Archive
Public Support for Marriage for Same-sex Couples by State
Public Support for Marriage for Same-sex Couples by State
Source: Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law (UCLA)
By the end of 2012, 12 states and the District of Columbia had support for same-sex marriage at or above 50%. Of these 12 states, all currently perform marriages, civil unions, or domestic partnerships for same-sex couples. Thirteen additional states presently are within 5 percentage points of majority support. In the last eight years, every state has increased in its support for marriage for same-sex couples with an average increase of 13.6%. If present public opinion trends continue, another 8 states will be above 50% support by the end of 2014.
Growing Support for Gay Marriage: Changed Minds and Changing Demographics
Growing Support for Gay Marriage: Changed Minds and Changing Demographics
Source: Pew Research Center for the People & the Press
The rise in support for same-sex marriage over the past decade is among the largest changes in opinion on any policy issue over this time period. A new national survey finds that much of the shift is attributable to the arrival of a large cohort of young adults – the Millennial generation – who are far more open to gay rights than previous generations. Equally important, however, is that 14% of all Americans – and 28% of gay marriage supporters – say they have changed their minds on this issue in favor of gay marriage.
The long-term shift in the public’s views about same-sex marriage is unambiguous. Polling conducted in 2003 found most Americans (58%) opposed to allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally, and just a third (33%) in favor. The new survey by the Pew Research Center, conducted March 13-17, 2013 among 1,501 adults nationwide, confirms that these figures have crossed, with 49% supporting same-sex marriage, and 44% opposed.
“We are dropping the ball,” according to Campus Pride’s landmark report on the experiences of LGBTQ college athletes
“We are dropping the ball,” according to Campus Pride’s landmark report on the experiences of LGBTQ college athletes
Source: Campus Pride
Campus Pride, the nation’s leading educational organization for student leaders and campus groups working to create safer college environments for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning (LGBTQ) students, reissued the Campus Pride 2012 LGBTQ National College Athlete Report in light of recent developments in college athletics and the ongoing, pervasive LGBT harassment impacting sports culture.
Campus Pride released the national research in November 2012 with limited fanfare and, since then, the organization has expressed concern over national efforts to “rubber stamp” LGBTQ allies through national sports programs and on college campuses. “What we need is systemic change,” said Shane Windmeyer, Campus Pride Executive Director. “Videos and statements by teams about being an ally are only surface level marketing efforts and create general awareness. Right now, we are dropping the ball when it comes to being informed by research, influencing organization change and decision-making.”
Developmental Trends in Peer Victimization and Emotional Distress in LGB and Heterosexual Youth
Developmental Trends in Peer Victimization and Emotional Distress in LGB and Heterosexual Youth
Source: Pediatrics
OBJECTIVES: This study had 2 objectives: Our first objective was to provide the first evidence of developmental trends in victimization rates for lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB)- and heterosexual-identified youth, both in absolute and relative terms, and to examine differences by gender. Our second objective was to examine links between victimization, sexual identity, and later emotional distress.
METHODS: Data are from a nationally representative prospective cohort study of youth in England were collected annually between 2004 and 2010. Our final analytic dataset includes 4135 participants with data at all 7 waves; 4.5% (n = 187) identified as LGB. Analyses included hierarchical linear modeling, propensity score matching, and structural equation modeling.
RESULTS: LGB victimization rates decreased in absolute terms. However, trends in relative rates were more nuanced: Gay/bisexual-identified boys became more likely to be victimized compared with heterosexual-identified boys (wave 1: odds ratio [OR] = 1.78, P = .011; wave 7: OR = 3.95, P = .001), whereas relative rates among girls approached parity (wave 1: OR = 1.95, P = .001; wave 7: OR = 1.18, P = .689), suggesting different LGB–heterosexual relative victimization rate trends for boys and girls. Early victimization and emotional distress explained about 50% of later LGB–heterosexual emotional distress disparities for both boys and girls (each P < .015).
CONCLUSIONS: Victimization of LGB youth decreases in absolute, but not necessarily relative, terms. The findings suggest that addressing LGB victimization during adolescence is critical to reducing LGB–heterosexual emotional distress disparities but additional support may be necessary to fully eliminate these disparities.
