When you're fighting a case that seeks to break new legal and social ground, it helps to have friends. But in court the word friend has a very specific meaning.

Friends of the court, or amici in legal speak, file briefs in a case to explain research or to add another dimension to the legal arguments being made. These briefs can illustrate the breadth of support for a case or position and help erase the fear and misperceptions that often accompany so-called controversial issues.
 
Witness the recent groundswell of voices uniting around Lambda Legal's Iowa marriage case: hundreds of amici, including faith leaders, historians, social scientists, pediatricians, child advocates, etc. (many of them from Iowa) signed on to 15 friend-of-the-court briefs. Each brief spoke with authority on a particular issue, and taken together they bolstered our core argument that same-sex couples must be allowed to exercise their right to marry in Iowa. 

Two former Iowa lieutenant governors, for instance, joined a brief submitted by state elected officials arguing that the court, not the legislature, is the proper place to address the right to marry. The question of the court's authority to consider the constitutionality of exclusions from marriage has come up in every marriage case we've argued. Some people say only the legislature can decide marriage-related matters — obviously, we think this case belongs in the courts, which have long been a refuge for those seeking fair treatment when the law itself may be unfair and which have struck down many other discriminatory restrictions on marriage over the years. 

But for some courts in several states the lingering question about who decides remains.  Having a group of well-respected elected officials, including two former lieutenant governors who know the system well say that they believe the issue should be decided by the court carries a significant weight.

As helpful as it is to be friended by people in government, in marriage cases it is equally important to have friends who understand children’s needs and the social science research on child development. One of the most insidious arguments our opponents make is that allowing same-sex couples to marry will adversely affect children — here, of course, they’re talking about an abstract notion of children, not the roughly 250,000 children in this country currently being raised in households with gay or lesbian parents who will benefit from the protections for children available only through marriage.

In the Iowa case, hundreds of child advocates, social scientists, pediatricians, social workers, family doctors, and others who have worked successfully with families headed by same-sex couples in Iowa joined a handful of briefs that painted a more accurate picture of family life for same-sex couples and set forth the harms the children in these families suffer because their parents cannot marry. They all reached a similar conclusion: that families headed by gay or lesbian parents are no different than those headed by heterosexual parents and deserve the same protections. Or, as the American Psychological Association wrote so cogently in its brief: 

“Indeed, the scientific research that has directly compared outcomes for children with gay and lesbian parents with outcomes for children with heterosexual parents has been remarkably consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are every bit as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents.”

Again, any lesbian or gay man who’s parenting knows this and could speak to it in court, but hearing it from the nation’s pre-eminent organization representing psychologists has a tremendous impact on the court — and in the court of public opinion.

We believe we will ultimately win our marriage case in Iowa, and our friends will help get us there. And just in case you were wondering, our opponents filed about half as many friend-of-the-court briefs in this case, despite claims that they had “almost a dozen.” Their side was represented by the same fringe groups spouting the same hateful arguments we’ve seen elsewhere — not the best friends to have in this case.

We’ve all been told that it is better to give than to receive. As the executive director of a community-based nonprofit, I can assure you that’s true. But in order to build and sustain a movement for equality, many people have to give so that we all can receive.

Ric Weiland was a very generous man. A high school friend of Bill Gates and a very early employee of Microsoft, he made generous contributions during his lifetime to Lambda Legal and many other LGBT and HIV organizations.

Ric died in 2006 and, because he made a plan and a commitment to the issues he cared so deeply about, his generosity lives on after him. We are honored by the bequest he made to Lambda Legal — the single biggest gift we have ever received — and inspired by his vision. He left a total of $65 million to 11 groups working for LGBT and HIV civil rights. Over the next eight years, Lambda Legal will receive a total of $11 million from Ric’s estate. With a 2008 budget of just over $12 million, this is a very significant gift to us.

I had the privilege of knowing Ric and meeting with him from time to time. He was a very thoughtful man who knew exactly what he was doing as a philanthropist — he was helping to build and sustain our movement.

He understood what we are up against. The people who hate us have never hesitated to pour money into organizations to oppose our rights. The Alliance Defense Fund, for example, has filed lawsuits or represented the other side in dozens of Lambda Legal cases. Their budget is over $27 million per year. In addition to broad conservative membership support nationwide, the group is heavily funded by the Helen DeVos Foundation (the founder of Amway who also funds the Traditional Values Coalition and Focus on the Family) and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation (established by a John Birch Society member who was the founder of the Alan-Bradley company).

In other words: There are many people — some very wealthy — fueling these hate groups. And these groups don’t like it when the tables are turned. Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, was fast out of the gate after Ric’s bequest was announced, criticizing the gift as a “financial incentive” to “promote homosexuality” among young people. If he fears we’ll have more resources to protect students from antigay attacks in school, then we’re proud to say he’s right.

Sometimes, in the real world, we need to fight money with money. But there is more than one way to do this. As much as we appreciate significant donors like Ric Weiland, we cannot rely on them alone. We rely on each other — all of us who give what we can, whether it’s big gifts or modest ones, to the many local, state and national groups doing important work. That’s what makes a movement. It’s us.

At Lambda Legal, membership contributions at all levels are key to our ability to do our work — and we are always honored when our members grow with us. For example, Caryn Berman and Laura Cuzzillo of Lincolnwood, Illinois, make annual membership contributions, and they recently took the next step in their commitment to equality. They let us know that they have joined the hundreds of people who have included Lambda Legal as beneficiary in their will. For Caryn and Laura this reflects their strong belief that “we all have a responsibility to each other.”

