EU adopts global LGBT toolkit
The European Union approved action to promote LGBT rights worldwide.
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.
Culhane: Why do gays and lesbians care about marriage?
How did marriage, of all things, become the cause célèbre of the LGBT rights movement? Let’s face it: There are good historical reasons for us to eschew and pooh-pooh this institution, which doesn’t exactly have a glorious track record.
“Since When is Marriage a Path to Liberation?” was the provocative question that lesbian activist Paula Ettelbrick raised in an influential article more than 20 years ago. Her article slammed what was then the emerging focus on same-sex marriage as a misguided effort that would secure gay and lesbian “equality” within the stifling confines of an inherently unequal and patriarchal institution.
Yet there we were, Ettelbrick and I, together in 2007 on a panel discussing LGBT legal issues, and she was arguing for marriage equality. What happened?
I had the chance to ask her about this dramatic about-face during a cab ride to the train station after the event. Had she been possessed by the spirit of Andrew Sullivan? Well, kind of. All of the same-sex couples making their clear and passionate case to have the state recognize their unions had convinced her to value reality over ideology, and (here I’m guessing) perhaps to see that same-sex marriages have the potential to revitalize the institution, and to help transform it into a more egalitarian partnership.
But why is it so important for the state to recognize our unions in the first place? Let’s start by considering the alternatives. The first of these is a religious union. For many lesbian and gay couples, getting married in their church, synagogue, or mosque is deeply meaningful. But it’s not enough. Some (straight and gay) couples don’t derive spiritual nourishment from such ceremonies. And even for those who do, “the power vested in” clergy to legally solemnize marriages can’t solemnize theirs.
So what about a “secular substitute” for marriage, such as the civil union, that confers all the benefits of marriage but not the title?
Do I really need to ask this question?
First, the civil union doesn’t confer all of the benefits of marriage. It’s not recognized at the federal level, so that even if the obnoxious Defense of Marriage Act were repealed, couples in a civil union wouldn’t have any of the federal benefits of marriage, which are the most significant ones.
But it’s not just about the benefits, either. In some paradoxical way, the civil union is worse, because it’s pure discrimination. The state has given up all of the arguments against equality in conferring the civil union status, but still insists on a separate label. In In re Marriage Cases, The California Supreme Court hit the bull’s-eye in rejecting this kind of “virtual equivalence:
“[A]ssigning a different designation for the family relationship of same-sex couples…poses at least a serious risk of denying the family relationship of same-sex couples such equal dignity and respect.”
By this point, some of you are likely muttering: “OK, marriage, fine. But what about discrimination, social justice, and the real economic barriers to equality? Aren’t these the things that should be concerning us instead of this mostly abstract equality debate?”
Well, you probably didn’t mutter exactly that, but the point is fair anyway. Why all this emphasis on marriage?
First, many of us are, at heart, assimilationists who want to fit in with the most traditional structures. Think marriage and – the prom! Those gay and lesbian teens [1]who demanded to attend their proms are radical and traditional at the same time, as are those seeking marriage equality. It’s that scary incursion of the outlandish into “safe” structures that explains, at least in part, the sometimes vicious resistance we find in everyone from Maggie Gallagher to those parents who engineered the fake prom [2] that Constance McMillen was sent to.
The other part of this fight for equality has to do with the government’s role in the discrimination. Remember that many of the most important achievements of both the civil rights and women’s movements were ending government-sponsored discrimination in voting, unfair marriage laws, and segregated public facilities and schools. If government is willing to declare that members of a group are second-class citizens, then private and social discrimination is fair game.
Since laws prohibiting same-sex intimacy have now been declared unconstitutional, the most important state-sponsored formal discriminations we face are DADT and the ban on our marriages. So, while marriage may never be a path to liberation – much less to robust social and economic fairness – it’s a vital part of our rights as citizens. That’s why it matters.
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, philosophy and lots of personal stuff) at: http://wordinedgewise.org. Here’s a fuller bio [3]. He will be blogging the week-long Equality Forum [4] from Philadelphia later this month.
[1] http://www.365gay.com/blog/ruby-sachs-prom-politics/
[2] http://advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/04/05/ACLU_Investigating_Fake_Prom/
[3] http://law.widener.edu/Academics/Faculty/ProfilesDe/CulhaneJohnG.aspx
[4] http://equalityforum.com
Ruby-Sachs: Citizens United puts LGBT rights at risk
Ruby-Sachs: Citizens United puts LGBT rights at risk
Pawlenty wants to drop the T years later
Tim Pawlenty says he regrets voting for LGBT rights in 1993 because of ‘cross-dressers.’
