Virginia Court surprisingly Rules in Favor of Lesbian Vermont Partner!

First, a summary: In a surprise win, a lesbian partner successfully got her custody case moved back to Vermont where a custody order is already in place.

The Vermont woman's former partner moved back to Virginia with their child and attempted to argue that the Vermont Custody Order should not be upheld now that she and the child (her biological child) are residing in Virginia.

Interestingly, had the VA woman argued for a new Custody Order in VA instead of arguing that the VT Order should not be upheld, she probably would have been successful.

Now for the details: Janet and Lisa went to VT and entered into a civil union. The couple returned to VA where they had been living, Lisa was inseminated and a child was born in VA. When the child was 4mo, the family moved to VT where they lived for a little over a year at which point, the couple split up.

When the relationship ended, Lisa, the biological parent, took the child and moved back to VA. 2mo later Lisa filed a petition in VT to dissolve the civil union. In her Request to Dissolve the union, Lisa stated that the child was "the biological or adoptive" child of the civil union.

Lisa asked the VT court to do four things:
1) to dissolve the civil union
2) to award her legal and physical “rights and responsibilities for the minor child,”
3) to award Janet “suitable parent/child contact (supervised),” and
4) to “award payment of suitable child support money.”

The Vermont Court Order gave Lisa temporary legal and physical responsibility for the child and gave Janet parent-child contact in the form of visitation.

Two weeks after the Order was issued, Virginia's Marriage Affirmation Act became law and Lisa filed with the Virginia court asking them to affirm Lisa's sole right to the child and deny Janet any rights to the child.

And so the war began ....

Lisa asked the Virginia Court to do three things - first, find that the VT court acted improperly in their Custody ruling because it did not determine that Janet was a parent.

This is an interesting perspective for Lisa to take, especially considering she was the one who filed the Vermont petition stating that the child was "the biological or adoptive child" of the civil union! She further asked the VT court to award Janet "suitable parent/child contact" and to award Lisa monetary compensation in the form of child support.

Second she argued that even if the Virginia Court found the Vermont Court acted properly in issuing its Custody Order, the Virginia Court now has jurisdiction because Lisa has filed a parentage action in Virginia.

Now here's the problem with this piece of Lisa's argument. She argues that her parentage action is not a custody action or a visitation action and because it's not a custody or visitation action, VA now has jurisdiction. She claims she is only asking the VA court to determine that Janet is not a parent and therefore isn't entitled to custody or visitation of the child .... <--- did you see it? It's not a custody action or a visitation action ... yet she specifically requests that Janet not have custody or visitation rights. Hmmmmm.

Lisa was likely trying to get VA to determine that Janet was not a parent in her initial action. She would then have used that determination to trump the Vermont Custody Order in an effort to cut Janet out of the child's life.

But she failed to recognize that she was contradicting herself in her arguments and, as a result, seems to have gotten one of the most homophobic states in the country to make a determination in favor of gay rights.

Third Lisa argued that even if VT's ruling was proper and VA's Order is somehow construed as improper, then the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which authorizes states to decline to afford "full faith and credit" to same-sex marriages from other states, effectively overrides any custody or visitation order. But the Virginia appeals court disagreed, finding that DOMA only applies to marriage recognition, and has no apparent application to custody or visitation orders.

Again, Lisa's argument seems quite illogical. She tries to use a marriage act (and the fact that it is legal in Virginia to not recognize a same-sex union from another state) as justification for Virginia to also deny a custody order issued in another state.

Virginia ruled against Lisa on all counts. They cited Lisa's crucial mistake - Lisa was the one who moved to Virginia and petitioned VERMONT for a custody ruling. Had Lisa petitioned Virginia for the initial custody arrangment, VA would have maintained jurisdiction over the custody of the child and VT would have had no claims to jurisdiction.

Thankfully Lisa (and presumably her counsel) were too stupid to realize they should have filed in VA to begin with. As a result, there is now supporting caselaw for the rest of us to benefit from.

Just because you flee from a state where there is a custody order in effect, doesn't mean you get out of enforcement of that order.

