However, Argentina is next door and legalized marriage equality for same-sex coupes in July 2010.

Williams Institute Estimates 581,300 U.S. Same-Sex Couples

Yesterday was an historic day in which the United States Senate held a hearing on a pro-LGBT piece of legislation, the Respect for Marriages Act, which would repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

The Williams Institute at UCLA Law School, an LGBT public policy think tank, submitted written testimony for the hearing.

Included in the testimony are the following findings from Williams Institute research  about same-sex couples:

• There are 581,300 same-sex couples in the United States, including 50,000 to 80,000 legally married same-sex and another 85,000 who are in civil unions or registered domestic partnerships.

• Approximately 20% of same-sex couples are raising nearly 250,000 children.

• Almost one-fourth of same-sex partners are people of color.

• Over 7% of individuals in same-sex couples are veterans of the U.S. armed forces.

• Same-sex couples live in every congressional district and in almost every county in the United States.

In addition, the testimony summarizes Williams Institute research documenting a number of ways that DOMA results in legal, financial, social, and psychological hardships for many same-sex couples and their families.  These include:

• Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) Benefits.  Nearly 430,000 same-sex partners remain barred from taking leave to care for a same-sex spouse under the FMLA, even if they marry.

• Benefits for Spouses of Federal Employees.  The same-sex spouses and partners of over 30,000 federal employees are ineligible for important benefits available to different-sex married spouses.

• Veteran Partner Benefits.  Same-sex spouses and partners of nearly 68,000 veterans are barred from a variety of benefits including pensions, educational assistance, and vocational training available to different-sex spouses.

• Taxation of Employee Health Benefits for a Same-Sex Spouse.  When private employers offer health insurance to same-sex spouses and domestic partners, federal law taxes these benefits. Approximately 41,000 employees with a same-sex spouse or domestic partner pay, on average, over $1,000 more in taxes per year than an employee receiving the same health benefits for a different-sex spouse.

• Spousal Impoverishment Protections for Medicaid Long Term Care (LTC).  Medicaid LTC beneficiaries may have to use some of their spouse’s income and assets to pay for LTC. Federal law requires states to allow different-sex spouses to retain income and assets to protect them from destitution. However, about 1,700-3,000 individuals whose same-sex spouses or partners receive Medicaid-financed LTC are not protected by these spousal impoverishment provisions.

• Estate Tax.  Over the next two years, members of same-sex couples who will pay the federal estate tax, will pay, on average, more than $4 million more than a survivor of a different-sex spouse because they do not qualify for the federal estate tax spousal exemption.

• Social Security Survivor Benefits.  Unlike different-sex spouses, same-sex spouses cannot continue receiving their spouse’s social security payments after their spouse’s death. This results in a loss, on average, of over $5,700 for a same-sex spouse that receives lower social security payments than the deceased spouse. 

• Immigration for Bi-National Couples.  Nearly 26,000 same-sex couples in the United States are bi-national couples who could be forced to separate because they cannot participate in green-card and accelerated citizenship mechanisms offered to non-citizen spouses of American citizens. 

• Social Stigma.  Research shows that laws such as DOMA produce stigma that has serious adverse impacts on the health of LGBT people by causing stress and disease. A Williams Institute survey of people married to a same-sex spouse in Massachusetts found that couples gain social support from their families and have a greater level of mutual commitment when they are allowed to marry.  

The Williams Institute testimony concludes that DOMA has also impaired the ability of researchers to assess its impact on same-sex couples and their families. Although the U.S. Census Bureau has begun to reevaluate its policy of not counting married same-sex couples as such, a legacy of DOMAis evident in a general resistance on the part of federal statistical agencies to collect detailed, accurate, and reliable data on same-sex couples and their families. This means that, in spite of the efforts of the Institute, policy debates on laws like DOMA have too often been driven as much by anecdote and stereotype as by sound social science research and facts.

It's great that we can get the factual and actual impact of anti-LGBT public policy like DOMA in to the Congressional Record so that this will increase the momentum to pass legislation to end the discrimination. Apparently all 10 members of the Senate Judiciary Committee support repealing DOMA, so they could vote to move it to the Senate floor, where it will almost certainly be killed by a Republican filibuster.

RI Gov Blasts (But Signs) Discriminatory Civil Unions Bill

Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chaffee

Usually when a governor signs a civil union bill into law the LGBT community celebrates, but not this time. Rhode Island Independent Governor Lincoln Chaffee signed a civil unions bill into law over objections from a coalition of LGBT groups and opposition from religious heterosexual supremacists.

The debate is over the Corvese Amendment, which looks like:

15-3.1-5. Conscience and religious organizations protected. – (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, no religious or denominational organization, no organization operated for charitable or educational purpose which is supervised or controlled by or in connection with a religious organization, and no individual employed by any of the foregoing organizations, while acting in the scope of that employment, shall be required:

(1) To provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges for a purpose related to the solemnization, certification, or celebration of any civil union; or

(2) To solemnize or certify any civil union; or

(3) To treat as valid any civil union; if such providing, solemnizing, certifying, or treating as valid would cause such  organizations or individuals to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs.

(b) No organization or individual as described in subsection (a) above who fails or refuses to provide, solemnize, certify, or treat as valid, as described in subdivision (a)(1), (a)(2) or (a)(3) above, persons in a civil union, shall be subject to a fine, penalty, or other cause of action for such failure or refusal.

This is an incredibly broad religious exemption. Basically, it allows Catholic hospitals to deny life-saving medical decisions by one member of a civil union. In fact it allows any "religious" organization (or individual employee of such an organization) to completely ignore a civil union.

When Governor Chaffee signed the bill into law, according to the Middleton Patch he said:

That exemption, "gives these institutions and their employees the choice of refusing to recognize civil unions. As a result, a party to a civil union could be denied the right to make medical decisions for his or her partner, denied access to health insurance benefits, denied property rights in adjoining burial plots or denied family memberships at religiously-affiliated community centers. If religiously-affiliated hospitals, cemeteries, schools and community centers refuse to treat civil unions as valid, it would significantly harm civil union partners by failing to protect their medical, physical and commercial interests at critical moments in their lives," Chafee wrote. "This extraordinary exemption eviscerates the important rights that enacting a civil union law was meant to guarantee for same sex couples in the first place." 

"I am signing this bill because I believe that same sex couples should have the same legal rights, benefits, protections and responsibilities as heterosexual couples. Although this measure is a step forward, it fails to fully achieve those goals in its present form," Chafee wrote.

What's so bizarre about this fight is that Rhode Island already recognizes same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions. So, if one Rhode Island couple gets married in New York and another Rhode Island couple gets civilly united in Rhode Island, it is the locally wed couple that can be legally discriminated against under this law, while the externally married couple can NOT be discriminated against in the same fashion.

Why would any same-sex couple apply for a Rhode Island civil union when they can apply for a legal marriage license in New York (which has no residency requirement) starting TODAY?

WATCH: Black Lesbian Couple 1st To Get Illinois Civil Union

Lakeesha Harris and Jeanean Watkins, a Black lesbian couple with a registered domestic partnership, were first in line to get their civil union license when Illinois civil unions law went into effect today, June 1. Governor Pat Quinn signed the bill into law earlier this year. Hawaii and Delaware also enacted civil union laws this year that go into effect later.

Hat/tip to Wonder Man.