Couple’s Love Inspires A More Equal Montana

By Caitlin Copple

This Valentine’s Day season, many Montanans are blushing about their current crush or building a relationship with that special someone. For same-sex couples here, the butterflies and bliss of true love is often met with a cold, hard legal reality. Only six states and the District of Columbia offer equal marriage rights, and Montana is not one of them. Groups like ACLU of Montana, a recent grantee of The Advocacy Fund at Pride Foundation, are trying to change that by taking a relationship recognition lawsuit to the state Supreme Court.

Kellie, Denise and Morrgan

One of the couples in the ACLU case is Kellie and Denise. They live in Laurel, population roughly 7,000, about 20 miles west of Billings. They are one of six couples who are plaintiffs in the ACLU’s current Guggenheim v. Montana case currently before the state Supreme Court.

Kellie and Denise have been together for 11 years. They’ve raised Kellie’s two children from a previous marriage, and recently jointly adopted Kellie’s 5-year-old nephew, Morrgan. Denise, 47, is a middle school science teacher and a basketball coach. Kellie, 48, worked for many years at a juvenile detention center, but is now on disability because she suffers from a rare brain condition that has required 56 brain surgeries and over 300 spinal taps over the past decade.

Heterosexual married state employees automatically receive 10 days of bereavement leave when a family member or in-law dies, but Denise was denied bereavement leave by her employer when Kellie’s father died last April. This was despite the fact that the couple had a private commitment ceremony in 2001, witnessed by about 30 friends and family members present. They are just like most Montanans – they are active at church, and they love to travel, camp, and fish. Unlike most Montanans, their relationship doesn’t “count” according to state and federal law.

Kellie credits Denise standing by her for being able to make it through her health problems: “She never left me when I was so sick,” she says. “I endure her relentless love of sports and she endures my need for dogs. I love her to infinity and beyond!”

“Kellie and Denise have been incredibly helpful with their participation in Fair is Fair events,” said the ACLU’s LGBT organizer Liz Welch, who is based in Billings. “One of the most touching things to watch is the tenderness and protectiveness they have for each other while at these public events. I admire these two and their affectionate, playful relationship all the more because of the obstacles I know they have had to overcome.”

Guggenheim v. Montana is currently before the Montana Supreme Court. Both sides have submitted briefs and multiple amicus briefs have also been filed in support of both side of the case. Supporting amicus are 65 Montana Religious Leaders, American Psychological Association, Legal Voice, Montana Human Rights Network and Gary J. Gates and MV Lee Badgett. According to Welch, the ACLU expects a court date to be set in the very near future.

Here’s to hoping this is the last Valentine’s Day Montana’s same-sex couples spend being treated unfairly under the law.

To keep updated on the case, as well as other projects of the ACLU of Montana, please visit:www.fairisfairmontana.org or email lwelch@acluofmontana.org to volunteer or sign a petition in support of the lawsuit.

Caitlin Copple is the Montana Regional Development Organizer for the Pride Foundation. Feel free to email her at Caitlin@pridefoundation.org with blog ideas or to volunteer.This story first appeared in Pride Foundation’s Blog.

ACLU Asks Montana Supreme Court to Grant Legal Protection to Same Sex Couples (dgsma.wordpress.com)
More On Montana Domestic Partnerships Appeal (dgsma.wordpress.com)
Montana’s Last Best Chance (dgsma.wordpress.com)
Pride Foundation: Big Plans for Montana (dgsma.wordpress.com)
Domestic Partnerships: Montana Tries Another Door (bilerico.com)
Seven Gay Couples Sue State of Montana For Equal Protections (towleroad.com)

Love For All, Marriage For Some

Feb14 by D Gregory Smith

Click to enlarge

Prop 8 Ruling: Now What?

Feb7 by D Gregory Smith

You’ve probably heard about the decision by the Ninth Circuit invalidating Proposition 8. But if you’re hungry for more information, I want to simplify your search a bit.

I’ve read a lot of articles today about the decision, and I think Phil Reese of the Washington Blade has the best broad, yet in-depth analysis. And he does it without getting too wonky. Excerpt:

Image via Wikipedia

In a two-to-one decision, a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional in a federal case challenging California’s marriage ban.