Just because you decide you don't want your same-sex partner to no longer be considered a parent, doesn't make them not a parent. Nor does it necessarily mean a court will say they're not a parent just because you want them to.

This case could have far reaching consequences for non-biological parents in same-sex relationships if the relationship dissolves.

Way to go Janet!

Election 2007 - Wins and Losses

... but mostly wins. Here's a brief overview:

The Wins

• Same-sex marriage ban REJECTED in Arizona! (the first in the nation)
• South Dakota rejected a law that would ban abortions except to save a pregnant woman's life
• Missouri voted in support of stem-cell research
• 6 states voted to raise their minimum wage above the federal level bringing the total to 29 states with minimum wages above the federal level
• America didn't buy into the Republican Family Values b.s. (it probably didn't help that quite a few high profile republicans have been caught in sex scandals and corruption recently)
• Indiana got rid of Representative John Hostettler, the guy who thinks there's a "homosexual agenda" (I'm sorry, since when is equal rights an "agenda"?) and author of the draft of the Marriage Protection Act
• Pennsylvania gave Senator Rick Santorum the boot who, btw, held the 3rd highest seat in the GOP (he's the guy who said if you grant the right for people to have gay sex then you grant people the right to incest, adultery, polygamy and bigamy)
• And ... Senator George Allen of Virginia CONCEDED to his democratic opponent, Jim Webb!!! (Allen voted 2 times in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment - Webb does not support the Amendment. Unfortunately, Virginia was one of those states where the measure did pass, but only by a small margin.)

The Losses

• 7 states approved same-sex marriage bans (bringing the total to 27 states across the nation)
• Voters in Michigan approved a ban on some affirmative action programs
• Colorado and Arizona passed measures targeting illegal immigrants

Get Out and VOTE!

Tomorrow's the Big Day. November 7th - Election Day.

It is time to put LGBT Friendly politicians in Congress.

HRC has a list of candidates they are endorsing for this election. You can and should, if you haven't already, find out who is in support of LGBT rights. AND VOTE FOR THEM!

For a list of local LGBT Friendly candidates, visit Stonewall Democrats and click on your state. Visit your local chapter's homepage for a list of candidates they endorse.

It is time to alter the power base in Washington.

GET OUT AND VOTE!

Your Opinion - Anything LGBT

We want to know your thoughts!

This is an open call for any and all opinions on anything related to LGBT issues. It doesn't matter if you are for or against LGBT rights. It doesn't matter if you agree with or accept LGBT persons or not. We want to hear your thoughts.

Please post your opinion and check back often for responses.

NJ Will Recognize Same-Sex Unions

By a 4-3 vote, the Supreme Court of New Jersey voted in favor of providing the same rights and benefits of marriage to same-sex couples. However, the Supreme Court kicked the decision back to the State Legislature to decide on the term that will be used.

The State has 180 days to decide whether they will call the union a "marriage" or give it some other term like "civil union." But who cares? As long as full rights and benefits are granted, the rest is just semantics.

While a vote of 4-3 in favor of this decision appears to be a split, it's actually quite the opposite. The 3 who voted against the decision did so because they didn't want to kick the semantics decision back to the State. They wanted to make the decision on what to call the unions within their Supreme Court Ruling, and in fact, they argued the Court should give full marriage rights to LGBT couples, including calling such unions "marriages." So in actuality, the decision was a 7-0 vote, with 4 wanting to defer the semantics to the State and 3 wanting to grant full marriage rights on the spot.

Matt Daniels, President of the Alliance for Marriage, is, of course, upset about the ruling. One of his comments was, "They took the future of marriage out of the hands of the people of New Jersey." The future of marriage .... How is it that allowing same-sex unions has any affect on the future of heterosexual marriage other than now marriage is not an exclusive right?

We've been asking this question for a long time. We have yet to hear a compelling response as to how allowing same-sex marriage will have any adverse effect on heterosexual marriage. If anyone has a compelling reason they can offer, we'd love to consider it.