Municipal Equality Index
Municipal Equality Index
Source: Human Rights Campaign
The Municipal Equality Index (MEI), the first ever rating system of LGBT inclusion in municipal law, finds that while many U.S. cities lag behind in protections for LGBT people, some of the most LGBT-friendly policies in the country have been innovated and implemented at the municipal level, including in states with laws that are unfriendly to the LGBT community.
The MEI rates cities based on 47 criteria falling under six broad categories: non-discrimination laws; relationship recognition; the municipality’s employment practices; inclusiveness of city services; law enforcement; and municipal leadership. Key findings from the MEI create a snapshot of LGBT equality in 137 municipalities of varying sizes drawn from every state in the nation – these include the 50 state capitals, the 50 most populous cities in the country, and the 25 large, 25 mid-size, and 25 small municipalities with the highest proportion of same-sex couples. Seattle and other 100-point cities serve as shining examples of LGBT inclusivity, with excellent policies ranging from non-discrimination laws, equal employee benefits, and cutting-edge city services.
Adolescents with Lesbian Mothers Describe Their Own Lives
Adolescents with Lesbian Mothers Describe Their Own Lives (PDF)
Source: Journal of Homosexuality (via Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law)
Empirical research on the everyday life experiences of adolescents reared by lesbian mothers is limited. The current study gathered self-report descriptive data from 78 adolescents enrolled in the largest, longest-running, prospective longitudinal study of planned lesbian families, with a 93% retention rate to date. Results revealed that the 17-year-old adolescents were academically successful in supportive school environments. They had active social networks and close family bonds. Nearly all considered their mothers good role models. The adolescents rated their overall wellbeing an average of 8.14 on a 10-point-maximum scale. The implications of these findings for research and practice are discussed.
CRS — Same Sex Marriages: Legal Issues
Same Sex Marriages: Legal Issues (PDF)
Source: Congressional Research Service (via Federation of American Scientists)
The recognition of same-sex marriages generates debate on both the federal and state levels. Either legislatively or judicially, same-sex marriage is legal in seven states. Other states allow civil unions or domestic partnerships, which may provide similar state-level rights and/or benefits. Many states have statutes or constitutional amendments limiting marriage to one man and one woman. These state-level variations raise questions about the validity of such unions outside the contracted jurisdiction and have bearing on the distribution of federal benefits.
The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), P.L. 104-199, prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriages and allows individual states to refuse to recognize such marriages performed in other states. Section 3 of DOMA requires that for purposes of federal benefit programs, marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman. Lower courts have started addressing DOMA’s constitutionality. On May 31, 2012, the First Circuit became the first federal appellate court to determine DOMA’s constitutionality. The court found that the denial of benefits to same-sex couples residing in a state where they were legally married caused an adverse effect on a historically disadvantaged group. This adverse result, combined with its implications for historical state prerogatives, called for a careful analysis. After conducting a “closer examination” of reasons Congress proffered for denying benefits, the court found these justifications inadequate on equal protection grounds and, therefore, held DOMA unconstitutional. In reaching its narrow decision, the court left unresolved questions regarding whether these couples have a fundamental right to marry or whether states are obligated to recognize such unions. Similarly, on October 18, 2012, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals found DOMA unconstitutional, albeit using a different standard of review. The Second Circuit is the first appellate court to hold that homosexuals are a quasi-suspect class for equal protection purposes warranting intermediate scrutiny of legislation pertaining to their status. It would appear that there is a circuit split as to the appropriate standard of review in determining DOMA’s constitutionality on equal protection grounds, which may make it more likely that the Supreme Court will review one or both of these cases.