The opinion, authored by Judge Stephen Reinhardt, affirms Judge Vaughn Walker’s 2010 ruling that the law passed by California voters at the ballot violates the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution because it “serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples.”

The court also rejected the argument that Judge Walker should have recused himself from the case because of his sexual orientation and relationship status.

Legal experts began to weigh in on the meaning of the decision immediately.

“I think the biggest story is how narrow [the majority decision] really is,” Douglas NeJaime, associate professor at Loyola Law School, Los Angeles, told the Blade Tuesday. “Which in some ways I think that might disappoint some folks who were hoping it would expand to more states, but I think in terms of setting it up for a Supreme Court review — either the Supreme Court not taking it, or approving it — for supporters of same-sex marriage, this is actually the most strategically sound way for the case to proceed.”

Legal experts agree that the decision represents a big win for same-sex couples in California, even though it was a narrow decision limited to California. The Ninth Circuit encompasses multiple Western states and some Prop 8 opponents had hoped the court’s decision would impact a wider swath of the country.

He also goes in to the likely next steps, which I find an excellent resource for those of us who wonder what kind of impact this will have across the country.

Read the full article here.

Ninth Circuit Court Of Appeals Rules Prop 8 Unconstitutional (lezgetreal.com)
Celebs Tweet Their Support for Prop 8 Ruling! (ecorazzi.com)

Waiting For Equality

Feb3 by D Gregory Smith

From Pride Foundation’s Blog:

By Amy White on Wednesday, February 1st, 2012 at 9:00 pm

The Big Vote: Pride Foundation's Kris Hermanns and Doug Exworthy surrounded by marriage equality supporters

Hundreds of marriage equality supporters, some driving for hours to get to Olympia, filled the Washington State Senate Gallery Wednesday night to witness the critical Senate vote that brings Washington closer to marriage equality. Supporters were not disappointed. The bill passed in the Senate 28-21.

“This is a huge win and historic day for all Washingtonians,” said Kris Hermanns, Pride Foundation’s Executive Director. “This has been a long-time coming and reflects decades of hard work and courageous leadership. Yet, we know that this is just the first step towards recognizing the full equality, humanity, and dignity of LGBTQ people and families in our state. We have much more work in the coming months to ensure that today’s vote creates permanent equality. ”

Though the bill is expected to pass in the House, and Governor Gregoire has committed to signing the bill, opponents of marriage equality – supported heavily by out of state organizations – are expected to collect enough signatures to force an anti-equality initiative for the November ballot that would seek to reverse the Marriage Equality bill.

Your support will be needed to ensure that Washington becomes the 7th state to allow loving and committed same-sex couples can marry. In the coming months, there will be lots of opportunities to get involved.

Right now, you can make sure you and your friends are following Pride Foundation page on Facebook and Twitter. You can sign-up to the Washington United for Marriage Campaign to share your story on why you support marriage equality. You can also join us for Lobby Day on February 16 in Olympia. Lobby Day will be the chance to thank legislators for their ongoing support and to gain further allies for the equality movement. Contact Christina at christina@pridefoundation.org to get involved today.

Making Change: (L-R) Kris Hermanns, Rep. Jamie Pedersen, Sen. Ed Murray, Doug Exworthy

Together we make make marriage equality magic!

Gay Senator Ed Murray Speaks and Washington Senate Votes to Pass Marriage Equality Bill: VIDEO (towleroad.com)
BREAKING: Washington State Senate Passes Marriage Equality (thinkprogress.org)
N.Y. Times Reports Incorrectly on Catholic Opposition to Marriage Equality (newwaysministryblog.wordpress.com)
Marriage Equality: Way To Go Washington State! (fishandbicycles.com)

Spokesman-Review Opinion: “Gays Deserve Same Rights”

Jan11 by D Gregory Smith

Image via Wikipedia

In Spokane’s Spokesman-Review, the marriage equality issue in Washington State is given some real-life background for its readers: the story of a couple who’d like to be legally married. Governor Chris Gregoire has recently announced her support for marriage equality in Washington- a state that has had domestic partnerships for same-sex couples in place since 2007. Eastern Washington- traditionally more conservative than the Sound Side- is the audience served by the Spokesman Review, and a great place to see this rational and reasonable opinion piece getting such great play. Some Washington Republican legislators have recently announced their support as well. I think it’s looking better and better every day to expect marriage equality to pass the Washington legislature this year.

