Archive for Fertility
No on 1/Protect Maine Equality
September 23, 2009
Once again, instead of having an honest debate about how to treat all Maine families fairly, the opposition wants to scare Maine voters about schools – this time by using a re-cycled Proposition 8 ad. No on 1/Protect Maine Equality says:
Maine voters deserve the facts. Let me be clear: Maine ’s marriage equality law has nothing to do with public schools and marriage is not taught in Maine schools.
Enough is enough. We need your help to stop these lies. Their goal is to confuse and distract voters. We need to make sure that Maine voters know the facts– but to do that we need another $18,583 by midnight so we can get our response ad on the air.
We need your help to fight back. Can you dig deep and make a contribution to help us refute this misleading new ad?
[Link]
Posted on September 25, 2009 | Filed under Fertility | Permalink
The Associated Press
September 22, 2009
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has granted a request for a fast-track appeal on whether signed petitions used to place Washington State’s anti-domestic partnership rights Referendum 71 on the ballot should be made public. A hearing is scheduled for Oct. 14 in Pasadena, Calif. [Link]
Posted on September 25, 2009 | Filed under Fertility | Permalink
San Jose Mercury News
September 23, 2009
As many as 23,000 same-sex couples in California identified themselves as married last year, according to the first census figures to report on married same-sex couples — a number significantly higher than a previous estimate for the state had indicated. [Link]
Posted on September 25, 2009 | Filed under Fertility | Permalink
East Bay Express
August 12, 2009
After Proposition 8 passed in California, the LGBT community kept asking itself, “Who did this to us?” Now, eight months after the election that broke so many hearts, the truth has come out. It was the new Catholic bishop of Oakland. [Link]
Posted on September 25, 2009 | Filed under Fertility | Permalink
Scott Bailey (pictured with Adrienne Frantz) is an American actor. He is best known for playing Sandy Foster on the CBS soap opera The Guiding Light, and Roman Martin on the limited-run serial Saints & Sinners. Most recently, Mr. Bailey starred as David in the Lifetime Original Movie, Prayers for Bobby, alongside three-time Academy Award nominee and Golden Globe winner Sigourney Weaver. Based on Leroy Aarons’ landmark book, Bailey stars as the romantic interest of Bobby Griffith (Ryan Kelley), a closeted gay teenager whose profoundly religious mother drives him to commit suicide due to her inability to accept his homosexuality. Prayers for Bobby had its World Premiere on Lifetime January 24, 2009, and also stars Henry Czerny, Austin Nichols, Carly Schroeder and Susan Ruttan.
Scott Bailey was photographed wearing a White Knot at the Emmy Awards in Los Angeles, CA on September 20, 2009. The
White Knot for Equality organization is dedicated to the idea of marriage equality. One of their quotes is “Everyone should have the right to tie the knot,” and they illustrate this point by producing and distributing White Knots nationally and worldwide. They encourage marriage equality supporters to “wear the White Knot every day to show support and to create conversation. Share the White Knot and spread the word that all loving couples deserve the same legal rights, benefits, and respect that civil marriage bestows.” [
Link]
Freedom to Marry salutes Scott Bailey as a Voice for Equality!
**Make your
NOMINATION for a Voice for Equality today!
Posted on September 25, 2009 | Filed under Fertility | Permalink
AMERICAblog
September 22, 2009
Joe Sudbay: Wow. Frank Schubert, the consultant who did the Yes on Prop. 8 campaign, isn’t even trying in Maine. He’s just recycling his Prop. 8 ads for the campaign in Maine. I know high paid consultants often do this, but at least they give the impression of trying something new. [Link]
Maine Ad:
Prop 8 Ad from last fall:
Link to No on 1/Protect Maine Equality to support marriage equality in Maine.