Questions regarding same-sex marriages figure prominently in California. After the state’s highest court found that denying same-sex couples the right to marry violated the state constitution, voters approved a constitutional amendment (“Prop 8”) limiting the validity and recognition of “marriages” to heterosexual couples. On February 7, 2012, a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court decision finding Prop 8 violates both the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, inasmuch as voters took away a right from a minority group without justification when they approved Prop 8. In a matter of first impression, the lower court found that Prop 8 deprived same-sex couples of the fundamental right to marry under the Due Process Clause and excluded such couples from state-sponsored marriage while allowing heterosexual couples access in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. While the appellate court affirmed the lower court’s decision, it did so on much narrower grounds based on historical facts specific to California. Therefore, this decision may have little impact on other jurisdictions, making U.S. Supreme Court review less likely.
This report discusses DOMA and legal challenges to it. It reviews legal principles applied to determine the validity of a marriage contracted in another state and surveys the various approaches employed by states to address same-sex marriage. It also examines previous Congressional resolutions proposing a constitutional amendment and limiting federal courts’ jurisdiction to hear or determine any question pertaining to the interpretation of DOMA.
LGBTI: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Intersex Offenders (Selected Resources for Criminal Justice Professionals)
LGBTI: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Intersex Offenders (Selected Resources for Criminal Justice Professionals) (PDF)
Source: National Institute of Corrections
This annotated bibliography has been developed in an effort to provide current and useful information to correctional agencies regarding the safe and respectful management of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) offenders. Relying on a best practices approach, this information will enable corrections staff to make better informed decisions about the safety, security, treatment and care of LGBTI offenders by providing academic, cultural and legal perspectives of the issues that make this group unique.
Surveys conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics indicate that non-heterosexual adult offenders report higher rates of sexual victimization while in custody. Similar surveys in juvenile facilities show even higher rates of sexual victimization among non-heterosexual juvenile offenders. Similarly, a 2009 research report cited findings that transgender offenders experienced sexual victimization at a rate thirteen times higher than a random sampling of offenders in the same facility.
Such evidence indicates that LGBTI offenders are at increased risk for sexual victimization while in custody, and agencies that ignore this may be placing themselves at risk for litigation. Changes in federal and state legislation, court decisions, settlement agreements and the proposed standards under the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) are all factors for consideration in the management of LGBTI offenders in correctional settings. For example, the proposed PREA standards contain requirements for agencies to conduct staff training on effective and respectful communication with LGBTI offenders and to enhance sexual abuse prevention measures that specifically address this population.
We are confident you can obtain these resources either through the Internet, the NIC Information Center, the authors, or by ordering them. We invite contributions to this list, as well as additions submitted material to the NIC Library, such as articles and training resources.
Special Report: 3.4% of U.S. Adults Identify as LGBT
Special Report: 3.4% of U.S. Adults Identify as LGBT
Source: Gallup
The inaugural results of a new Gallup question — posed to more than 120,000 U.S. adults thus far — shows that 3.4% say "yes" when asked if they identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender.
These results are based on responses to the question, "Do you, personally, identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender?" included in 121,290 Gallup Daily tracking interviews conducted between June 1 and Sept. 30, 2012. This is the largest single study of the distribution of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) population in the U.S. on record. By comparison, the General Social Survey, a project of NORC at the University of Chicago, asked a sexual orientation question in its 2008 and 2010 survey of about 2,000 adults in each year. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ National Survey of Family Growth asked a sexual orientation question of about 12,000 young adults aged 18 to 44 in 2002 and of more than 20,000 adults in its 2006-2010 survey. The 3.4% figure is similar to a 3.8% estimate made by one of the authors of this study (Gates), averaging a group of smaller U.S. surveys conducted from 2004 to 2008.
One Year Out: An Assessment of DADT Repeal’s Impact on Military Readiness
One Year Out: An Assessment of DADT Repeal’s Impact on Military Readiness (PDF)
Source: Palm Center
Prior to the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” (DADT) on September 20, 2011, many observers predicted that allowing lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) troops to serve openly would harm the military. This study is the first scholarly effort to assess the accuracy of such predictions about the impact of DADT repeal on military readiness. Our conclusions are based on a consideration of all of the evidence that was available to us at the time our research was conducted, the halfyear period starting six months after repeal and concluding at the one-year mark.