The times, they are a-changin’. Warms my heart.

Here’s a taste of the story- with the money quote in bold:

Flannery doesn’t expect churches to change their stances on same-sex marriage, but he does believe government should treat everyone equally.

So does Susan Hammond, a Spokane nurse. Late Wednesday night, after Gregoire’s speech, Hammond posted on Facebook a letter to her legislators. She invited her friends to forward it as well.

She wrote, “I am counting on your leadership and humanity to do the right thing so that my young adult son, who is gay, can live in a society that affirms who he is and allows him the same right his brothers already have: to marry the person of his choice.”

The opposition to same-sex marriage baffles Hammond. “I honestly don’t get it,” she says.

After all, the strongest argument against changing the law is that marriage has traditionally been defined as being between a man and a woman. But that’s like using a long-standing definition of slavery as an argument against emancipation.

I’m making that my facebook status today.

Full story here.

Republicans, Local Governments Endorse Marriage Equality Effort In Washington State (thinkprogress.org)
POLL: Independents, Moderates Support Marriage Equality In Washington State (thinkprogress.org)
More Evidence That Washington Voters Will Uphold Marriage Equality (slog.thestranger.com)
Editorial: Gov. Gregoire Comes Around on Same-Sex Marriage (nytimes.com)
Gregoire announces historic legislation for marriage equality in Washington state (ballardnewstribune.com)
Republican Sen. Steve Litzow Announces Support for Washington’s Marriage Equality Bill (pamshouseblend.firedoglake.com)
WA Gov. Chris Gregoire will introduce marriage equality bill (dailykos.com)

New Hampshire GOP’s On The Gays

Jan8 by D Gregory Smith

Didn’t watch the New Hampshire Debate?

Yeah, me neither. I thoroughly enjoyed the Twitterbate, though- the feeds of my Tweeps were hilarious. I was very busy watching reruns of The Big Bang Theory. But don’t think me completely irresponsible- I knew there would be some good summaries this morning. Here’s one of them.

Think Progress has compiled all of the candidates statements regarding LGBT persons/issues/paranoid persecution complexes into a single video. Fascinating viewing- especially if you’re a psychologist:

GOP Debate: Why is ‘Gay Marriage’ always first on the agenda? (bazaardaily.com)
GOP Candidates Condemn Same-Sex Marriage In New Hampshire Debate (thinkprogress.org)
Rick Santorum Slipping In New Hampshire Poll, Bashing Gay Marriage Hurting Conservative Candidate (dekerivers.wordpress.com)
Republican Debate: Republicans Sharpen Knives As New Hampshire Primary Looms (huffingtonpost.com)
Five things learned from GOP debate (politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com)

ACLU Asks Montana Supreme Court to Grant Legal Protection to Same Sex Couples

Nov14 by D Gregory Smith

Domestic partnership recognition is necessary to uphold Montana Constitution’s right to fair treatment for all

The American Civil Liberties Union today filed its appeal of a Montana District Court decision dismissing the same-sex domestic partnership case, Donaldson and Guggenheim v. State of Montana, to the Montana Supreme Court. The appeal argues that the Montana Constitution guarantees fair and equal treatment to all people, including gay and lesbian couples.

“This case is about treating people fairly and humanely,” said plaintiff Jan Donaldson, a Helena nurse who has been with her partner, pediatric neurologist Mary Anne Guggenheim, for 27 years. “Mary Anne and I have appreciated the support we’ve received from fellow Montanans who understand that all families need to be able to take care of each other. We just want the dignity of having our committed partnership recognized as worthy of those legal protections.”

U.S. Census numbers released over the summer show 2,295 Montana same-sex households. Without recognition of domestic partnerships, these couples are vulnerable when they need bereavement leave, face the illness or death of their partner or are presented with any other situation in which their lack of legally recognized status puts them in a position where a married husband or wife would be protected.