Interestingly, if you visit the Alliance for Marriage website, part of their mission reads, "AFM exists to educate the public, the media, elected officials, and civil society leaders on the benefits of marriage for children, adults and society." Isn't this what we all want?

Another bonus of the NJ Supreme Court decision is the lack of residency requirements on those who seek to get married. The impact could be huge nationwide. Essentially New Jersey has opened the door for couples to travel to NJ, get married and then return to their own state and challenge the laws there. It remains to be seen how significant this will turn out to be.

There are those who would disagree with our assertion that the remaining decision left to Legislature in New Jersey is one of semantics.

Steven Goldstein, chair of Garden State Equality told the Newark Star-Ledger, "Those who would view today's...ruling as a victory for same-sex couples are dead wrong. Marriage is the only currency of commitment the real world universally understands and accepts."

We respectfully disagree.

Good News for LGBT Civil Rights in Pennsylvania?

Representative Dan Frankel (D-Pa) is the lead sponsor of the reintroduction of a bill in Pennsylvania banning anti-gay discrimination in employment, housing and credit (HB 3000). While a similar bill failed to move out of the committee in the last session, this bill, apparently, has 57 sponsors. The bill would add sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of discrimination categories already banned by Pennsylvania's Human Relation's Act.

The Senate has a similar bill (SB 912) with 19 Senators backing it, including lead Democratic supporter, Senator Jim Ferlo.

Is it possible Pennsylvania could be acting in a "diverse and tolerant" fashion as Frankel describes the state? While the House bill having 57 sponsors may be a relatively strong support for anti-discrimination, 19 supporters of the Senate bill hardly is.

Frankel said, “The fact that someone is gay or straight has nothing to do with his or her ability to do a good job or the ability to be a good neighbor or tenant. It is long past time for Pennsylvania to join the 17 states that already ban anti-gay discrimination on the job.”

Frankel also commented, “This is the right thing to do, and it also makes economic sense to improve our standing as a diverse and tolerant state. This is the kind of indicator that matters to forward-looking companies and individuals.”

But the question remains: If the bill didn't pass in the last session, why would it pass now?

As I sat here pondering Representative Frankel's comment that Pennsylvania is "diverse and tolerant," I wondered why he would take this position. Maybe it's a position of wishful thinking. But I don't necessarily think it's the position of groups who are continually discriminated against in Pennsylvania - I could be wrong though. But my guess is groups that are discriminated against probably have a bit more realistic perspective on tolerance. One thing I can say for sure, though, is it certainly wasn't the position of the man I am about to tell you about.

So I'm sitting in my office composing this post and a knock came at my door. I opened it to a nice looking man who introduced himself as a candidate for State Representative. His name is Lou Guerra, Jr. He wanted to put a "face to the name" and offered to answer any questions I had. Initially I told him I didn't have any. So he handed me his brochure with a picture of his wife, Linda, and their happy family - four kids, Amy, Ryan, Katie and Timmy, all gathered on a lawn, smiling, and invited me to check out his website and offered that if I had any questions, I should feel free to contact him via email.

I told him I did have one question, "Where do you stand on gay rights?" His silence spoke volumes. Eventually he responded in this manner, and I'm paraphrasing, "Well, that's a broad issue." He took a long pause.

I'm thinking, "Okay, not a difficult question, regardless of the scope of the issue. Either you're in support or not." I already know what his position is. Now it's just a matter of how artfully he's going to answer the question.

"While I don't support gay marriage, I also do not support discrimination of any kind."

"Hmmm," I responded, "that doesn't make much sense."

So according to Mr. Guerra, his ability to reap the benefits of the institution of marriage as a heterosexual man and my inability to do so as a lesbian woman does not constitute discrimination.

Sorry, Mr. Guerra, I think I'll vote for the other guy. But thanks for putting a face to the name.

Check out HRC's list of endorsed candidates to see if your candidates are gay-friendly.

Potential CA Legislature Will Send "Children Straight into the Arms of the Homosexual Activist Community"

Last week, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed three bills into law which will have a positive impact on the gay and lesbian community.