We sought to maximize the likelihood of identifying evidence of damage caused by repeal by pursuing ten separate research strategies, each of which was designed to uncover data indicating that repeal has undermined the military. Our research strategies included outreach to 553 generals and admirals who predicted that repeal would undermine the military, to all major activists and expert opponents of DADT repeal and to 18 watchdog organizations, including opponents and advocates of repeal, who are known for their ability to monitor Pentagon operations. In addition, we conducted in-depth interviews with 18 scholars and practitioners and 62 active-duty heterosexual, lesbian, gay and bisexual troops from every service branch, as well as on-site field observations of four military units. We analyzed relevant media articles published during the research period, administered two surveys and conducted secondary source analysis of surveys independently administered by outside organizations. Our vigorous effort to collect data from opponents of DADT repeal, including anti-repeal generals and admirals, activists, academic experts, service members and watchdog organizations, should sustain confidence in the validity and impartiality of our findings.
Our study team includes distinguished scholars from the US Military Academy, US Air Force Academy, US Naval Academy and US Marine Corps War College, as well as scholars with internationally recognized expertise on the issue of gays in the military. Several members advised the Pentagon’s 2010 DADT working group, and one member led the team that drafted the Defense Department’s plan for implementing DADT repeal.
Challenges for HIV Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis among Men Who Have Sex with Men in the United States
Challenges for HIV Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis among Men Who Have Sex with Men in the United States
Source: PLoS Medicine
Summary Points
+ Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) with anti-retroviral (ARV) medications is partially efficacious for preventing HIV infection among men who have sex with men (MSM) and heterosexuals.
As PrEP becomes available and prescribed for use among MSM a better understanding of willingness to use PrEP and avoidance of condom use are needed so that behavioral programs and counseling may be enhanced for maximum benefit.
+ Targeted messaging will be needed about ARV prophylaxis for various at risk populations, but the general message should be that condoms continue to be the most effective way to prevent HIV transmission through sex and that PrEP is an additional biomedical intervention.
+ As new effective biomedical intervention methods, such as PrEP, become available language about “protected” and “unprotected” sex, which used to exclusively mean condom use, will need to adapt.
Healthcare Equality Index
Healthcare Equality Index
Source: Human Rights Campaign
From press release:
The number of American hospitals striving to treat lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) patients equally and respectfully is on the rise, according to a report released today by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) Foundation at a press conference with U.S. Health & Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius at Howard University Hospital in Washington, DC. Much work remains to be done to end discrimination in America’s healthcare system, but the once invisible issue of LGBT healthcare equity is gaining national prominence, with healthcare facilities committing themselves to offering unbiased care.
…
The report details the results of the most recent Healthcare Equality Index (HEI), an annual survey administered by the Human Rights Campaign Foundation. This year’s survey found a 40 percent increase in rated facilities, which totaled 407 nationwide. It also found an impressive 162 percent increase in the number of facilities achieving the status of “Leader in LGBT Healthcare Equality,” special recognition given to facilities earning a perfect rating by meeting four core criteria for LGBT patient-centered care laid out in the HEI.The HEI helps hospitals assess themselves against established best practices and ensure that they are complying with requirements for non-discrimination. These include a requirement issued last year by The Joint Commission, the largest accrediting body for U.S. hospitals, calling on all accredited facilities to extend non-discrimination protection to LGBT patients.
Over 90 percent of HEI 2012 participants explicitly prohibit discrimination against lesbian, gay and bisexual patients, and 76 percent ban discrimination against transgender patients. Additionally, about 75 percent of respondents have a written policy explicitly granting equal visitation rights to same-sex couples and same-sex parents. This represents a significant increase since the Department of Health and Human Services issued rules in 2011 requiring all hospitals that receive federal Medicare and Medicaid funding – nearly every hospital in America – to protect the visitation rights of LGBT people.