The plaintiffs in the case have faced just this kind of discrimination. When Guggenheim had a hip replacement, the doctor’s office staff would not speak to Donaldson without a release. Kellie Gibson of Laurel was denied bereavement leave when her partner Denise’s father died. Mary Leslie of Bozeman lost her home because she was ineligible for worker’s compensation death benefits when her partner was killed in an accident.

“Anyone who works and pays taxes should be treated equally and fairly by our state. When two people are in a committed relationship, they should be eligible for benefits, like filing a joint tax return, regardless of whether they are a same-sex couple or a different-sex couple,” said Jennifer Giuttari, interim legal director for the ACLU of Montana.

Plaintiffs in the case Donaldson and Guggenheim v. State of Montana are Mary Anne Guggenheim and Jan Donaldson of Helena, Stacey Haugland and Mary Leslie of Bozeman, Mike Long and Rich Parker of Bozeman, MJ Williams and Nancy Owens of Basin, Rick Wagner and Gary Stallings of Butte and Denise Boettcher and Kellie Gibson of Laurel.

In addition to Giuttari, the couples are represented by Elizabeth Gill, a staff attorney with the ACLU Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Project; James Goetz and Ben Alke of the Bozeman, MT, law firm Goetz, Gallik & Baldwin P.C.; Betsy Griffing; and Ruth Borenstein and Neil Perry of the law firm Morrison & Foerster LLP.

Additional information about the case, biographies of the plaintiffs and links to videos of the plaintiffs can be found at www.aclumontana.org and www.aclu.org/mtpartnerships.

U.S. Marriage Maps

Oct6 by D Gregory Smith

Click map to enlarge- and for source.

Interesting, huh?

Jesus Left Room For Same Sex Marriage- And New York Moved In

Jul27 by D Gregory Smith

Kathy gives us more food for though in her journey to counter Christianists with common sense, biblical scholarship and (gasp) love:

What if clever, see-into-the-future Jesus, right there in Matthew 19, were saying to the disciples, “There are some people that do not fit into your husband/wife understanding of marriage, nor will they in the future. There will be some who cannot be confined by that one man + one woman dynamic, nor is this model given for them.”

“Don’t be messin’ with the Biblical model of marriage,” you may caution me. “Right there in Genesis 2:24 it says ‘a man shall leave his father and mother and be united to his wife.’ Right there.” Well, the Hebrew word translated to “shall” in many translations is best translated in the imperfect tense as “will”. Some men will leave father and mother and join with a woman. And, according to Jesus, some will not fit the mold. For them, the model will not work.

The term “Biblical Marriage” in itself is interesting. Shelves in Christian bookstores are filledwith advice instructing us how to live out the perfect “Biblical marriage”. I suggest that our contemporary norm for marriage is the cultural adaptation of Biblical principles that have evolved over the past two centuries. Do I want a marriage mimicking that of the average woman of Jesus day (or prior)? Do I, as a woman, want to be treated as property, told who to marry or be one of many in a stable of cuties? No.

Actually, hell no.

Read it all here.

A Thought On Prop 8 and Gender

Jul22 by D Gregory Smith

My partner finds all sorts of things that he brings to my attention every day- just one of the many reasons I love him. This came up yesterday….

From Metafilter (edited for ease of reading):

“Proposition 8 Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry:

Initiative Constitutional Amendment SECTION I. Title
This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “California Marriage Protection Act.”
SECTION 2. Article I. Section 7.5 is added to the California Constitution, to read: Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

The biggest problem is that laws like the California initiative will make the courts decide who is male and who is female — and all available decision criteria create unavoidable miscarriages of justice that will, or should, dismay initiative proponents.

You’re probably thinking, about now, that I’m going to exaggerate the sex-definitional 1 problem: Probably, you and everyone you know is unambiguously male or female — or at least has always believed himself or herself to be so, and nobody’s challenged that, and nobody’s likely to.

That’s true, absolutely: Only maybe one live birth in 100 has some non-standard sex anatomy, and genetic anomalies are slightly rarer than that.

However, let’s talk about those 1-in-100 or 1-in-1000 cases — because those could be you, or your aunt, or your best friend — and because our system of law has to deal with 1-in-1000 situations, too.