Giving generates power — not just for the receiver, but also for the person who gives. When we give money, time and expertise, we express our values, take action and align with others who have similar thoughts, beliefs and ideas. By connecting us in common purpose, giving creates community.

Ric Weiland’s gifts to Lambda Legal and to our communities will help all of us expand the work we do. But I knew Ric well enough to know that nothing would make him happier than to see his gift matched or exceeded by the gifts of many others. His legacy to all of us is more than dollars — it’s inspiration and faith in our future work for equality.

 

 

Here we go again — with the right wing targeting gay men by claiming we are bringing on a public health crisis. Antigay groups and some newspapers recently seized upon a wildly misinterpreted study about drug-resistant staph infections among some gay men in San Francisco to proclaim a full-blown epidemic. And they’re blaming gay men for a disease that has been around for a long time in the general population and has no particular leaning toward any sexual orientation.

 

Recently I received an email blast from Matt Barber at Concerned Women for America — the right-wing women’s organization that proclaims it is “concerned with the health and well-being of all God’s children.” The email implored Lambda Legal and other gay organizations to “publicly condemn those specific ‘high-risk behaviors,’ which this study has concluded are responsible for the spread of MRSA among homosexuals.” (MRSA or Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus is the name of the drug-resistant staph infections.)

 

One big problem: this was not the actual result of the study in question. Moreover the information directly contradicts information released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). But once again hate groups have purposefully misinterpreted the data to fuel irrational fear and hatred of gay people. As someone who’s lived through the AIDS epidemic, I take personal offense at their response. And as the head of an organization that has spent decades fighting to eradicate discrimination against people with HIV, I believe we have a responsibility to counter their efforts to demonize our communities.

 

The study in question by the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) found that about 1/6 of 1 percent of gay men in Boston and San Francisco had contracted MRSA — a small percentage, but significant in comparison to the rest of the population. For a long time, MRSA has been commonplace in hospital settings. Several years ago, public health officials noticed an increasing number of MRSA outbreaks outside of hospital settings. Indeed, before the hysteria created by the UCSF report, the Center for Disease Control had published fact sheets regarding how to prevent outbreaks of MRSA in the workplace, in schools and among athletes.

 

After the UCSF study surfaced, the CDC released a statement explaining the actual facts regarding MRSA. They clarified that the strain of MRSA in the study has been seen before, and that it should be addressed by the simple prevention steps recommended for all MRSA, which include covering wounds, washing hands, not sharing personal items such as towels or clothes, and consulting a doctor promptly if you think you have contracted MRSA.

 

The CDC’s discussion of the report strikes the proper balance: it explains why attention should be paid to this strain of MRSA, especially among those with weakened immune systems, while explaining that this strain is nothing new and can be prevented in the same way that all MRSA can.

 

UCSF issued a statement of regret about the potentially misleading information in the report, deploring the “negative targeting of specific populations” that occurred in its wake. This episode taught certain public health officials a lesson that the LGBT and HIV communities knew all too well: The imparting of valuable health information about our communities must be done with care to prevent distortions and targeting by those who oppose us.

 

At Lambda Legal, we have been fighting prejudice and discrimination against people with HIV for years, and also fighting for fair and appropriate health care services. This year, we added “Health Care Fairness” as a specific priority for our work because we recognize that bigotry hurts us in many ways as we seek care in doctors’ offices and hospitals, or require fertility or other reproductive health care.

 

We’ve seen this kind of fear mongering before and we know how harmful it can be. Hate has no place in solving a public health problem. Let the public know the facts — and they won’t fall for the bigotry. And we’ll all be healthier for it.

One of my favorite headlines coming out of this primary season was on a Seattle Times editorial: "'Change' Leads Early in the Race." And it's true that change is on the tip of everyone's tongue — from voters to candidates of all political stripes, each trying to prove that he or she is the one who will offer a new vision for America, the one who will bring about real change.

But what exactly does change mean? That often depends on who is speaking the word, but one fact is undeniable: The next chief executive will have the opportunity to preside over, and hopefully champion, big changes for LGBT people and those with HIV. In this spirit, I thought I would begin the New Year by outlining a few examples of what real change might look like for our communities in the years ahead.

• We would have an inclusive Employment Nondiscrimination law. Last year's big disappointment was Congress's failure to enact an employment nondiscrimination law. Adding insult to injury, the House removed protections for transgender people in the bill it eventually passed. Real change would give us a law that Lambda Legal could use to protect all LGBT people across the country from workplace discrimination.

• "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" would end. With lawsuits currently challenging the policy and more gay and lesbian servicemembers speaking out against it every day, there is no question that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is losing ground, even in Congress. I recently talked to Col. Grethe Cammemeyer — Lambda Legal had challenged the military's previous antigay policy on her behalf and won — and she talked about the tragedy of making people choose between living honestly and serving their country. This is a choice no one should have to make.

• We would change the government's discriminatory HIV policies. More than four years ago, Lambda Legal filed a case on behalf of Lorenzo Taylor who, though he was more than qualified, was denied employment by the U.S. Foreign Service because he has HIV. The State Department under the current administration has stubbornly refused to change this discriminatory policy, and we are set to go to trial later this winter. Federal law prohibits the government from discriminating against people with disabilities, including HIV — and the government, if anyone, must comply with federal law. Similarly, discriminatory immigration policies targeting people with HIV must end.

