Mich. gay org: We love Target!
Mich. gay org: We love Target!
Mich. gay org: We love Target!
Mich. gay org: We love Target!
Mich. gay org: We love Target!
Mich. gay org: We love Target!
Target kept on funding anti-gay pols
Even after national outcry against the store, it continued to donate to anti-gay candidates.
Uptown Chicago Target protested
Uptown Chicago Target protested
Protests outside Target continue
HRC, MoveOn, and immigrant orgs are still protesting Target’s Republican donation.
Target: Anti-gay donation was business, not personal
Target: Anti-gay donation was business, not personal
Monday Watercoooler: DADT surveys and DOMA briefs
- SLDN advises gay and lesbian soldiers not to participate in DADT survey: Last week the Pentagon sent out 400,000 Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell surveys to enlisted men and women. While the Defense Department maintains it plans to keep all responses confidential, the Servicemembers Legal Defense Networkwarns gay troops to tread lightly when filling out the form (they are due on August 15). “As a legal services group, our focus is on ensuring adequate legal protections for those gay and lesbian service members that participate in the surveys,” said Aubrey Sarvis, SLDN’s executive director. “We continue to have discussions with DOD and are working to make sure gay and lesbian service members are protected. At this time, our warning stands that gay and lesbian service members should not take the survey unless adequate legal protections are put in place.” When it comes DADT matters, SLDN is on target. Pay attention to them soldiers. Oh, and by the way? The survey questions are ridiculous!
- Spain wins the World Cup. Congrats to Spain for its victory (unfortunately it was marred by terror attacks in Uganda). With the tournament over, American conservatives can stop whining and now enjoy their manly, non-socialistic, sports in peace.
- White House to introduce national AIDS strategy. On Tuesday the Obama administration will present its national AIDS/HIV strategy. Considering how AIDS advocates are taking the White House to task, this new policy will do one of two things: a) quiet his critics, b) show that when the topic is gay this White House is utterly tone deaf.
- Manhattan Borough President will get married in the Nutmeg State. Scott Stinger, a “New Yorka” through and through, plans to marry fiancée Elyse Buxbaum in Connecticut later this year. Why? As a protest for the lack of marriage rights in the Empire State. “If enough people who have somewhat of a profile — not just politicians, but artists and business leaders — start going into Massachusetts or Connecticut and show New York how embarrassing it is that you can’t get a marriage license for same-sex couples, then we will change things.”
- Whose that girl? Rachel Maddow had an old school look back in the day. Bet she broke many young hearts!
- Suspect arrested in year old murder. Paulina Ibarra, a transgendered woman, was murdered in her Hollywood home in August 2009. Last week the police arrested Jesus Catalan as a suspect. The case is being investigated as a hate crime.
- What will Obama do with DOMA? TheAtlantic’s Marc Ambinder says the Justice Department is going to take its sweet time trying to decide how to handle last week’s DOMA decision. Makes sense. No matter what path he takes, Obama will be slammed. He can only win with gay marriage advocates by opposing DOMA. That is never going to happen. As for the other side, it’s convinced he is a same-sex marriage advocate. You know it’s bad when Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, charged the Justice Department with “deliberately sabotag[ing] this case.” Drama queen.
- Heat wave. Last week the East Coast was hit with crazy heat. The best way to survive high temps is to ogle at shirtless men.
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.
Cardinal: Catholic schools welcome kids of gays – but priest made OK call
(Boston) Boston Cardinal Sean O’Malley on Wednesday defended a priest who denied admission to a parish school to a gay couple’s child, calling it a pastoral decision and saying the priest had his “full confidence and support.”
O’Malley’s comments on his blog were his first public remarks about the decision earlier this month by St. Paul Elementary School in Hingham to rescind the boy’s acceptance because his parents are lesbians.
A parent of the boy said the Rev. James Rafferty, the parish priest at St. Paul’s, said her relationship was “in discord” with church teachings, which sees marriage as only between a man and a woman. She said the principal told her teachers wouldn’t be prepared to handle the boy’s questions when he realized the church’s view of family conflicted with what he saw at home. The parent spoke to The Associated Press but asked not to be named to protect the welfare of the child.
The decision prompted calls for O’Malley to intervene. The Catholic Schools Foundation, which O’Malley chairs, said the decision was at odds with Gospel teaching, and it wouldn’t fund schools that made similar decisions.
The archdiocese’s head of education later called the parent, apologized and offered to help the 8-year-old enroll in another Catholic school.
O’Malley said Rafferty had come under “undue criticism” for the decision.
“He made a decision about the admission of the child to St. Paul School based on his pastoral concern for the child,” O’Malley wrote. “I can attest personally that Father Rafferty would never exclude a child to sanction the child’s parents.”
The archdiocese said it is creating a policy to clarify its schools don’t bar children with same-sex parents.
“It is true that we welcome people from all walks of life,” O’Malley wrote. “But we recognize that, regardless of the circumstances involved, we maintain our responsibility to teach the truths of our faith, including those concerning sexual morality and marriage.”
O’Malley began his post with a recollection about meeting the young daughter of a murdered woman who had run a brothel while he was bishop in the West Indies. He said the woman’s daughter had left public school because she was being badly taunted, and he immediately directed that the girl be admitted to the local Catholic school.
“Catholic schools exist for the good of the children and our admission standards must reflect that,” he wrote. “We have never had categories of people who were excluded.”
The Hingham case was similar to a situation in Boulder, Colo., in which a Catholic school said two children of lesbian parents could not re-enroll because of their parents’ sexual orientation, and the Denver Archdiocese backed the decision.
“It is clear that all of their school policies (in Denver) are intended to foster the welfare of the children and fidelity to the mission of the Church,” O’Malley wrote. “Their positions and rationale must be seriously considered.”