Posted on September 25, 2009 | Filed under Fertility | Permalink
Windy City Media Group
September 22, 2009
Amid many speeches calling for inclusion of LGBT workers, Maine AFL-CIO President Ed Gorham spoke of the November 3rd referendum on marriage equality in Maine, saying he urged delegates to contact everyone they know in Maine to vote against Referendum 1 and support marriage equality for the LGBT community. Read the full AFL-CIO LGBT-inclusive resolution here. [Link to convention]
Posted on September 25, 2009 | Filed under Fertility | Permalink
Marc Shaiman is an American composer, lyricist, arranger, and performer for films, television, and theatre. His film credits include Broadcast News, When Harry Met Sally…, Sister Act, and Sleepless in Seattle. Shaiman has earned five Academy Award nominations, a Tony Award and a Grammy Award for his work on the musical, Hairspray, and an Emmy Award for co-writing Billy Crystal’s Academy Award performances. In 2002, he was honored with the “Outstanding Achievement in Music-In-Film” award at The Hollywood Film Festival, and in 2007 he was honored with ASCAP’s Henry Mancini Award in recognition of his outstanding achievements and contributions to the music of film and television.
To protest the passage of California’s Proposition 8 in November 2008, Shaiman wrote a satiric mini-musical called “Prop 8 — The Musical”. The 3-minute video was distributed on the internet at FunnyOrDie.com beginning on December 3, 2008. It was written and produced in just a few days. The cast includes Jack Black (who plays Jesus), Neil Patrick Harris, John C. Reilly, Allison Janney, Andy Richter, Maya Rudolph, Margaret Cho, Rashida Jones, and other celebrities. Shaiman plays the piano and appears briefly on the video. It received 1.2 million internet hits in its first day. He discussed the creation of “Prop 8–The Musical” in this Q&A. [Link]
On February 28, 2009, Mr. Shaiman participated as a featured star in Garden State Equality’s 2009 Legends Dinner, the biggest benefit ever for marriage equality in New Jersey [Link], and he continues to be a creatively outspoken supporter of the freedom to marry.
Freedom to Marry salutes Marc Shaiman as a Voice for Equality!
**Make your
NOMINATION for a Voice for Equality today!
Posted on September 25, 2009 | Filed under Fertility | Permalink
The Huffington Post
September 18, 2009
Paul Hogarth points out that No on 1/Protect Maine Equality has already issued a quick-response TV ad featuring Maine’s 2005 Teacher of the Year refuting baseless charges that gay marriage will be a subject in public schools. A similarly deceptive ad was part of the strategy of those who backed Proposition 8 in California, but it took nearly two weeks for pro-marriage equality forces to issue a response. [Link]
Posted on September 25, 2009 | Filed under Fertility | Permalink
No on 1/Protect Maine EqualitySeptember 22, 2009Dr. Jonathan Fanburg, president of the Maine Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics: “Children who are raised by legally married parents benefit from the legal status granted to their parents. What is good for parents and families is good for children.” [
Link]
Posted on September 25, 2009 | Filed under Fertility | Permalink
Sandra Bernhard is an American comedian, singer, actress and author. She first gained attention in the late 1970s with her stand-up comedy in which she critiqued celebrity culture and political figures. She became a tabloid regular during her late 80s friendship with Madonna. Her elborate one-woman shows have included Without You I’m Nothing and I’m Still Here… Damnit!, film appearances include The King of Comedy and Hudson Hawk, and on TV she had a recurring role on Roseann. Bernhard is number 97 on Comedy Central’s list of the 100 greatest standups of all time. Learn more [here]
Sandra is a proud
VIP signer of Freedom to Marry’s Marriage Resolution which reads:
Because marriage is a basic human right and an individual choice,
RESOLVED, the State should not interfere with same-gender couples whochoose to marry and share fully and equally in the rights, responsibilities, and commitment of civil marriage.
Freedom to Marry salutes Sandra Bernhard as a Voice for Equality!
**Make your
NOMINATION for a Voice for Equality today!
Posted on September 25, 2009 | Filed under Fertility | Permalink
No on 1/Protect Maine Equality
September 22, 2009
To help supporters make a BIG impact without breaking the bank, No on 1/Protect Maine Equality has launched an online “Walk Against 1.” It’s an old-fashioned walk-a-thon, but no one needs to leave their home. Proceeds will go toward running the critical field program during the last half of October in Maine. [Link]
Posted on September 25, 2009 | Filed under Fertility | Permalink
USA Today
September 21, 2009
The Williams Institute’s Gary Gates and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force’s Jaime Grant comment on the U.S. Census’ newly released numbers: The new Census form is more detailed, but still may not give the full picture of LGBT people across the board. [Link]
Posted on September 25, 2009 | Filed under Fertility | Permalink
The Washington Independent
September 21, 2009
NOM’s Maggie Gallagher cockily comments on Maine: “I’m pretty confident that, as in California, we’re going to win.” Gallagher also criticizes the TV ad by NO on 1/Protect Maine Equality as “not very effective.” [Link]
Click [here] to contact/contribute to No on 1/Protect Maine Campaign.