• Hate crimes protections would give young people across America safer schools and shield all of us from antigay violence. The defeat of last year's hate crimes bill — named after Matthew Shepherd, the gay Wyoming college student who was beaten to death in 1998 — marked another Congressional failure. While the bill was not directly aimed at students, it would have strengthened protections for them by making discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender and disabilities a federal crime. We are currently litigating two cases (in New Jersey and California) on behalf of gay students who were harassed in school. Students deserve to attend school without fearing violence and harassment because they are gay — real change would bring protections to help make this happen.

• Marriage equality would be a reality. I've said it before and I'll say it again: LGBT people will not be truly equal until those same-sex couples who want to have the right to marry. This is beyond marriage. It is simply about being treated fairly under law. Real change would pave the way for marriage equality in every state.

When people speak about change, they often quote Gandhi, who said, "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." I like this because it gives each of us the chance to do our own small part to change the world we live in. And this is something we can hold on to regardless of who wins the next presidential election.   

A group of 28 retired generals and admirals recently released a letter urging Congress to repeal the military’s beleaguered “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy — a policy that has destroyed the careers of approximately 12,000 servicemembers since 1993. Think about that number: 12,000 people who served their country with distinction, in many cases going off to war, but who were ultimately forced to give up their careers because they were discovered to be gay or lesbian.

During this time in civilian life, our communities have made great progress in the workplace. Today more than one third of all U.S. states protect people from being fired based on sexual orientation. A growing number of employers and city and local governments also offer these important protections. But, in the words of our colleagues at Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, DADT remains “the only law in the land that authorizes the firing of an American for being gay....”

The emphasis there is mine. The policy not only authorizes these firings, it compels them, unless servicemembers can hide their sexual orientation. This is the most insidious part of the DADT equation, forcing people to make the choice between their careers and other equally important areas of life. And even when people do make the painful decision to stay in the closet and preserve their service, there is still the threat of being “discovered.”

That’s what happened to Major Margaret Witt. Highly decorated throughout 19 years of military service, Witt was fired after someone else revealed that she had lived with a civilian same-sex partner hundreds of miles from her military base. Lambda Legal submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in the ACLU’s federal case challenging DADT on Witt’s behalf, asking the question: If DADT does not allow Witt to serve, when she made every effort to keep her sexual orientation private, whom would it allow?

The past 14 years have given us the answer: All gay and lesbian servicemembers are at risk, and that risk surfaces in many ways. We recently represented a gay man whose custody rights were threatened by DADT when his soon-to-be-ex-wife mounted a custody challenge based, in part, on the fact that he had a same-sex partner. Our client could have lost his job and his pension (and thus his means of supporting his children, as well as himself) if his identity and sexual orientation had become public in the course of filing court papers in a custody case.

Cases like this illustrate the policy’s devastating ramifications in both personal and professional arenas, as servicemembers are forced to assess whether exercising their rights constitutes “telling” their sexual orientation — while their careers hang in the balance.

The U.S. military is the largest employer in the nation. Service can provide a gateway to education and training, highly placed government jobs and elected office. It is also an inroad to more basic benefits, pensions, etc. To deny gay and lesbian people access to these benefits is damaging, discriminatory and demeaning to all servicemembers.

In their letter to Congress, the 28 retired generals and admirals noted as much. “As is the case in Britain, Israel and other nations which allow gays and lesbians to serve openly, our servicemembers are professionals who are able to work together effectively despite differences in race, gender, religion and sexuality,” they wrote. Indeed three out of four soldiers returning from Iraq or Afghanistan said they had no problem fighting alongside gay and lesbian soldiers, according to a recent Zogby poll.

The group of 28 also cited scholarly data showing 65,000 gay and lesbian soldiers currently serving in the military — that’s far too many people living with the fear that they could be fired anywhere, anytime simply because of who they are. It’s time to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” America’s armed forces would be much stronger for it.

Read more >>

Combating the Military’s Antigay Policy
by Hayley Gorenberg, Deputy Legal Director

Q & A with Kathi S. Westcott
Deputy Director for Law for Servicemembers Legal Defense Network

October 25, 2007, marked the one-year anniversary of the landmark decision in Lambda Legal’s lawsuit Lewis v. Harris, where the New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously declared that same-sex couples must be treated equally under the law. That decision started New Jersey on the road to marriage equality — and further propelled the fight for equality across the country.

Unfortunately, a few months later, the New Jersey legislature threw up a barricade when it opted for a civil union law instead of marriage equality. In the year since the court ruling one thing is more clear than ever: civil unions are not equal and they’re not working.

By creating a separate status for same-sex couples, the government invites discrimination, and sadly, in New Jersey and other states with civil unions this discrimination is occurring. Even where same-sex couples appear to have the same concrete benefits that married couples do, they do not have the security and dignity of being able to explain to their children, their neighbors, or their children’s teachers that they are married. Civil union is a discriminatory label that renders same-sex couples different and inferior, and no amount of tinkering with the rules and benefits can erase that stain of inequality.

Since the New Jersey civil union law passed, Lambda Legal has worked directly with more than one hundred individuals who have called us seeking help addressing unequal treatment or disregard for their civil unions. Garden State Equality counts scores more. Often we confront the civil union law’s failure in employers’ denial of family health insurance. We experienced this with United Parcel Service in New Jersey.

When UPS first read the civil union law, it reached the wrong conclusion and declined to provide family benefits to two employees in civil unions. We brought legal action against the company and it soon relented. This is great, but UPS is only one company: We should not have to fight for the same rights over and over. Moreover same-sex couples cannot walk through life with lawyers at their side.

