Culhane: Pawlenty throws gays under the bus
OK, maybe it’s just because I’ve taught Torts for so long, but an apparently minor development out of Minnesota really has me irked.
First, consider these two stories:
(1) A California woman is mauled to death by vicious dogs, under circumstances so horrific that the owner is convicted of second-degree murder. Her surviving same-sex partner sues under the state’s wrongful death law. Under a strict reading of the statute, she would lose because she doesn’t have “standing” to sue – unlike the deceased woman’s mother, who does have such standing, even though her actual financial and emotional losses are much less. Yet the court allows the claim to proceed anyway, and she collects a large settlement.
(2) A New York couple enters into a civil union in Vermont. Later, one of the men dies because of alleged medical malpractice. Instead of contesting the merits of the suit, the hospital moves to dismiss the claim because the surviving “spouse” isn’t a spouse at all – the civil union doesn’t count. A trial judge allows the case to proceed, but the appellate court holds that the case should have been dismissed.
Since those cases were decided, the laws in both New York and California have been changed to allow “registered” same-sex couples to bring their claims – not necessarily to recover, simply to have the right to try to establish their losses.
These developments had no effect on Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, who has just vetoed a bill that would have given surviving members of same-sex couples the right to make decisions about the remains of their partners and the right to sue in wrongful death for negligent acts that resulted in their partners’ demise.
When Pawlenty gave as the reason for his veto that the law was unnecessary because same-sex couples can protect themselves by executing living wills, he was flat wrong – at least as to the wrongful death part of the law.
Some quick background on wrongful death law (more than you’d probably ever want to know): These state laws are designed to provide the survivor with what he or she would have been expected to receive from the deceased: In most states, including Minnesota, damages can include some of the income that the deceased would have been expected to earn (whatever the survivor could have been expected to receive), as well as the loss of emotional support and companionship.
So what’s the problem for same-sex couples? Unlike most of tort law, suits for wrongful death are based not on judge-made (common) law, but on statutes that clearly define who’s eligible to recover. And most of the statutes continue to restrict recovery to certain named classes of survivors: In Minnesota, which is fairly typical in this regard, that’s limited to spouses and “next of kin.”
So why and how did judges in California and New York hold to the contrary? By looking to the purpose of the law, which is to compensate based on real loss, and to make sure that bad conduct is deterred. Since the strict categorical requirements of wrongful death laws frustrate those purposes, judges are tempted to “get creative.”
Given the purposes of the law and what the California judge called the “insurmountable obstacle” that gay and lesbian couples face in these cases – you can’t contract around a statute – why the veto?
Here’s a thought: Pawlenty wants to be President, and has to burnish his social conservative credentials first. So everything becomes a threat, suddenly, to “traditional marriage” – however tangential the message on marriage, and however real the costs to actual people.
Here are a few questions I’d like to ask Gov. Pawlenty.. I’m going to send them to his office (unless a reader living in Minnesota would like to!), but I don’t expect an answer.
“Governor, under the law as it now stands, a murderer would owe nothing to the surviving member of a same-sex couple, even if the deceased provided most of the support for that survivor. Can you explain and justify the policy that permits this result?”
“The result of these statutes is so unfair that judges in other states have ignored their language and looked to the purpose of the law in allowing these claims. Why not simply amend the law to better reflect the compensatory and deterrent purposes of wrongful death law?
“What advice would you give to same-sex couples to protect themselves against this result?
“If the same-sex couple had adopted a child, that child’s future prospects could be negatively and even dramatically affected by her surviving parent’s inability to recover for wrongful death. Why should that child be differently affected than the child of an otherwise identical opposite-sex couple?
“You described the law as “divisive.” Can you explain why this law is any more divisive than the one you signed last year, that prevented jointly owned homes from being sold to pay medical bills when one partner dies?”
Politicians in the Pawlenty mode continue to throw us under both the express and the local bus: Marriage and the puny but necessary baby steps that are necessitated by intransigence on full equality. We must hold him accountable, now and if he seeks the Presidency.
John Culhane is Professor of Law and Director of the Health Law Institute at Widener University School of Law in Wilmington, Delaware. He blogs about the role of law in everyday life, and about a bunch of other things (LGBT rights, public health, sports, pop culture, music philosophy and lots of personal stuff) at: http://wordinedgewise.org. A fuller bio can be found here. He can be reached via email at: johnculhane@comcast.net.