Posted on September 25, 2009 | Filed under Fertility | Permalink
The Tennessean
September 21, 2009
A Tennessee Court of Appeals decision has removed a custody battle provision that said a child could not live with her mother and her mother’s partner. The ACLU praised the decision, saying it was time the courts stopped viewing LGBT couples differently. [Link]
Posted on September 25, 2009 | Filed under Fertility | Permalink
Fair Wisconsin
September 22, 2009
In court papers that will be filed today, Lambda Legal is seeking to intervene on behalf of Fair Wisconsin and its members in a lawsuit brought by an antigay group attempting to strip away newly enacted domestic partnership protections for same-sex couples and their families. [Link]
Posted on September 25, 2009 | Filed under Fertility | Permalink
Pam’s House Blend
September 20, 2009
Pam Spaulding: Rep. Lewis, the civil rights legend who shed blood for equality, delivers a message that the LGBT community should never stand down, should keep forging ahead, should cast aside fears, and should not listen to calls to ‘wait.’ He states with conviction that marriage equality is a human right. [Link]
Posted on September 25, 2009 | Filed under Fertility | Permalink
The Associated Press
September 21, 2009
Nearly 150,000 same-sex couples reported being married last year, many more than the number of actual weddings and civil unions, according to first-ever U.S. census figures. Analysts said the disparities are probably a reflection of same-sex couples in committed relationships who would get married if they could in their states. [Link]
Posted on September 25, 2009 | Filed under Fertility | Permalink
FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right
September 20, 2009
In a straw poll at last week’s Value Voters’ summit sponsored by the Family Research Council, abortion ranked first among issues of concern to 41% of voters, with protection of religious liberty receiving 18% of the vote. Opposition to marriage equality was third at 7%, down from 20% in October 2007. [Link]
Posted on September 25, 2009 | Filed under Fertility | Permalink
I’ll be appearing on the Kojo Nnamdi Show on WAMU-FM at noon (EST) tomorrow. I’m appearing with Oakland attorney and author Fred Hertz, who will discuss his book, Making It Legal: A Guide to Same-Sex Marriage, Domestic Partnership, and Civil Unions. I’ve read Fred’s book and it’s an easy-to-follow analysis of the various laws across the country that recognize same-sex couples.
I’ll be discussing the local situation…quite a varied picture, given super-DOMA state Virginia on the one hand, and super gay-friendly DC on the other. Maryland falls in between, and Delaware, which doesn’t get much attention despite its location as a magnet for LGBT folks escaping the DC heat, gave me one of the summer’s biggest surprises with its new parentage statute.
There’s much to report that has happened since the publication of Beyond (Straight and Gay) Marriage. I’m thrilled to have the chance to explain local LGBT family law. Please call if you have questions!
Posted on September 25, 2009 | Filed under Fertility | Permalink
It’s almost 20 years since the highest court in New York ruled that a child planned for by a lesbian couple, born to one partner using donor insemination, and raised as the child of two mothers, nonetheless has only one legal parent; and that legal parent has complete autonomy to decide whether the child maintains a relationship with the nonbio mom once the couple splits up. No exceptions.
This isn’t Texas. Or Missouri. Or another state known for hostility to same-sex couples raising children. (Texas won’t allow the names of two same-sex adoptive parents to appear on the birth certificate of a child born in Texas but adopted elsewhere; Missouri has more reported opinions denying custody to a gay or lesbian parent in favor of a straight ex-spouse than any other state in the country).
No, this is New York. But the case of Alison D v. Virginia M. was decided by the New York Court of Appeals (the state’s highest court) in 1991 and it established an iron-clad rule that a nonbiological parent has no standing to bring an action for custody or visitation rights. So unless the couple went to a lawyer and spent the money and time on a second-parent adoption, the child risks the loss of a parent, including the loss of financial support, if the couple splits up.