At best, people do not understand what civil union laws mean. They see that gay people are denied marriage, and they take away a discriminatory message from that. That is the common denominator of the matters we’ve handled at Lambda Legal: civil union laws invite discrimination.

Connecticut is grappling with this very issue. Any day now that state’s supreme court will rule in a marriage case brought by Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders before the state passed its civil union law in 2005. Lambda Legal submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in that case, adding our expertise on why civil unions are not enough and why the court should order full marriage rights.

Courts in Iowa and California where Lambda Legal and other groups have marriage cases will also have the opportunity to rule in favor of equality in those states (not insignificantly, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger recently vetoed a marriage bill passed by the legislature, saying that it was up to the court to make this decision). In New Jersey, however, this is now in the hands of the legislature. 

As someone who was born and raised in New Jersey, I have stood proudly when my home state has set an example, as it has in the past, for fairness. On the first anniversary of the Lewis v. Harris decision, I call upon New Jersey and all of the states with marriage cases or legislation pending to lead the way: Fulfill the promise of equality and allow same-sex couples to marry.  

It’s been a difficult few weeks for the LGBT community — ever since Congressional leaders introduced a stripped-down version of the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), unleashing a storm of disappointment, outrage and soul-searching among our communities.

But perhaps in facing down adversity we begin to realize who we really are. What I’ve realized in these past few weeks is that the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community, while comprised of so many different groups and interests, is stronger than ever. Though we may take different views on issues, as some of us have regarding this important legislation, we are hardly fractured (as a few columnists might like to believe). We are standing tall as a powerful force for civil rights in this country.

A brief recap of the past few weeks: Congressional leaders, afraid they would not have enough votes for an inclusive ENDA, stripped out protections for transgender people that this bill sought to provide. Groups, including Lambda Legal, swiftly protested, making clear that a bill that did not protect all of us would be unacceptable. 

Lambda Legal then released an analysis of the bill showing that there were a number of loopholes that made the new version of the bill inadequately protective even for lesbian, gay and bisexual people.  Four other major LGBT legal organizations joined Lambda Legal and issued a joint statement expanding upon our analysis of the bill. We explained that by deleting the previously-included ban on discrimination based on gender identity and expression, House leaders severely weakened protections that would have been provided for lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals who may not conform to common stereotypes of what it means to be male or female in our society. We and the other four major LGBT legal organizations all joined more than 150 organizations calling for an inclusive employment nondiscrimination bill.  I've been heartened to see so many people realize that, when one part of the community is harmed, it affects us all.

When we decided at Lambda Legal to expressly add the rights of transgender people to our mission statement, it was not simply lip service. We recognized that diversity was a strength, not a deficit, and that, as our ranks grew, our work and our impact would continue to broaden.

We had also been fighting — and continue to fight — discrimination based on gender identity in cases involving identity documents, access to medical treatment and employment. Through this work we have come to see the inextricable links between discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity and sex stereotypes. Truth is, we are all "gender non-conforming" in that we break gender stereotypes about relationships and identity.  We have been fighting from the beginning for the right to be ourselves and live without discrimination based on stereotypes that we be or act like something else.

Any time we parse out rights based on one characteristic, too many people fall through the cracks. As my colleague H. Alexander Robinson, director of the National Black Justice Coalition, recently pointed out, during the Black Civil Rights movement, rights came incrementally but they were extended to everyone.

Members of the LGBT community are feeling strong emotions now — angry, energized, inspired.  I hope we keep our eyes on the prize and direct our energy at our representatives in Congress who will vote either to uphold or deny our rights.

Congress must pass strong protection against employment discrimination to all lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender people. We cannot compromise and accept a version of ENDA that does not protect people from both sexual orientation discrimination and discrimination based on gender identity and expression. If a narrower law were enacted, it would leave behind some who are most in need of protection against discrimination and would hinder our legal work on behalf of victims of workplace discrimination. Standing up for an inclusive law may make the fight tougher at the moment, but in the end we will all be stronger for it.

We knew it wouldn’t take long before the Iowa judge who struck down the state’s ban on marriage for same-sex couples was pegged an “activist judge” by the usual suspects. They say they are defending “traditional” marriage and our democracy itself. But their attacks on the judicial system are about as un-democratic as you can get.

Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts and Republican presidential hopeful led the pack, weighing in just minutes after the ruling was announced. Clearly without enough time to read the 63-page decision, he called it “…another example of an activist court and unelected judges trying to redefine marriage and disregard the will of the people….”

Meanwhile, in Iowa some politicians used the ruling to call for a state constitutional amendment that would restrict marriage to one man and one woman. Senator Paul McKinley claimed most Republicans, “believed a constitutional amendment was necessary because all it takes is one person in a black robe to declare a law invalid.” Christopher Rants, his colleague in the assembly, reiterated this point, blaming state Democrats for opposing the amendment and “trying to appease special interest groups.”

What is going on here? It’s old-fashioned antigay sentiment wrapped up in attacks on America’s independent courts. The problem is these tactics are as dangerous as the homophobia that inspires them.

When politicians attack judges who are simply doing their job enforcing the Constitution, it is a strike against our government itself. The founders of this country recognized the danger of placing too much power in any one part of the government. To avoid this, they separated authority into three branches, the legislative, executive and judicial. The branches exercise “checks and balances” over one another, to ensure that the law of the land is upheld and that the core principles of liberty and equality are available to everyone.  