One bill makes it "more difficult" for defendants to use the "gay panic" defense in order to justify their violent acts against the LGBT community. This bill was spurred on by the 2002 murder of a transgendered teenager, Gwen Araujo, who was brutally attacked, strangled and eventually murdered by several teenage boys when they learned that Gwen was biologically male. The new law requires courts to instruct juries that they cannot make decisions based on bias against victims or witnesses.

A second bill was enacted for the equal treatment of gays, lesbians, bisexual and transgendered persons in political campaigns. The fair treatment of LGBT people will be included in the voluntary pledge candidates and campaign committees sign prior to a political campaign.

The third bill Schwarzenegger signed into law was the Civil Rights Housing Act of 2006, which will change the housing laws making it illegal to discriminate against LGBT persons.

Interestingly, there was a fourth bill up before Governor Schwarzenegger last week - the Safe Place to Learn Act. The Governor did not sign this bill into law. Of all the bills before the Governor, this is the one bill that would have actually done something to help prevent violence against the LGBT community ... and yet the Governor refused to sign it.

This bill would have helped strengthen policies prohibiting discrimination and bullying of LGBT students in California schools. It would have barred textbooks that use discriminatory language against LGBT people. It would have prohibited the negative portrayal of lesbians and gays in textbooks and other materials used for instruction. The original bill, which was eventually amended to the current bill Governor Schwarzenegger refused to sign, included the requirement that social science textbooks include the historical contributions made by gays and lesbians. Because of political pressure, this part of the bill was stricken.

While Governor Schwarzenegger's gestures in support of the LGBT community are (somewhat) admirable, they are soft. If the Governor truly wanted to support the LGBT community, he would have signed all four bills into law.

Sure, it's great that violent criminals can't hide behind a "gay panic" defense by portraying the victim as a deviant and themselves as the victims. It's great that juries will be instructed not to use their biases to make judgments, but will this really stop juries? The truth is that people give into their judgments and biases every day. Jurors are no different.

It's great that LGBT people will get equal and fair treatment in political campaigns. But, number one, it's a statement included on a voluntary pledge candidates sign. I'll say it again, voluntary. If it's so important, why isn't fair treatment being included on something political candidates are required to adhere to? And secondly, what about fair and equal treatment for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people in all aspects of life and the law ... not just in political campaigns? Now that would be something!

And sure, it's great LGBTs can't be discriminated against in the housing market. But a real estate agent isn't likely to come out and tell you, "I'm sorry, you can't live there because you're gay/black/jewish/insert-group-here." They simply won't take you to those areas. And if you show interest, likely they'll come up with some reason why you shouldn't live there. So yes, it's great the law is there in the rare event an agent actually tells you, "I'm sorry. I can't show you that house because you're gay." But come on, there are other areas where pro-gay laws could have more impact.

By not passing the Safe Place to Learn Act, it appears as if Governor Schwarzenegger is supporting continued violence against LGBT youth.

James Dobson, an outspoken and politically influential right-wing Christian and chairman of Focus on the Family, said in a statement recently that if the bills are signed into law, "There goes the next generation of children straight into the arms of the homosexual activist community."

Is Mr. Dobson afraid that California students will "turn gay" because they are seeing positive portrayals of lesbians and gays in their social science books? I wonder if Mr. Dobson, or wait, I think it's actually Dr. Dobson clinical child psychologist, is aware of the fact that heterosexuals actually produce and raise more homosexuals than homosexuals do.

And so it seems as if the Governor of California was more interested in his political career than in doing the right thing. Maybe next time it comes before him, Schwarzenegger will sign it. Aren't the children worth it?

Philadelphia School District Adopts Gay and Lesbian History Month

Approximately 200,000 District calendars were sent home to Philadelphia School District families, agencies and other supporters in September. Included on the calendar for the first time was "Gay and Lesbian History Month". Philadelphia School District designates each month during the school year to raising awareness about a particular ethnic or cultural group that has historically been discriminated against. This practice is in keeping with their policy requiring equity for all races and minority groups.