Well, that may change. Yesterday the court agreed to hear the case of Debra H. v. Janice R. The facts are not as undisputed as in most cases; the bio mom’s (Janice’s) position is that she decided to have the child on her own and that her ex-partner never functioned as the child’s parent. Although the child had the nonbio mom’s (Debra’s) last name as a middle name and both moms were listed as parents on the naming certificate issued by the couple’s synagogue (and on other papers), Janice says she made these decisions under pressure from Debra and to avoid conflict. Janice also signed a power of attorney appointing Debra as the child’s guardian until his 21st birthday. The couple entered a civil union in Vermont during the pregnancy, and under Vermont law this confers a presumption of parentage on the nonbio partner, but Janice (a lawyer!) again says she was pressured into this and only did it because she knew a New York court would not recognize the relationship.
The trial court came up with a way around Alison D. It ruled that the Debra could try to prove that the Janice should be estopped from denying Debra’s parentage. Estoppel is a legal concept that makes it difficult for a party to back away from a course of action that another party has relied upon over a period of time. The court ruled that if the non-bio mom could prove that she functioned as a parent to the child (in loco parentis), then estoppel would come into play and the court would decide custody and visitation based on the child’s best interests.
Janice appealed before the judge actually held a hearing to determine the facts. The appeals court reversed, citing Alison D. No blood plus no adoption equals no legal status. No matter what. It is that ruling (all of five paragraphs long!) that the New York Court of Appeals agreed to review yesterday.
Did they take the case to overturn Alison D.? I sure hope so. California had a similarly bad decision on the books dating from 1991, but in the 2005 Elisa B. case the California Supreme Court overruled that decision. I’d like to think that in the almost two decades since Alison D. the reality of lives of children born to lesbian couples has permeated the understanding of the members of the Court. And of course the composition of the court has changed. None of the judges on the current court were on the court when Alison D. was decided.
There’s a small clue in the court’s ruling yesterday; the court ordered a resumption of the Sunday visitation that the trial court had ordered until there is a final ruling in the case. That means Debra will actually be able to see the 5 1/2 year old child immediately and throughout the time it takes to brief, argue, and decide the case. I’m taking that as a good sign.
Thanks to Art Leonard for alerting me promptly to the court’s decision to hear this appeal.
Posted on September 25, 2009 | Filed under Fertility | Permalink
It’s not called Lavender Law anymore, but I can’t help myself. (Sixth Ave will never be Avenue of the Americas to me…). Its official name is the National LGBT Bar Association Career Fair & Conference, but by any name this is the annual gathering of LGBT lawyers, law students, and law profs (and some straight advocates who work on our issues). This year’s conference is taking place in Brooklyn.
Today I attended a session on “The New Adoption and Foster Care Battle: Cohabitation Bans.” Law professor Carlos Ball started off with the history of bans on adoption or foster parenting by lesbians, gay men, or same-sex couples. The first such ban in 1977 (Florida…hopefully on its way out) predated by more than 20 years the first ban on adoption or foster parenting by anyone living with an unmarried partner — gay or straight (Utah…not on its way out).
Kara Suffredini of Family Equality Council then described recent efforts – largely unsuccessful – to legislate such cohabitation bans. In Tennessee in 2008, for example, the state budget office reported that instituting such a ban would cost the state millions of dollars, given the additional children who would remain in state care. That stopped the bill dead in its tracks. Naomi Goldberg of the Williams Institute followed with the economic analysis she and Lee Badgett performed for Kentucky. Based on the census data on the number of same-sex and unmarried different-sex couples with adopted or foster children in the state, and the current number of children in the foster care system (7027), Williams Institute predicted 630 children would not get foster home placements — thereby requiring more expensive and less desirable institutional placements, and 85 children would not be adopted and would therefore remain in state care. The projected cost: $5.3 million. That bill never got out of committee. (The Williams Institute also reports that if Florida drops its ban on gay adoptions, the state will save $3.4 million in its first year). Of course no one can quantify the human cost to the children who remain in group care or never get permanent families.