Within this system, the courts have always been the appropriate place for people to seek help when their constitutional rights have been denied. America’s founders agreed that there were certain rights so fundamental that they cannot be taken away, regardless of majority sentiment. Whether the issues invoked are considered controversial or not, even the fervor of 99 percent of the public does not entitle people in power to deprive those in the 1 percent minority of their fundamental constitutional rights.

Under America’s system of government, there are some things that we simply do not get to vote on. We have no say, for instance, about whether others get to practice a religion, engage in free speech or have children. Without a powerful reason like a person’s inability to consent, “the people” also don’t get to vote on whether or whom heterosexuals may marry. Why should they have the right to vote on whether or whom gay people may marry?

The Constitution protects us all against the ardor of those who believe passionately in the rightness of their cause. Regardless of the strength of their belief or how many may join them, they are not entitled to impose their will on others. Nor can they attack a court that rules in favor of fairness with desperate cries of “activist judge.”

Politicians’ strong words against the courts may win them support from some people at the polls, but this comes at great risk to the system of government upon which this country was founded. That means anyone who attacks independent courts is, in essence, attacking America. We need to stand up and denounce these attacks in Iowa and anywhere else they occur. Our courts, our Constitution and our country depend on it. 

Tip O’Neil, the late U.S. Speaker of the House from Massachusetts, once said, “all politics is local.” He was describing how the spirit of America’s towns and cities affects what their legislators do in Washington. The same could be said of the LGBT community: what happens at the municipal level can have a great impact on the national movement.

I’ve been thinking a lot about O’Neil’s quote these past few weeks, as the fray over Fort Lauderdale Mayor Jim Naugle and his spew of antigay bigotry has intensified. Naugle’s comments ranged from the idiotic (he doesn’t call gay people gay because he says most “aren’t happy”) to the offensive (the city should stop marketing to gay tourists because of the high HIV rates in the area).

Days after Naugle’s public tirade began, a few people in Fort Lauderdale’s gay community formed a group called Unite Fort Lauderdale. Within weeks, they’d spurred activism online and off, first calling for Naugle to apologize and, when he refused, staging a demonstration outside city hall that attracted nearly 1,000 people, including national activists like my friend Matt Foreman, Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

At the rally Foreman said Naugle’s comments were not merely offensive to Fort Lauderdale’s residents but that they “demean gay people from coast to coast.”

Sure enough the response from LGBT communities across the country has been enormous. Many national groups have joined the Task Force in calling for the city and county commissions to condemn Naugle. And I’ve heard more than a few people say that they will now think twice before traveling to Fort Lauderdale, which ranks high as a destination for gay travelers.

As a community we’ve had success in voting with our purses, so to speak. Remember back in the early 90s when the Colorado legislature passed its heinous antigay legislation that led to our historic U.S. Supreme Court victory Romer v. Evans? You couldn’t find a gay skier on the slopes. On the flipside, surveys show that LGBT people like visiting places where our communities are treated well.

For travelers looking to support localities doing good for their LGBT residents, I might suggest a few places in Washington State. In recent weeks, such cities as Bellevue, Newcastle and Redmond have voted to extend domestic partner health benefits to their public employees. It all began in Bellevue, where Lambda Legal filed a lawsuit on behalf of two firefighters and a 911 dispatcherwho for years had faced unequal treatment in the workplace. While the city routinely provided health benefits to partners of married employees, it refused to give the same benefits to employees’ same-sex partners.

In less than two months, the Bellevue City Council saw the inequality inherent in this scheme and approved a family benefits plan for gay and lesbian public employees. The attention generated around the case locally through the media and nationally through Lambda Legal’s Clock In for Equality workplace day of action paid off when a couple of police officers from the city of Redmond contacted us a few weeks later with a similar story of discrimination. This time we were able to convince the city to approve family benefits for gay and lesbian public employees simply by writing a letter. That plan is expected to be finalized later this month.

As a national organization, Lambda Legal recognizes that what happens at the local level can make a big difference in people’s daily lives. That’s why we file lawsuits and do advocacy work at every level. And it’s why people all over the country are supporting Unite Fort Lauderdale in its efforts to combat a mayor who thrives on homophobia. Let’s hope city officials in Florida take a cue from their colleagues in Washington State.

In case you had any doubts about the new Supreme Court, the past couple of weeks have confirmed our worst fears: The pendulum has swung far to the right. That is why we have to roll up our sleeves and work as hard as we have ever worked before.

We understood the risks. Lambda Legal opposed President Bush’s new appointees, Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justice Samuel A. Alito, and worked with other groups to raise important questions about their judicial philosophies.

What we didn’t know was how fast the new conservative majority would act to roll back historic civil rights principles — in the words of Justice Stephen G. Breyer: “It is not often in the law that so few have so quickly changed so much.” The irony is that our opponents call jurists on our side “activist judges”!

Breyer was referring to the court’s 5-4 decision that invalidated school integration plans in Seattle and Louisville, Kentucky, but his words are an apt summary of the entire term. In fact, according to the New York Times, one third of the court’s decision’s were decided by 5-4 margins and most along ideological lines. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy (the author of Lambda Legal’s historic Supreme Court victory striking down all sodomy laws) has taken up the mantle of the vital swing vote — and he is proving to be more conservative than his predecessor in this role, Sandra Day O’Connor.