Growing Up LGBT in America: Key Findings
The deck is stacked against young people growing up lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender in America. Official government discrimination or indifference along with social ostracism leaves many teens disaffected and disconnected in their own homes and neighborhoods. With an increase in public awareness about anti-LGBT bullying and harassment and the strikingly high number of LGBT youth who are homeless, in foster care, or living in high-risk situations, it is critical that we get a better understanding of the experiences, needs, and concerns of LGBT youth.HRC’s report, Growing Up LGBT in America, is a groundbreaking survey of more than 10,000 LGBT-identified youth ages 13-17. It provides a stark picture of the difficulties they face — the impact on their well-being is profound, however these youth are quite resilient. They find safe havens among their peers, online and in their schools. They remain optimistic and believe things will get better. Nevertheless, the findings are a call to action for all adults who want ensure that young people can thrive.
What Does Bristol Palin Have to Do with Same-Sex Marriage?
What Does Bristol Palin Have to Do with Same-Sex Marriage?
This article considers how anxiety about the economy, class standing, and the family effect the same-sex marriage debate. It starts with the nature of family change. The middle class, in urban areas and the coasts, has adjusted to the long-term change in family roles and is doing well financially and culturally, with divorce and non-marital birth rates comparable to those of the mid-1960s — before the sexual revolution. Family conditions for America’s poor have stabilized with high non-marital birth rates. For the middle group, divorce rates continued to climb through the nineties while falling for the college educated and high school dropouts. The most recent changes indicate that non-marital birth rates are increasing for Latinas and whites without college degrees, transforming what had been marriage-centered communities.Second, this article examines the relationship between anxiety about family change, values preferences, and the culture divide about how to discuss and manage family change.Third, this article examines the political manipulation of the anxieties underlying family change and the exacerbation of cultural differences.Finally, the article considers a dilemma for advocates of same-sex marriage. Opponents have used the issue to solidify a broad conservative coalition. Does same-sex marriage depend on an equally broad liberal coalition or does it stand on its own? One of the ironies in the debate is that more tolerant attitudes toward sexual orientation are winning even as the opposition to abortion is strengthening. The article maintains that fairness to gays is compelling in ways that stand apart from family values, and the two components of the fight — fairness for gays and general opposition to rigid traditionalism – should operate independently. Meanwhile, same-sex marriage is used to obstruct what should be the true family debate; the remaking of family relationships in an era of economic insecurity and growing inequality.
The Relationship between the EEOC’s Decision that Title VII Prohibits Discrimination Based on Gender Identity and the Enforcement of Executive Order 11246
New analysis finds that a recent ruling from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that gender identity discrimination is unlawful will likely be extended to federal contractors. The EEOC opinion held that gender identity or expression discrimination violates the prohibition on sex discrimination under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. By executive order (EO 11246), federal contractors are similarly prohibited from sex discrimination.Sex discrimination complaints against federal contractors filed pursuant to the existing executive order are enforced by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), an agency within the Department of Labor. The OFCCP has an explicit policy of interpreting the executive order in a manner consistent with Title VII, and has followed the EEOC’s regulations and guidance in enforcing the order. Further, complaints filed with the OFCCP are either directly enforced by the EEOC or enforced by OFCCP officers acting as agents of the EEOC.
+ Full Report (PDF)
Gay Men Report High Rates of Hate-Motivated Physical Violence
According to a new study from the Williams Institute, gay men face higher rates of hate-motivated physical violence than lesbians, bisexuals or other federally protected groups with high rates of hate crimes. This finding is especially troubling given prior research has shown that sexual orientation-motivated hate crimes tend to be more violent.…Among the research findings, 26 in 100,000 gay men reported being victims of hate-motivated crimes against persons, compared to 10 in 100,000 lesbians, 5 in 100,000 African Americans, and 5 in 100,000 Jewish Americans. Gay men also face the second highest risk of being victims of hate-motivated property crime (9 in 100,000 gay men). Further, reporting of such hate crimes is likely under represented since data reflect only those who report such crimes to local law enforcement, who then choose whether to report the data to the FBI.Although prior research has suggested that lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals, Jews, and African Americans experience similar levels of overall victimization, this study is the first to demonstrate that when lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals are considered separately, gay men experience more hate crimes.