Gay marriage and the date debate
Nearly nine months after California voters banned same-sex marriage in the state, gay marriage supporters are ready to ask them to overturn Proposition 8. They’re just not sure when to ask: In November 2010 or November 2012. Choosing a date involves more than sifting through the polling, community meetings and consultants’ reports that have filled the time since last fall’s election with soul-searching and finger-pointing among supporters, culminating in a meeting of the movement’s leaders Saturday in San Bernardino. Generating enthusiasm for a grassroots campaign will also be a heart-based decision, one that has split same-sex couples even in Kern County, where 75 percent of voters backed Prop. 8. Bakersfield resident Jade Haley wants an initiative in 2010. Her partner Alee Gamino thinks that’s too soon. Gamino’s Catholic mother still refers to Haley as “she” and has no contact with them as a couple, who are raising Gamino’s teenage daughter from a previous relationship. On Sundays, Gamino, 34, goes to church twice. She attends a Catholic service solo with her mom in the morning and goes to a Metropolitan Community Church with her partner in the evening. “The churches have thousands and thousands of people ready to go against us,” said Gamino. She looked at 70 people who came to a Unitarian Universalist Church on Thursday to talk about the movement’s next step. “All we have is what’s in this room.” Still, Gamino was among only a dozen people at the Bakersfield meeting called by Marriage Equality USA who supported waiting until 2012. The sentiment for a vote next year echoed one at a similar gathering in San Francisco, while gatherings in liberal bastions such as Oakland and Berkeley leaned toward 2012. “The reaction was really mixed,” said Pam Brown, Marriage Equality USA’s political director, who compiled information from the organization’s “Get Engaged” tour of 40 California cities over the past several weeks. “A lot of people who wanted to wait until 2012 wanted to see what the plan was first before they committed.” A nonbinding straw poll of leaders gathered Saturday in San Bernardino to plan the movement’s next step found that 93 people voted to go in 2010, 49 in 2012 and 20 were undecided. Organizers expect to officially decide when to return to the ballot in a couple of weeks. If they decide on November 2010, the deadline to have ballot language submitted to the attorney general is Sept. 25. This month, several groups of same-sex marriage supporters said not enough has been done to address the faults of last year’s campaign in time to mount a winning drive next year.Churches’ influence
Faults not addressed
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
 |
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/07/gay-marriage-…
New straw poll of gay marriage leaders: Overturn Prop 8 in 2010
A straw poll of same sex marraige leaders gathered in San Bernardino Saturday just came in: The majority want to return to the ballot in 2010 to try to overturn Proposition 8. Final count of the nonbinding measure: 93 people voted to go in 2010, 49 in 2012 and 20 undecided.
The next step: Leaders will return to their organizations and then a final decision will be made in a couple of weeks. If they’re going to go for it in 2010, they’d better hurry. Ballot language is due to the Attorney General by Sept. 25.
Oh, yeah. And they still need a leader. And a leadership structure. And a decision-making process.
With that in mind, here’s a juicy rumor for you: Would President Obama confidante Steve Hildebrand be interested in coming out to California to lead the next same sex marriage ballot iniative campaign?
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/07/new-straw-pol…
A consensus: among consultants Wait until 2012 To Repeal Prop 8
he advice is piling up on one side for folks who want to see same sex marriage legalized in California: Wait until 2012 to ask voters to overturn Proposition 8.
We’ve told you about the three LGBT coalitions of color who suggested waiting, and the nation’s oldest LGBT Democratic club saying the same. Now some of California’s top political consultants are joining the chorus.
Now, now. We know that some gay marriage fans blame consultants for the ruinous anti-Prop 8 campaign. But Equality California marriage director Marc Solomon — who helped lead the successful drive for marriage in Massachusetts — asked seven to share their thoughts on the 2010 v. 2012 question. Plus, they asked what the LGBT community and their allies should do to prepare to go back to the ballot. Three were openly LGBT (including two who are married) and one is a Republican.
The consensus: Wait until 2012.
Sue Burnside, co-chair of the National Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund Campaign Board, is “convinced that we should refrain from rushing in 2010, and instead to build on grassroots passion and strategically prepare for a ‘Yes on Marriage Equality’ referendum in 2012.” Ditto for Mark Armour and Rick Claussen suggests “a multi-year campaign that culminates in an election when the time is right.”
“If you do UNSUCCESSFULLY undertake this issue at the ballot in 2010, this will further erode public support on the issue and make it harder for future efforts to succeed,” Claussen said.
Even though Democratic consultant Richie Ross — who has won a bazillion races in California going back a few decades — doesn’t offer a definitive suggestion, he presents a raw numbers breakdown that suggests that by 2012 there will be more young voters on the rolls (likely to vote for gay marriage) and more older voters (likely to oppose) dying off.
Dave Fleischer, who has worked on many gay-related ballot measures over the years, worries about money. Each side on the Prop 8 battle raised at least $40 million. “The most conventional path to victory employed by a wide variety of campaign strategists — bury your opposition by dramatically outspending them, effectively drowning out their message — isn’t an option when the opposition is as well-funded as ours is in California.” He worries that the 66 weeks until Nov 2010 “is a very brief time to raise $40-50 million.”