Pawlenty wants to drop the T years later
Tim Pawlenty says he regrets voting for LGBT rights in 1993 because of ‘cross-dressers.’
Quinn urges Obama, Congress to take action on LGBT rights
New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, in remarks at a fundraiser for the upcoming LGBT-rights march in Washington, D.C., recounted an incident during which she urged President Barack Obama to “do more” for LGBT people. “I’m happy there’s something we can organize around in October to send a clear message that we’re thrilled that he’s the president and we’re thrilled that Democrats have control of the House and the Senate, but it’s simply not enough,” Quinn said. PolitickerNY.com
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
 |
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/07/quinn-urges-o…
Obama talks faith and LGBT rights
Obama talks faith and LGBT rights
Statewide Action: On Heels of Prop 8 Ruling, “Meet in the Middle for Equality” Rallies ,Civil Rights Advocates in Fresno for LGBT Equality on a Federal Level
WHEN:
Saturday, May 30, 2009, 1st Statewide Action After the Proposition 8 Decision
7:50 a.m. – Equality March Kickoff; 8:00 a.m. – March from Selma to Fresno
1:00 p.m. – Rally at steps of Fresno City Hall
WHERE:
March from the intersection of W. Front St. and Whitson St. in Selma, CA, then along the Golden State Highway to the Meet in the Middle rally location at Fresno City Hall, 2600 Fresno Street, Fresno, CA 93721
WHO:
Equality March speakers at Selma Kick-off include:
Anne-Marie Williams of Jordan/Rustin Coalition
Nii-Quartelai Quartey of Courage Campaign
Yardenna Aaron of Here to Stay Coalition
Andrea Shorter of Equality California (EQCA)
Roland Palencia of HONOR PAC (English/Spanish-language)
Rally Speakers at Fresno City Hall Location include:
Robin Tyler, the original plaintiff in Tyler vs. the County of Los Angeles
Angelica Salas, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles
Molly McKay, Marriage Equality USA
Christine Chavez, Latino and African-American Leadership Alliance and Granddaughter of Cesar Chavez
Kate Kendell, National Center for Lesbian Rights
Rabbi Denise Eger, Congregation Kol Ami & California Faith for Equality
Father Geoff Farrow, Former Catholic Priest for Fresno’s Saint Paul Newman Center
Lt. Dan Choi, West Point graduate, recently discharged under “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”
Reverend Eric Lee, Southern Christian Leadership Conference
Reverend Dr. Amos Brown, Third Baptist Church, San Francisco
Rick Jacobs, Chair and Founder of the Courage Campaign
Cleve Jones, founder of Names Project AIDS Memorial Quilt and Harvey Milk intern
Dustin Lance Black, Academy Award Winning Screenwriter for Milk
“With this ruling, Californians are experiencing a great loss – a loss of justice, loss of compassion, and a loss of humanity. But rather than become disabled by our grief, we must shift our shame to strength and revitalize for the sake of the entire American LGBT community. We must use this ruling as a catalyst for an even greater goal and a greater good,” said Robin McGehee, lead organizer for Meet in the Middle.
Over 100 organizations from around the state have endorsed Meet in the Middle for Equality. The Courage Campaign and White Knot for Equality are providing buses to bring activists and progressive allies from San Diego, Los Angeles, Sacramento and San Francisco to the middle of California. Additional active participants include the California Nurses Association, Dolores Huerta Foundation, Equality Action NOW, Equality California (EQCA), Equal Roots, Freedom Action Inclusive Rights (F.A.I.R.), Gay Straight Alliance (GSA) Network, HONOR PAC, Jordan/Rustin Coalition, Marriage Equality USA, Martin Luther King Legacy Association, NAACP Youth and College Division, Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Southern Christian Leadership Conference of Greater Los Angeles, and the Third Baptist Church of San Francisco.
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/05/statewide-act…
Equality Utah chief to leave post for San Francisco move
Mike Thompson, who over the past four years has helped build Equality Utah into a respected advocacy group for LGBT rights, has resigned his post as executive director. The former oil company executive is relocating to San Francisco to work in the nonprofit field, according to this article. The Salt Lake Tribune (Utah) Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/05/equality-utah…