CRS — Same-Sex Marriages: Legal Issues
Same-Sex Marriages: Legal Issues (PDF)
Source: Congressional Research Service (via Federation of American Scientists)
The recognition of same-sex marriages generates debate on both the federal and state levels. Either legislatively or judicially, same-sex marriage is legal in seven states. Other states allow civil unions or domestic partnerships, which grant all or part of state-level rights, benefits, and/or responsibilities of marriage. Some states have statutes or constitutional amendments limiting marriage to one man and one woman. These variations raise questions about the validity of such unions outside the contracted jurisdiction and have bearing on the distribution of federal benefits.
The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), P.L. 104-199, prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriages and allows individual states to refuse to recognize such marriages performed in other states. Section 3 of DOMA requires that marriage, for purposes of federal benefit programs, be defined as the union of one man and one woman. Lower courts are starting to address DOMA’s constitutionality. On July 8, 2010, a U.S. district court in Massachusetts found Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional in two companion cases brought by same-sex couples married in Massachusetts. In one case, the court found that DOMA exceeded Congress’s power under the Spending Clause and violated the Tenth Amendment. In the other, the court held that Congress’s goal of preserving the status quo did not bear a rational relationship to DOMA, and thus violated the Fifth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. While the government filed a notice of appeal in these cases, it is unclear whether the cases will continue. In February 2011, the U.S. Attorney General submitted a letter to congressional leadership stating that the government will not defend DOMA’s constitutionality under certain conditions. The Assistant Attorney General subsequently submitted a letter to the First Circuit stating that the government will cease its defense of Section 3 of DOMA. However, the United States will remain a party to the cases presumably to “provide Congress a full and fair opportunity to participate in the litigation.”
Questions regarding same-sex marriages figure prominently in California. After the state supreme court’s decision finding that denying same-sex couples the right to marry violated the state constitution, voters approved a constitutional amendment (“Proposition 8”) limiting the validity and recognition of “marriages” to heterosexual couples. Subsequent court challenges ensued. On February 7, 2012, a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court decision finding that Proposition 8 violates both the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, inasmuch as voters took away a right from a minority group without justification when they approved Proposition 8. In a matter of first impression, the lower court found that Proposition 8 (1) deprived same-sex couples of the fundamental right to marry under the Due Process Clause and (2) excluded such couples from state-sponsored marriage while allowing heterosexual couples access in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. While the appellate court affirmed the lower court’s decision, it did so on much narrower grounds based on historical facts specific to California. As such, it appears that this decision will have little, if any, impact on other jurisdictions. However, the case will likely be appealed to the full Ninth Circuit or directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. It is unclear whether the Court would accept the case for review on the merits, as it pertains to an interpretation of a state constitutional amendment.
This report discusses DOMA and legal challenges to it. It reviews legal principles applied to determine the validity of a marriage contracted in another state and surveys the various approaches employed by states to enable or to prevent same-sex marriage. The report also examines House and Senate resolutions introduced in previous Congresses proposing a constitutional amendment and limiting federal courts’ jurisdiction to hear or determine any question pertaining to the interpretation of DOMA.
High-Interest CRS Report — Same-Sex Marriages: Legal Issues (May 9, 2012)
Same-Sex Marriages: Legal Issues (PDF)Source: Congressional Research Service (via Federation of American Scientists)
The recognition of same-sex marriages generates debate on both the federal and state levels. Either legislatively or judicially, same-sex marriage is legal in seven states. Other states allow civil unions or domestic partnerships, which grant all or part of state-level rights, benefits, and/or responsibilities of marriage. Some states have statutes or constitutional amendments limiting marriage to one man and one woman. These variations raise questions about the validity of such unions outside the contracted jurisdiction and have bearing on the distribution of federal benefits.
The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), P.L. 104-199, prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriages and allows individual states to refuse to recognize such marriages performed in other states. Section 3 of DOMA requires that marriage, for purposes of federal benefit programs, be defined as the union of one man and one woman. Lower courts are starting to address DOMA’s constitutionality. On July 8, 2010, a U.S. district court in Massachusetts found Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional in two companion cases brought by same-sex couples married in Massachusetts. In one case, the court found that DOMA exceeded Congress’s power under the Spending Clause and violated the Tenth Amendment. In the other, the court held that Congress’s goal of preserving the status quo did not bear a rational relationship to DOMA, and thus violated the Fifth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. While the government filed a notice of appeal in these cases, it is unclear whether the cases will continue. In February 2011, the U.S. Attorney General submitted a letter to congressional leadership stating that the government will not defend DOMA’s constitutionality under certain conditions. The Assistant Attorney General subsequently submitted a letter to the First Circuit stating that the government will cease its defense of Section 3 of DOMA. However, the United States will remain a party to the cases presumably to “provide Congress a full and fair opportunity to participate in the litigation.”
