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!"

The Flyer Mitt Romney Doesn't Want SC Voters To See

This flyer is from Mitt Romney's 2002 campaign for Governor of Massachusetts. Back in those days, Romney was portraying himself as a typical Northeastern liberal Republican, i.e. pro-choice and pro-gay.

Now that Romney has won Iowa* and New Hampshire it should be interesting to see how South Carolina voters react to Romney when they learn more about his past positions.

(*The Iowa results were essentially a tie.)

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.

POLL: Huge Majority Supports LGBT Workplace Equality

A new poll commissioned by Human Rights Campaign confirms that the vast majority of Americans believes that employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity should be illegal.

The poll found a vast majority (77 percent) of voters support protecting LGBT people from discrimination in employment.  The support for employment protections defies conventional political wisdom, reaching across party and ideological lines.  Seventy percent of self-identified Republicans and 67 percent of conservatives support anti-discrimination laws.  Support is strong even among groups who tend to be less supportive of LGBT issues, such as seniors (69 percent among voters over age 65), those with a high school degree or less (68 percent), observant Christians (77 percent), born-again Christians (74 percent), and residents of the Deep South (72 percent). 

In a finding showing a need for more public outreach and education for employment non-discrimination laws, most voters believe anti-discrimination laws already exist.  Eighty-seven percent of voters believe it is illegal under federal law to fire someone for being gay and 78 percent believe it is illegal under state law.  Even in states without anti-discrimination laws, 75 percent of voters think it is illegal under state law to fire someone for being gay or lesbian. 

Of course there is pending federal legislation called the Employment Non-Discrimination Act which would actually make the law comport with what most people believe the law is already: illegal to fire workers because they are LGBT.

But it is absolutely unlikely to pass Congress while the Republicans control the majority of the U.S. House.

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.

LGBT Icon Frank Kameny Dead At 86

Wow... Just days after my friend (and longtime lesbian activist) Paula Ettelbrick died, the LGBT community has lost one of it's wise elders: Frank Kameny, who was a gay rights pioneer, starting his activism in the 1950s.

The Washington Post covers Kameny's death thusly:

Mr. Kameny, a Harvard PhD whose homosexuality led to his discharge from a federal government job more than half a century ago, lived to see his years of determined advocacy rewarded by the success of many of his campaigns and by his ultimate welcome from a political establishment that had rejected him.

His death, apparently on National Coming Out Day, occurred in a year in which gay men and lesbians were accorded the right toserve openly in the armed forces, as David A. Catania (I-At Large), the D.C. Council’s first openly gay member, noted Tuesday night.

[...]

In what appeared to be one of the great triumphs of Mr. Kameny’s often lonely, uphill struggle, the protest signs that he once carried in front of the White House were put on display in the Smithsonian Institution four years ago, to be viewed along with the museum’s other reminders of the course of U.S. history. 

Mr. Kameny said he created the slogan “Gay Is Good.” In their pungent succinctness, the words both suggested his rhetorical skills and embodied the beliefs that he championed.

Years before the gay rights movement existed in any widely recognized form and in an era in which open assertion of homosexuality could invite physical harm, Mr. Kameny worked to increase the acceptance of gay men and lesbians in mainstream American society and to win recognition of their equality under the law.

Among the many advances Kameny is credited with working for and seeing come to fruition include: a public apology from the federal government in 2009 for firing him 50 years before; the repeal of the District of Columbia sodomy law; an executive order signed by President Clinton eliminating sexual orientation as a category for denying security clearances; an openly gay man appointed by President Obama as head of the Office of Personnel Management; and the founding of the Mattachine Society, one of the first gay rights organizations in the 1950s.

WATCH: EQCA Responds To FRC Lies About FAIR Education Act

There is an attempt being made to have California voters vote on a referendum to overturn this year's FAIR Education Act in a June 2012 election. The FAIR Education Act (SB 48) is a law passed by the state legislature and signed into law by Governor Brown which insures that LGBT, people of color and people with disabilities are included in educational social studies curricula. The Family Research Council joined the fight on the side of the heterosexual supremacists who think that any inclusion of homosexuality in schools must be indoctrination. Equality California, the state's largest LGBT political advocacy organization struck back with a video response of their own within days. In the video response, EQCA rolls Tony Perkins video and then stops it when he lies (which is often) or uses scare tactics (also often) to attempt to persuade viewers that the FAIR Education Act is something it is not.
Watch it!
Hat/tip to TowleRoad.

Compare All The Candidates On LGBT Issues

Think Progress LGBT has this useful chart detailing the positions of all the current Presidential candidates on LGBT issues.

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.

More Analysis Of Zombie Anti-Gay Sodomy Laws

Sodomy laws, or state statutes which criminalized sexual contact between people of the same sex were some of the most pernicious aspects of anti-LGBT discriminatory practices that negatively impacted the civil rights of LGBT Americans.

The 2003 Supreme Court decision Lawrence v Texas basically ended the era of legal gay apartheid but there are 18 states which, today, 8 years later, still have sodomy laws on their books.

MadProfessah noted that Mother Jones discussed this curiosity last April and now Equality Matters and other LGBT media outlets are starting to take notice.