In addition to striking down certain school integration plans, the court curtailed taxpayers’ right to challenge the president’s use of federal money for faith-based initiatives, limited people’s ability to bring employment discrimination lawsuits and put women’s reproductive health and rights at risk by upholding the so-called federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.

Fair and impartial courts are vital to our democracy, and at Lambda Legal we take the fight for fair courts seriously. Through our Courting Justice project, we continue to work on several levels. While the Supreme Court often steals the limelight, other federal and state judicial nominations are also important. (Remember only 60 or so cases are decided by the Supreme Court every year while thousands terminate at lower federal courts; additionally state courts have the final say in many matters affecting LGBT people and those with HIV.)

Lambda Legal has taken an active role in speaking out about nominations in the past few years, sometimes opposing candidates and other times pushing Congress to ask tough questions of nominees. Most recently we submitted questions to Senator Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vermont) concerning the nomination of Fifth Circuit nominee Leslie Southwick. At issue for us was a ruling Southwick joined saying a mother’s bisexuality could be a factor in a custody lawsuit. A few of our questions made it word for word into the public record, and although Southwick’s fate is still unclear, we are confident that our voice made a difference.

As we continue to lay the groundwork for fair courts in the nominations process, we are equally committed to helping people understand why courts matter and how decisions at every level affect people’s lives. Lambda Legal’s “Life Without Fair Courts,” comic strip series offers a surreal take on what life would be like without certain precedent-setting decisions. We’re also running an illustration contest where we’ve asked people to give us their take on “Life Without Fair Courts.”

We hope the comics will make people laugh, but more importantly, we hope they deliver the message that fair courts are a crucial component of our democracy and often the last bastion of hope for those who’ve been denied fundamental rights.

We know what it means to support “fair and independent courts.” It does not mean that the LGBT community will win every court battle or that judges will always agree with our positions. What it does mean is that the Supreme Court and every other court in our country must uphold our Constitution for all people. Our courts must hear all voices and protect the rights of everyone, regardless of whether the people seeking their protection are in the majority or the minority.

Another Pride season has arrived and there is so much to celebrate.  Legislatures across the country are enacting state anti-discrimination statutes and laws to provide legal protections to people in same-sex relationships. 

So far, 20 states have laws that expressly prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and 12 expressly prohibit gender identity discrimination. There is now only one state where same-sex couples can legally marry, but an additional nine states where many legal protections are available through civil unions or domestic partnerships. Government officials in two states have also said they will honor valid marriages of same-sex couples from other states or countries.

What is most amazing about the legal protections for same-sex relationships is that none of them existed just seven years ago.  Lambda Legal’s groundbreaking litigation helped to secure and set the stage for these remarkable advances.  Together with our partners, we are moving history forward — and moving quickly.

We are proud, but there are still plenty of challenges ahead to keep us fired up.  There are still more states that do not have specific laws against LGBT discrimination than states that do, and many more states where there are no protections for people in same-sex relationships.  LGBT people and people with HIV face discrimination and legal barriers in other parts of their lives, whether they are raising children, attending school, seeking health care, serving in the military or buying a home. 

Good laws are vital but they are not the end of the story.  They are the tools we use to protect people and fight for our real goal — full equality.

For example, Lambda Legal recently filed a lawsuit against Countrywide, the self described “America’s #1 home loan lender,” on behalf of a lesbian couple.  When Laura Watts moved in with Adola DeWolf, they filled out the papers to add Watts’ name to the mortgage.  The mortgage company told them that it would not recognize them as a family and then sought full repayment of the loan.  It turned out that Countrywide was not on their side, but Lambda Legal was.  We are suing the mortgage company for discrimination under the federal Equal Credit Opportunity Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of marital status. 

I have been part of the LGBT civil rights movement long enough to remember early Pride marches when we had none of the laws we have today.  When we first marched, there were no state laws prohibiting discrimination against lesbians and gay men, and no laws that protected transgender people.  We barely even imagined, then, that our relationships and families would be recognized under the law and that there would be any state where we could legally marry.  The world has changed — and we changed it by showing our pride, making our case in the courts and making our lives visible.   

And while some of us have been to many Pride events, each year is the first time for many others.  Young and old people who are just coming out; family members who join their LGBT children, sisters or brothers for the first time; transgender people who are transitioning; people who travel to a new place to feel safe; friends, advocates and allies who come to show their support — there are thousands of stories and reasons why people come to Pride.  When we all come together, we make change happen.

Happy Pride, from all of us at Lambda Legal to you.  We have a lot to make us proud, but we have a lot more work to do.  Come out, speak up, get active, create change, have fun.  We hope to see you there!

May 1 marks the official celebration of workers in many parts of the world, but this year we’ve set aside another day in May to call attention to workplace issues in America. The date is May 15, and the event is Clock In for Equality, the first-ever national day of action to support workplace fairness for lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, transgender people and people living with HIV. Thousands of people across the country will take part.

Lambda Legal is coordinating the national effort and hosting seven flagship events around the country. Staff and our partner organizations will be at the State Capitol in Atlanta, the GLBT Chamber of Commerce in Dallas, DowAgrosciences in Indianapolis, the UCLA Labor Center in Los Angeles and other key locations. We have also signed up over 170 groups and 1,200 individuals, representing LGBT and HIV-affected people and allies in every state, to stand up for workplace fairness on May 15, even if simply by wearing a button or sticker to work.

By acting together, we will educate people about the harassment and discrimination LGBT people and people with HIV still face at work. We will activate people to fight for the rights of LGBT and HIV-affected workers. And we will increase support for efforts to win legal protections for LGBT employees.