Questions regarding same-sex marriages figure prominently in California. After the state supreme court’s decision finding that denying same-sex couples the right to marry violated the state constitution, voters approved a constitutional amendment (“Proposition 8”) limiting the validity and recognition of “marriages” to heterosexual couples. Subsequent court challenges ensued. On February 7, 2012, a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court decision finding that Proposition 8 violates both the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, inasmuch as voters took away a right from a minority group without justification when they approved Proposition 8. In a matter of first impression, the lower court found that Proposition 8 (1) deprived same-sex couples of the fundamental right to marry under the Due Process Clause and (2) excluded such couples from state-sponsored marriage while allowing heterosexual couples access in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. While the appellate court affirmed the lower court’s decision, it did so on much narrower grounds based on historical facts specific to California. As such, it appears that this decision will have little, if any, impact on other jurisdictions. However, the case will likely be appealed to the full Ninth Circuit or directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. It is unclear whether the Court would accept the case for review on the merits, as it pertains to an interpretation of a state constitutional amendment.
This report discusses DOMA and legal challenges to it. It reviews legal principles applied to determine the validity of a marriage contracted in another state and surveys the various approaches employed by states to enable or to prevent same-sex marriage. The report also examines House and Senate resolutions introduced in previous Congresses proposing a constitutional amendment and limiting federal courts’ jurisdiction to hear or determine any question pertaining to the interpretation of DOMA.
Strategies For Recruiting Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Foster, Adoptive, and Kinship Families
Strategies For Recruiting Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Foster, Adoptive, and Kinship Families (PDF)
Source: National Resource Center for Adoption, the National Resource Center for Permanency and Family Connections, and the National Resource Center for Recruitment and Retention of Foster and Adoptive Parents at AdoptUSKids
Recruiting and retaining enough qualified foster, adoptive, and kinship parents is a challenge facing nearly every jurisdiction in the United States. States, Tribes, and Territories constantly seek resources and creative strategies for recruiting prospective parents who can meet the needs of children and youth in foster care. They continually look for ways to improve the placement stability for children who need foster care placements and to achieve permanence for children who cannot return to their birth families.
Approximately 408,000 children are currently in foster care in the United States. These children have diverse needs; therefore, child welfare agencies need to have a diverse pool of foster parents who can provide temporary, loving care for the children as they await permanency. Of those 408,000 children in foster care, 107,000 are waiting to be adopted. These children have been in foster care for an average of 37 months. In addition to the children still waiting for a permanent family, nearly 28,000 youth aged out of foster care in 2010 without a permanent family connection. All of these children—and the children who will enter foster care in the years to come—deserve our best efforts to recruit and retain prospective foster and adoptive parents who will provide them with the love, stability, and safety that they need.
For jurisdictions that continue to face challenges in recruiting and retaining enough qualified foster and adoptive parents, looking to previously untapped or underutilized groups of prospective parents—including lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) adults—may be a key step in providing placement stability and permanency to children in foster care.
The Removal of Homosexuality from the DSM: Its Impact on Today’s Marriage Equality Debate
The Removal of Homosexuality from the DSM: Its Impact on Today’s Marriage Equality Debate
Source: Journal of Gay & Lesbian Mental Health
In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM), leading to changes in the broader cultural beliefs about homosexuality and culminating in the contemporary civil rights quest for marriage equality. This paper reviews the history of theories about human sexuality that led up to that event and outlines the current sociopolitical environment in which marriage equality debates are taking place as well as the current state of marriage equality in the United States and elsewhere.
+ Full Report (PDF)