Finally, Leslie Cooper, ACLU’s litigator extraordinaire, discussed the litigation challenging the initiative enacted in Arkansas last year that also bans anyone living with a gay or straight unmarried partner from adopting or fostering. (And a gay married couple doesn’t count because Arkansas does not recognize them as married.) The state is defending the ban by pointing to the poorer outcomes for children raised by cohabiting different sex couples as compared with married different sex couples. It’s a regurgitation of the right-wing marriage movement’s basic argument that all our social problems result from the decline of life-long heterosexual marriage. The ACLU knows the drill and is well-equipped to respond. The case is currently in the discovery stage.
It’s a matter of some fascination to me that the right wing has decided that it is easier to defend a foster care/adoption ban on cohabiting couples, gay and straight, than a ban limited to gay men and lesbians. Although Florida is defending its gay ban with every discredited argument in the book (for the details, and the meticulous responses by the ACLU, check out this website), the right is capitalizing on the same ideology that gets us federally funded “marriage promotion” when it argues that unmarried couples should not foster or adopt. The panelists agreed that the real target of these bans is…gay men and lesbians; that although proponents no doubt believe that unmarried straight couples should be discouraged from raising children, the ban is primarily a means to the end of banning gay adoption without having to defend such a ban directly.
Posted on September 25, 2009 | Filed under Fertility | Permalink
Thanks to Nan Hunter for alerting me to the proposed regulations implementing my favorite family leave policy: the one that allows federal government employees to use their sick leave to care for “any individual related by blood or affinity whose close association with the employee is the equivalent of a family relationship.” I’ve had numerous posts on this topic. I love the current policy because it allows employees to define their own family members. Whenever advocates for marriage equality cite the unfairness of preventing one partner from caring for another who is ill, I always respond by arguing that the solution to that problem isn’t marriage — it’s an employee leave policy like the federal government’s! Such a policy encompasses same-sex couples but also ensures that unpartnered LGBT individuals, who may be estranged from or live far from their families of origin, can receive care from the people they consider members of their families of choice.
The proposed new regulations make clear that “domestic partners” are included. Appropriately, the definition of domestic partners requires commitment and some shared responsibility for each other’s “common welfare and financial obligations,” but it does not require living together. It also encompasses different sex couples. No couple must marry, or register with the state as domestic partners, or enter a civil union, to qualify for the leave. The proposed regs also make explicit that the child of a domestic partner is in the category of children one may use sick leave to care for, but, again, such children were always covered because the standard has always included (and continues to) all children to whom the employee stands “in loco parentis” (in other words, functions as a parent).
Most importantly for my analysis, the broad definition of family remains. The regulations read:
“We are not re-defining the phrase ‘‘[a]ny individual related by blood or affinity’’ whose close association with the employee is the equivalent of a family relationship. We have broadly interpreted the phrase in the past to include such relationships as grandparent and grandchild, brother and sister-in-law, fiance´(e), cousin, aunt and uncle, other relatives outside definitions (1)–(4) in current 5 CFR 630.201 and 630.902, and close friend, to the extent that the connection between the employee and the individual was significant enough to be regarded as having the closeness of a family relationship even though the individuals might not be related by blood or formally in law.”
The late Senator Ted Kennedy was the lead sponsor of the “Healthy Families Act,” proposed legislation that would require private employers to provide paid sick leave to their employees. It includes the same definition of whom a worker must be allowed to use their leave to care for as that contained in the standard for federal employees. There is also a movement to get states to pass such laws. Every paid sick leave bill has a definition of the family members the employees may use their leave to care for. I have long argued for the definition in the Healthy Families Act, and I continue to do so.
States with super-DOMAs (those prohibiting recognition of all unmarried couples as well as same-sex marriages) are probably unable to pass a paid sick leave law that includes “domestic partners.” But such states can definitely use the broader definition of family. That definition does not single out couples for protection; it simply says that employees must be able to use their sick leave to care for the people closest to them whom they consider members of their family. It’s been working for the federal government for 15 years. It respects diverse family relationships. It helps employees balance their work and caregiving responsibilities. And from a LGBT rights perspective it respects all our close relationships, not just those that mirror heterosexual marriage.