Clock In for Equality could not be coming at a better time.

A few weeks ago, lawmakers re-introduced the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), and many people are busy lobbying in earnest to finally pass a national law that would protect people from discrimination in the workplace based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Some groups will coordinate their Clock In events around ENDA activism.

While the battle for ENDA will likely proceed throughout the summer, there is action right now in a handful of states. Legislatures in Oregon, Iowa and Colorado recently passed antidiscrimination laws that include both sexual orientation and gender identity. If all are signed into law as expected, 20 states plus the District of Columbia will now protect people from sexual orientation discrimination and 12 from gender identity discrimination. Those are good numbers, but they don’t adequately represent the 80 percent (or more, depending on which survey numbers you take) of Americans who believe that gay and lesbian people should be treated fairly in the workplace.

Furthermore, even in states that do protect LGBT workers, problems can still surface. Lambda Legal recently filed a case on behalf of two firefighters and a 911 dispatcher in Bellevue, Washington, who were denied family benefits for their same-sex domestic partners. While Washington State last year passed an antidiscrimination law protecting LGBT workers, the city of Bellevue has resisted offering valuable family benefits to its gay and lesbian employees. Because different-sex married employees receive family benefits as a matter of course, they are actually receiving better pay for exactly the same work. That’s discrimination any way you cut it.

We’re confident that city officials will reach the same conclusion, and our plaintiffs will be at Lambda Legal’s Clock In for Equality event in Seattle to drive home the point. One of the plaintiffs, Larry deGroen, will speak about how betrayed he felt when the city made him work overtime, unpaid, to make up for the one day of work he missed to attend his partner’s father’s funeral — a day that would have been granted as bereavement leave for any of his married co-workers.

“I’ve spent over 10 years fighting fires and doing my best to save lives as a paramedic for the city,” deGroen says. “But I felt like all that meant nothing when I was penalized for being with my partner in his time of need.”

That’s not fair — but unfortunately it’s not uncommon. That’s why we’re asking people to take a day to help us raise awareness about workplace discrimination and how we can work together to combat it. The date is May 15, and the event is Clock In for Equality. Please consider joining us.

When Gay Men’s Health Crisis (GMHC) opened its doors 25 years ago, gay men were dying at alarming rates from what in a few months would be known worldwide as Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, or AIDS. It was a devastating time for our community, and we were fortunate to have an organization respond so quickly with information, support and advocacy for all of us who were being increasingly affected by the disease.

As someone who lived through those terrifying early years, I remember the leading role GMHC took in our communities on behalf of people with HIV. I was proud to collaborate with the organization when I came on board as executive director of Lambda Legal 15 years ago and am now proud to honor GMHC for its quarter century of service to our communities next month at Lambda Legal’s 2007 Liberty Awards ceremony in New York City. 

Lambda Legal’s work on behalf of people living with HIV predates my tenure with the organization. We won the first HIV discrimination lawsuit in the nation, and early on we helped force hospitals to treat people with HIV. We also played a key role in major U.S. Supreme Court cases interpreting the Americans with Disabilities Act, which protects people with HIV from discrimination.

Thanks to HIV testing, antiretroviral drugs, better HIV prevention and education services and stronger laws, life today can be better for people living with and affected by HIV. But I fear these advances may have made us a bit complacent — and prematurely at that. In its third decade, HIV continues to have devastating effects nationwide, not to mention the numerous other places around the world that have been ravaged by the epidemic.

Among people living with HIV in the United States, more than 45 percent are men who have sex with men, and the disease is having a particularly serious impact on black gay men and young communities of color. Despite the availability of treatments, an estimated 500,000 people with HIV in this country are not in regular care, primarily because they lack health insurance. And while there are some confidentiality protections and antidiscrimination laws, LGBT people and others affected by HIV continue to face discrimination in the workplace, denial of health care and other services, barriers to parenting and reproductive health and violation of privacy rights, among other things.

At Lambda Legal we continue to address these difficulties through litigation — our current case challenging the U.S. State Department’s ban on Foreign Service applicants with HIV, for example. We also do a great deal of policy advocacy, closely aligned as always with service organizations like GMHC. Right now, for instance, we are working with a number of national and local HIV and health organizations to make sure the new testing guidelines issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention don’t violate people’s confidentiality or curtail access to important counseling services.

Over the years we’ve seen how homophobia remains a serious barrier to HIV prevention and treatment, sound public policy and antidiscrimination efforts. We’ve also learned that discrimination against people with HIV undermines the rights of all LGBT people. In other words, we are all living with and affected by HIV, and we need to come together once more to combat the crushing effects of this disease.

Which brings me to another important anniversary this spring: the 20th anniversary of ACT UP (AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power). While most of the organization has been quiet for more than a decade, founder Larry Kramer revived it a couple of weeks ago with protests in New York and San Francisco. On Wall Street — the site of ACT UP’s first demonstration in 1987 — people shouted “Heath care for all!” They demanded lower drug costs and expansion of services for people with HIV. There was even a “die-in,” where people lay down amid body bags and some were arrested.

It’s great to see the fighting spirit and anger of the eighties coming alive again. What’s tragic is that the fight itself feels all too familiar.

The governor of Utah did a dangerous thing last week. He signed a bill into law that would allow schools throughout the state to ban gay-straight alliances if they do not “maintain the boundaries of socially appropriate behavior.”