Plus, he worries if “our strategy, in a lower turnout year, (can) insure that those who voted withus in 2008 return to the polls in greater numbers than those who voted against us? We can certainly try. But we have to acknowledge that this would be very difficult. Key blocs of our supporters, such as younger voters, often turn out to vote in reduced numbers in off-years.”
Former Los Angeles Times pollster Jill Darling said “Did the 2008 campaign move voters? Are the post-elections efforts having any effect? Nothing measurable, as of May.”
See The consensus: Wait until 2012.
San Francisco Chronicle
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/07/consensus-amo…
Voter ‘animus’ to be issue in Calif marriage case
When the U.S. Supreme Court overturned an amendment to the Colorado Constitution that outlawed discrimination protections for gay people, same-sex couples could not enter into civil unions or domestic partnerships anywhere in the nation, much less get married. But as they seek to persuade a federal judge to strike down California’s ban on gay marriages, lawyers for two unmarried gay couples are using that 13-year-old decision as their road map — one they expect will eventually lead the high court to take up the marriage issue. In the Colorado case, Romer v. Evans, the Supreme Court majority held that voters’ dislike of gays and the laws that several cities had approved to shield them from bias motivated the state amendment. Such “animus,” it said, was incompatible with the section of the U.S. Constitution that requires the government to treat its citizens equally absent a compelling reason to do otherwise. The attorneys behind the challenge to California’s Proposition 8 plan to argue during a pretrial hearing Thursday that by stripping gays of the right to wed, the voter-approved ban runs afoul of America’s founding framework in the same way — and for the same reason. “Romer is a strikingly similar situation to what we have here. You had a ballot initiative, a majority vote of the people, taking away a right,” said Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., a member of the legal team led by former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson and veteran trial lawyer David Boies. “And there was no justification or rationale other than disapproval by that majority of that group.” U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker on Tuesday issued a tentative order to fast-track the case in his San Francisco court. Among the questions he said he wants covered at trial are whether sexual orientation is unchangeable, if permitting same-sex marriage “destabilizes” traditional unions and whether Proposition 8′s ballot history demonstrates the measure had “discriminatory intent.” California Attorney General Jerry Brown, a defendant in the case, has sided with gay rights advocates and declined to defend the ban, which overturned a California Supreme Court ruling that had legalized same-sex marriages. The state Supreme Court five weeks ago upheld the measure, saying it represented a valid exercise of voters’ authority to amend the California Constitution. Proposition 8′s sponsors, a coalition of religious conservative groups called Protect Marriage, has been given permission to intervene in the federal case. In court papers, the group’s lawyers rejected the assertions that anti-gay attitudes fueled the November measure and that the 1996 Colorado case was applicable. “Nothing in California law, either Proposition 8 or otherwise, indicates that Californians harbor animus towards gay and lesbian individuals,” they wrote. Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision, attorneys for gay rights and Christian conservative groups have debated whether the Romer decision could be used to expand gay rights. The ruling marked the first time the Supreme Court determined that the Constitution’s equal rights guarantees extended to gays and lesbians. “The basic point of Romer is that government cannot ever act out of hostility toward a group of people, and whether that is in the context of marriage or anti-discrimination law, the point carries over,” said Suzanne Goldberg, who worked on the case and now directs Columbia Law School’s Sexuality and Gender Law Program. The ruling has been cited, though so far unsuccessfully, in past challenges to gay marriage bans in Nebraska and Florida. At the same time, gay rights groups mostly have shied away from pursuing federal marriage cases in favor of pursuing marriage rights in state courts. Legal observers on both sides of the debate agree, however, that California’s Proposition 8 presents novel questions that could make the issue ripe for federal action.
San Francisco Chronicle
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/07/voter-animus-…
Panel wants openly gay guardsman discharged
A military review panel recommended Tuesday that National Guard Lt. Dan Choi, the gay Arabic translator who became a national figure in fighting the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy after declaring his sexuality on television, be discharged from the service. The four-member Federal Recognition Board of Army officers in Syracuse, N.Y., had no recommendation Tuesday for how the 28-year-old should be discharged. It’s recommendation that the Army no longer recognize Choi as an officer must be approved by the First Army commander and the chief of the National Guard Bureau before Choi would be discharged.
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/07/panel-wants-o…
Judge likely won’t grant Prop. 8 injunctionA…
Judge likely won’t grant Prop. 8 injunction
A federal judge in San Francisco said Tuesday that he is disinclined to suspend California’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage while a lawsuit challenging it as a violation of the U.S. Constitution proceeds in his court.
In a tentative order, U.S. District Court Chief Judge Vaughn Walker said he’d rather move directly to a speedy trial on the case’s merits than grant a preliminary injunction that would temporarily allow gay nuptials. see http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/06/30/state/n150147D61.DTL
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/06/judge-likely-…