I have no problem with changes that specify that same- and different-sex couples are included regardless of marital status. I’m just thrilled they made it crystal clear that the broader definition of family remains. And I’d like to see LGBT rights groups advocate that broader definition in federal and state legislation.
Posted on September 25, 2009 | Filed under Fertility | Permalink
The father of two teenagers did not object to the presence of the mother’s same-sex partner while the mom had custody of the children, but a trial judge nonetheless followed a “rule” that no “paramour” could sleep at the home of either parent while the children were also in the home. Since the father was remarried, this “paramour provision” did not apply to him.
Well, the Tennessee Court of Appeals has ruled in Chandler v. Barker, that a trial judge must base custody decisions on a child’s best interests, not a rigid application of such a rule. Congratulations to the ACLU which represented the mom. The father did not file a brief in opposition to her appeal.
About 10 years ago I represented a gay dad in Maryland (as a Lambda Legal cooperating attorney) in a dispute over his visitation rights. He and the children’s mom disagreed about how much visitation time he should have, but the mom did not ask the court to prohibit the dad’s partner from sleeping in their home while the children were there. Nonetheless, the trial judge made that a condition of the visitation. Even though the mother had not requested the restriction, she defended it through two levels of appeals courts. We won at both levels.
The rule against the presence of “paramours” sounds like a relic of a distinct past. It isn’t. With many of us fighting (often successfully!) for full recognition of the parentage of same-sex couples who raise children together, it can be easy to forget that lesbian mothers and gay fathers who come out after they have had children within heterosexual marriages still — in many states — face obstacles to their ability to fully parent their children. I’m glad Tennessee has removed this one, but all it has done is said that the “paramour provision” cannot be imposed without considering the child’s best interests. It’s a start, but it is by no means a guarantee that a judge won’t get away with imposing such a restriction on flimsy reasons that do not fully honor our families and relationships.
Posted on September 25, 2009 | Filed under Fertility | Permalink
The South is the region with the worst laws in the country for gay and lesbian parents. Well today add North Carolina to the list of states that approve second-parent adoption.
Today’s decision from the North Carolina Court of Appeals came in the case of Boseman v. Jarrell. Pretty straightforward facts: Julia Boseman and Melissa Jarrell had been together four years when, in 2002, Melissa gave birth to a child, conceived through donor insemination and planned for by both of them. The child called Melissa “Mommy” and Julia “Mom.” The couple filed for a second-parent adoption, which was granted in 2005. As is common given state adoption statutes, the couple asked the court to waive the statutory provision that an adoption terminates the biological mother’s parental rights. The court ruled that it had the power to do that, and the adoption decree specifically reads that it does not terminate Melissa’s parental rights.
So far so good.
But the next year the couple split up, Melissa limited Julia’s time with the child, and, in 2007, Julia filed an action for joint custody. Melissa then tried to get the court (in a different county from the court that granted the adoption) to rule that the adoption decree was void. The opinion released today holds that the adoption decree was not void. If it was an error to grant an adoption without severing Melissa’s parental rights, that had to be raised on an appeal from the adoption decree; it could not be raised in a subsequent proceeding.
There’s lots of good language in the opinion about why the adoption was a good thing, but the court’s failure to rule definitively that a court can waive the provision terminating a biological parent’s rights does leave the door open for some trial court judge in the state to rule that the law does not permit such waiver. What is clear, however, is that if a trial judge DOES grant a second-parent adoption, that adoption is valid and cannot later be challenged by anyone.
The court also makes clear that it would have ruled the same way had the parties been an unmarried different-sex couple. “While [the adoption code] does not specifically address same-sex adoptions,” the court wrote, “these statutes do make clear that a wide range of adoptions are contemplated and permitted, so long as they protect the minor’s ‘needs, interests, and rights.’”
The North Carolina Association of Women Attorneys, the National Association of Social Workers, the North Carolina Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers, and the North Carolina Foster and Adoptive Parents Association filed a friend of the court brief in support of upholding the adoption.
Posted on September 25, 2009 | Filed under Fertility | Permalink
Next »
Copyright @ 2001 and Beyond Fertility Portal: Fertility and Infertility Research News
Web Design By Dynamic Creator | Web Hosting by Trade Web Hosting