The extremist lawmakers who’d backed the bill claim its regulations will apply equally to all student clubs. This is as disingenuous as it is homophobic. Debating the bill over the past month or so, lawmakers dubbed it the “gay clubs bill,” and used it to codify their baseless concerns that gay-straight alliances (GSAs) “indoctrinate” helpless youth into the “gay lifestyle.” And while the new rules are indeed written to apply to all clubs, everybody knows that requirements like obtaining parental permission to join a club or submitting written materials to the principal for review mean quite a different thing when you’re comparing a GSA with, say, a chess club.

A school district rarely monitors a chess club to see if it’s maintaining “boundaries of socially appropriate behavior,” but this kind of scrutiny is routine for GSAs. It’s why we’ve spent more than a decade fighting for the rights of gay clubs. In fact, one of Lambda Legal’s earliest GSA cases involved the first gay student club in the state of Utah, formed in 1995 at a Salt Lake City school. We argued that under the federal Equal Access Act, schools that receive federal funding and allow at least one after-school club to meet and use the school’s facilities may not deny any student club the same treatment based on the content of what they want to discuss.

The Salt Lake City school district knew we were right, but instead of simply letting the GSA meet, it banned all noncurricular student clubs. Talk about cutting off your nose… There were more lawsuits and protests by students and parents, and finally in 2000, the district relented, allowing all clubs to meet, including the GSA. Two years ago, the controversy surfaced again when students at a school in conservative Utah County formed a GSA. The school board navigated around the Equal Access Act by requiring parental permission before students could join any student club. It’s no surprise that the GSA stalled out under such a tough restriction — and that restriction is now state law.

Today there are about a dozen GSAs in the state of Utah. Think about that: roughly 12 gay clubs in the entire state. Even if each club has 10 active members (which they all don’t), we’re still talking about 120 people out of 2.5 million. So state lawmakers cannot be proud: they’ve targeted the 120 or so young people under their wings who are some of the most in need of their protection.

It is too soon to tell how Utah’s new law, if enforced against GSAs as its proponents hope it will be, will fare under the Equal Access Act. But Lambda Legal has a strong track record of winning GSA cases, and we’ve got the momentum on our side. When our attorneys started litigating these cases, there were only a handful of gay student clubs around the country. Today, with the right to form gay student clubs firmly established, there are more than 3,200 GSAs registered with the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN).

Twelve of those GSAs are in Utah — and you can bet we’ll do everything we can to make sure they stay there, even in the face of this shameful new law.

There’s no doubt about it: Mary Cheney will soon be one of the most renowned gay parents in America. First there was the fanfare over her pregnancy announcement. People could not resist pointing out the hypocrisy of the vice president’s daughter who had worked vigorously for the Bush-Cheney reelection campaign with its anti-gay-family platform while all along she was pining to start her own “nontraditional” family?

Then last week, Mary was forced to come out again. This time she felt compelled to defend her father’s right not to respond publicly to reporters or to conservative extremists who have condemned her pregnancy — and to defend her right to have this child. On this last point, we couldn’t agree more.

“Every piece of remotely responsible research that has been done in the last 20 years on this issue has shown there is no difference between children who are raised by same-sex parents and children who are raised by opposite-sex parents,” she told the audience gathered for a panel at Barnard College. “What matters is that children are raised in a stable, loving environment.”

But the press, bloggers and information pushers picked up on an earlier comment she’d made about her baby not being a political statement, which shifted the public commentary back to her own political hypocrisy and to her father’s belligerence with reporters. Before long, the entire point about same-sex couples raising children was largely forgotten.

That’s what bothers me most about the whole Mary thing. When was the last time gay parenting became the subject of national discussion? When was the last time we had a real opportunity to show the country that yes, gay and lesbian people are having children, and that we need to make sure our children are protected? These protections become increasingly important for people without rich parents or political connections, whatever ideological stripe they bear.

At Lambda Legal, we hear from people all over the country who have experienced difficulty in their efforts to become parents. Whether it’s the financial burden of creating numerous legal documents that “prove” parental rights or barriers in the adoption or conception process, gay and lesbian parents are forced to jump through bureaucratic hoops that other people couldn’t imagine. And those are the best circumstances, when there’s no outright discrimination. Remember there are still states that prohibit gay people from adopting and many more that don’t recognize second-parent adoptions, prohibiting many gay people from legal relationships with the children they’re raising.

This week we’re filing papers in our case on behalf of Lupita Benitez, who was denied insemination services at a California clinic because she is a lesbian. Her former doctors are conservative Christians who claimed their religious beliefs gave them the right to withhold care. Well into the process, Benitez was forced to look elsewhere to complete the procedure, at great financial cost and personal devastation.

Meanwhile in Florida, we’re representing a gay man who after finding a surrogate mother was refused treatment at a fertility clinic. The clinic erroneously claimed that the Food and Drug Association guidelines on anonymous sperm donations, which suggest refusing donations from men who have had sex with men in the past five years, prevented it from performing the procedure, even though our client is hardly anonymous.

In another recent parenting case, we defended a lesbian couple in Indiana who had fostered a child since she was one day old, but when they tried to adopt her several months later a judge ordered the state to find a married man and woman to adopt the child. We prevailed, scoring a solid precedent for Indiana’s joint adoption, and the couple got to keep their child.

These are just a few examples of the kind of discrimination gay and lesbian would-be parents face every day. They may not be the offspring of the vice president or have the kind of political baggage that makes great headlines, but their families are no less important. So for the time being, let’s say enough about Mary and hear more about all of those parents who are providing “stable, loving environments” for their children.