Bay Citizen profiles Prop 8 trial judge’s history on gay rights

Bay Citizen profiles Prop 8 trial judge’s history on gay rights

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.

NOM says gay Prop 8 judge is biased

We saw it coming.

Not long after the San Francisco Chronicle revealed the “open secret” that Prop 8 trial Judge Vaughn Walker is gay, the National Organization of Marriage freaked out.

In response to the news, they basically called Judge Walker biased and incompetent.

This is nonsense.

If sexual orientation automatically creates a bias …

Prop 8 trial judge has history with gay rights activists

(San Francisco) The appointment of Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Richard Walker to the bench was held up for two years during the late 1980s in part because he had angered gay rights activists.

Now, he is presiding over the most important gay civil rights case in a generation.

Like a lot …

Lambda Legal Applauds West Virginia Court Order Restoring Custody of Foster Child to Lesbian Mothers

‘The West Virginia high court has ruled in the best interests of this child. We applaud them for rejecting the prejudice that would have removed her from the only home she ever knew.’

(Charleston, WV, June 8, 2009) – The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia ruled Friday that a foster child should be returned to her lesbian foster parents, Kathryn Kutil and Cheryl Hess, reversing an antigay lower court ruling that sought to remove the child on the basis that her placement was not with a “traditional family.” Lambda Legal filed a friend-of-the-court brief representing several foster care groups.
“The West Virginia high court has done the right thing in ruling in the best interests of this child. We applaud them for rejecting the prejudice that would have removed her from the only home she ever knew,” said Greg Nevins, Supervising Senior Staff Attorney in Lambda Legal’s Southern Regional Office in Atlanta. “Children in West Virginia need parents to love and care for them and that’s what the state should want, too.”

Lambda Legal filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the court on February 19, 2009, on behalf of Foster Children Alumni Association, CASA (Court Appointed Special Advocates) of the Eastern Panhandle, COLAGE (Children of Lesbian and Gays Everywhere), and Fairness West Virginia to urge the reversal of a trial court order removing the then year-old girl from the home of Kathryn Kutil and Cheryl Hess. The removal was ordered after the couple indicated that they wished to adopt the child. The trial judge accepted the view of the guardian ad litem that the Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR) should only pursue an adoption placement for the child in a “traditional family,” consisting of both a mother and a father. The GAL also sought a statewide injunction barring foster children from being placed in gay homes. Friday’s ruling reverses this lower court finding, allows the child to remain with her foster parents, and permits the possibility that this home where the child has thrived eventually will be the adoption placement for the child.

Published by

Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/06/lambda-legal-…

Verdicts upheld in murder of transgender teen

NEWARK — A state appeals court upheld the murder convictions of two East Bay men today for their roles in battering and strangling a transgender teenager after learning she was biologically male.

The killing of 17-year-old Gwen Araujo of Newark in 2002 drew national attention to incidents of violence against transgender people, which often include defense claims that the victim provoked the attack by having sex under false pretenses.

In this case, lawyers for both defendants argued that the slaying was manslaughter at most, because their clients had acted in the heat of passion when they learned the person with whom they had had oral and anal sex was born male. But the First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco ruled 3-0 that the Alameda County trial judge had defined the crimes properly to the jury, and that the panel had substantial evidence for second-degree murder convictions.

Mark Greenberg, a lawyer for defendant Michael Magidson, said he would appeal to the state Supreme Court.

See Verdicts upheld in murder of transgender teen

Published by

Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/05/verdicts-uphe…

Tennessee Court order Bars divorced mom’s Partner of 9 years from Staying Overnight When mom Has Custody And Visitation of children

ACLU Urges Tennessee Appeals Court To protect rights of lesbian mom

NASHVILLE – In a brief filed today, the American Civil Liberties Union is urging a Tennessee appeals court to remove a ban preventing a divorced mom from having her partner of nine years and her own children stay at her home at the same time. The trial court unconstitutionally imposed the so-called “paramour restriction” on the lesbian couple even though the psychologist who performed the custodial evaluation in the case found the partner to be a positive influence in the children’s lives.

“Of course I’m willing to do anything to be able to be with my children, but this is really tearing us apart,” said Angel Chandler. “It’s been a huge emotional and financial drain on our family. It forces us to live apart almost every night, and it is denying my children quality time with a positive role model and person they love.”

Chandler and her former spouse, Joseph Barker, have two children, a daughter, 13, and a son, 15. Since they divorced more than 10 years ago, they have shared custody of the two children over the years. They have both entered into new relationships. Chandler has been with her partner since 1999. Barker remarried approximately 5 years ago.

It was not until May 15, 2008, that the court issued the restriction barring Chandler’s partner from her home any nights her children are with her. It was imposed after Chandler and Barker appeared before the Gibson County Chancery Court to modify their parenting plan. Even though a court-ordered psychological evaluation of all the parties noted that Chandler’s partner was a positive influence on the children, the trial judge imposed the restriction under the erroneous belief that he was required to do so under state law.

The restriction has caused a huge strain on Chandler’s relationship. Right after the order was issued, Chandler’s partner was forced to move back to North Carolina, making it virtually impossible for the couple to spend time together. Eventually they both relocated to North Carolina where they now live in a duplex that allows them to abide by the order. But Chandler had to leave her job and has just recently found suitable employment. The restriction has also been harmful to Chandler’s children, especially her daughter, who enjoyed spending time with her mother’s partner and who looked to her for advice and guidance. Living in the duplex, the couple is also losing rental income they relied on before the court imposed the ban.

“By all accounts, this family was succeeding, having gotten through a divorce and introduced a new parent into the home. But nine years on, a Judge has done his best to destroy all that by imposing this impossible restriction,” said Christine Sun, the Southeast regional senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Project. “We are hopeful that the appeals court will recognize that it is unfair to tear this family apart.”

The brief filed by the ACLU charges that the court was wrong to interpret state law as requiring it to impose the partner ban. The brief points out that while there is no evidence in the record to support the imposition of the restriction, there is ample evidence showing that the children were doing fine the first nine years when there were no restrictions on the children’s contact with the partner. The psychological report concluded that the children had a positive parent-like relationship with the partner and that children who grow up in homes headed by same-sex couples tend to develop normal social relationships. The brief also charges that the restriction is unconstitutional. It unconstitutionally interferes with Chandler’s ability to raise her children as she sees fit, and it places an impossible burden on gay and lesbian parents. The brief notes that unlike straight couples, who have the option of marrying, lesbians and gay men are barred from marrying in the state and would never be able to live with their partners under these restrictions.

“Unfortunately, this case is an all too familiar example of how unfairly lesbian and gay parents are treated in custody and visitation proceedings,” said Hedy Weinberg, Executive Director of the ACLU of Tennessee. “All the children’s health and welfare organization have long recognized that lesbian and gay parents are just as capable of being good parents as straight couples and their children are just as well adjusted. We’re hopeful the Tennessee courts will come to that realization too.”

In addition to Sun, Chandler is being represented by Lucian Pera and Brian Faughnan of Adams and Reese, LLP, Tricia Herzfeld of the ACLU of Tennessee, and Gregory Minton. A copy of the brief filed today in the Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Western Division is available at http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/parenting/38168res20081223.html.