Of the 200,000 calendars distributed, Philadelphia School District received 120 complaints. While this is the largest backlash the District has seen in response to its calendar, .0006% isn't bad, and it certainly isn't enough to sway the District.

Of the 120 complaints, only one parent, Senita Watson, is threatening to keep her 7-year-old daughter from attending school for the entire month of October while Gay and Lesbian History Month is being observed. It could be inferred that maintaining an environment of intolerance where fear and hatred most assuredly are bred is more important than aquiring an education ... at least for one Philadelphia School District family this appears to be the case.

One report by the Baptist Press, a daily national news service of Southern Baptists since 1946, quotes Peter LaBarbera, president of the conservative group, Americans for Truth - "Are they going to teach the role that homosexual behavior had in the onset of HIV and AIDS? Is that going to be part of the history?" It might behoove Mr. LaBarbera to take a look at that history. HIV was likely to have originated from West African chimpanzees, which were often kept as pets and also used for food. There is some controversy as to the link between HIV and AIDS leaving some researchers unconvinced that AIDS is a result of HIV infection. In fact, in Africa, there is a strong link between malnutrition and the onset of AIDS, further calling into question the direct link between HIV and AIDS.

So it seems, "homosexual behavior" is not a contributor to the "onset" of HIV and AIDS. That is more likely attributable to monkeys and malnutrition.

Philadelphia School District has not prepared a curriculum or any special events for Gay and Lesbian History Month in October. What is taught and/or recognized is being left to individual teachers and schools.

We applaud Philadelphia School District for recognizing Gay and Lesbian History Month and the LGBT community, even if it took them 11 years since Gay and Lesbian History month was first recognized to get on board.

Read the full article published in the Philadelphia Inquirer on September 28, 2006.

God and Gays: bridging the gap

"God and Gays: Bridging the Gap" is a movie about the struggle for those who are gay and religious. We have not yet seen the movie, but the trailer alone is very moving.

Perhaps one of the most heart-breaking contributors is a mother who got her wish: she would rather her daughter be dead than gay. Now 9 years after her daughter committed suicide, she and her husband, Bob, are strong allies for Gays, Lesbians, Bisexual and Transgender people and are leaders in TEACH Ministry, To Educate About the Consequences of Homophobia.

It is too soon to tell what kind of impact this movie will have. Who will go see it? Will those who could learn the most bother? I thought the same thing when I saw An Inconvenient Truth and saw the crunchy-granola environmentalist vegetarian types sitting all around me. Will those who don't believe global warming is even an issue bother to go see this movie?

What does it take to step outside of not only your comfort zone, but your "belief zone"? The creators of God and Gays are traveling around the US promoting the movie and trying to open a dialogue at churches, universities, and other organizations. Once again, it seems the burden (and honor) of setting a good example falls on the leaders of such institutions. Will they step up?

VA's so-called marriage amendment

When voters go to the polls in the state of Virginia in November, they will be asked whether or not the Constitution of Virginia should be amended. The amendment is not about gay marriage. Gay marriage is already illegal in Virginia. This amendment goes far beyond that. If passed, it would prevent any legal contract between any unmarried people. Here are some implications:

• a straight woman being able to utilize domestic violence laws for her protection
• Any unmarried couple (straight or gay) enforcing a medical power of attorney
• Any unmarried couple (straight or gay) accessing the courts to enforce legal agreements regarding child custody or property

How is this good for individuals? How is this good for families? How is this good for anyone?

In our quest to start a dialogue, we surveyed a few LGBT people and asked them what answers they would most like from those who oppose their rights as families.

Here are their questions:

1. The only question I ever have for them isn't a novel one. How can they reconcile their homophobia and racism with following the teachings of Jesus Christ? I've never gotten a satisfactory answer. -Robbin

2. How would my marriage to the person I love have any impact, let alone harm your marriage to the person you love? -Sara

3. How does our love ignite your hate? -Kristie

4. Can you imagine, for one moment, what it would be like to be denied access to your loved one when their (or your) life was in danger? How can you live with choosing to put someone else in that misery? -Riley

5. How would my having visitation rights in a hospital impact you? -John