Florida Agenda

ORLANDO ? The endorsement last week by President Barack Obama of same-sex marriage places both the president and the state?s African American pastors in a position similar to a spinster sister at her younger daughter?s wedding. Although many want to remain supporters of the nation?s?and the industrialized world?s?first African-American chief of state, they find themselves in strong opposition to his public policy stance concerning marriage equality.

Pastor Beverly Brown of Redeeming Light Center in Eatonville?located about a half-dozen miles north of Orlando?told the Orlando Sentinel, ?For me as an African American pastor, I?m disappointed. I?m trying to separate his personal view from his political view.? Brown?s support for Obama is separated by the thin wall of his personal support for gay marriage and the possibility that he will press for legalization of it and a reversal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). ?I think it can be a game-changer,? offered Rev. Paul Wright, pastor of Calvary Temple of Praise in Sanford, the seat of Seminole County, which includes Kissimmee. ?I think it is going to cause him to lose some support from the faith-based community because of the conviction of a large number of faith-based institutions that this is an immoral act.?

The result, predicts Wright, is that many African-American members of those congregations who flocked to the polls in droves to support Obama in 2008 may stay home?or vote for the presumptive GOP nominee, Mitt Romney. Some suggest that Wright reflects the majority position of African American evangelical ministers, while others think that the backlash is a momentary reaction that will not significantly impact voter turnout among blacks. ?I believe the vast majority of African Americans will support the president,? Rev. Randolph Bracy Jr., the senior pastor of New Covenant Baptist Church of Orlando, told the Orlando Sentinel.

?When all is said and done, African Americans will not abandon the president for Mitt Romney and the Republican Party.? And, Bracy argues, demographics are destiny. ?I think things are changing whether I embrace it or not. Who am I to say these are not children of God? Who am I to stand in judgment??

By NADINE SMITH

It’s tax season, and once again gay married couples are caught between the truth and the law.

Each year, the federal government demands thousands of gay married couples sign an IRS Form 1040 with this stern warning. “Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have examined this return and accompanying schedules and statements, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, they are true and complete.”

But how do you answer in good conscience when the IRS tells you to lie? The IRS, citing the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), demands gay couples deny our husbands and wives, and indicate our marital status as “single.”

The IRS makes this demand despite the fact numerous courts have found DOMA to be unconstitutional, and the Department of Justice has stopped defending its key provisions.

Those of us who are married should be able to indicate our marital status honestly when filling out our tax return.

Currently, there are more than 1,000 legal protections afforded to heterosexuals that are considered inapplicable to the lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender (LGBT) community. Many of these significantly impact finances (real estate, inheritance and health coverage, to name a few), but it is each year, on April 15, that all gay married couples come face to face with the inequities and indignity of having our families denied.

As more and more gay people get legally married in the U.S. or abroad, many married gay couples throughout the country are refusing to identify as “single.” Quietly, from California to New York, from Alaska to Florida, couples are refusing to deny their spouses and are willing to take the risks of entering legally murky territory to take a stand.

A website called RefuseToLie.org has become a gathering place for gay couples to share their stories and for others to speak out in solidarity. While many post they have chosen to file as married, the site also provides tax tips for those who wish to protest but don’t want to risk running afoul of the IRS.

Research shows gay people, on average, pay nearly $500,000 more over a lifetime due to discriminatory laws and practices. A recent CNNMoney study concluded same-sex couples are paying as much as $6,000 more in annual federal income taxes than other married couples, even in states that recognize their unions.

For example, married couples filing jointly who sell a home can exclude from taxation up to $500,000 of the income received. Gay couples are only allowed to exclude $250,000, the same as single filers.

Given these disparities, legalized bigotry has certainly cost many gay families the home they dream of in a safer neighborhood, a college education for their children, or the start-up money for a business.

My wife and I will once again file as married. We got married in Vermont, surrounded by 80 of our friends and family at the Burlington Quaker Meeting House. We committed, in front of our loved ones and duly authorized representatives of the state of Vermont, to love, cherish, and protect each other for the rest of our lives. It would be both dishonest and deeply humiliating to now disavow each other of our marriage and declare ourselves single on our tax form.

We have an 11-month-old son, and we know it is our actions that will teach him more than just our words. How can we raise him to be honest and have integrity in his interactions with other people if we fill out a form that denies our existence as a family?

Nadine Smith is the executive director of Equality Florida.

She can be reached at Nadine@eqfl.org.

By CLIFF DUNN

“And when Moses’ father-in-law saw all that he did to the people, he said… Thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers … And let them judge the people at all seasons: and it shall be, that every great matter they shall bring unto thee, but every small matter they shall judge: so shall it be easier for thyself, and they shall bear the burden with thee.” Book of Exodus, 18:14-26

There are days when the world seems turned on its head. As I began to write this column, it occurred to me that one of the staples of a presidential election season is the traditional condemnation by one GOP candidate or another about the evils of “judicial activism.” This is a phrase often used in reaction to a ruling that has been handed down by an “activist judge,” which is defined as a jurist who rules against a position held near and dear to the heart of the individual opinionator.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Judicial Circuit—based in the hated San Francisco, the very Land of Fruits and Nuts to the Judicially-Righteous Right— is a familiar and comforting target.

Things looked promising in 2010. That year, we got a taste of the hysteria that accompanies the accusations of judicial activism when Iowa voters removed three state Supreme Court justices who helped legalize marriage equality in the Hawkeye State. During a vicious campaign, the chief opponent of gay marriage in Iowa screamed accusations of “blatant judicial activism by the Iowa Supreme Court.”

“The court legislated from the bench, they governed from the bench, and they even attempted to amend our constitution from the bench as they declared Iowa a ‘Same-Sex’ marriage state,” complained Bob Vander Plaats, an unsuccessful Republican candidate for governor and the founder of Iowa For Freedom. The vote marked the first time that a member of the Iowa Supreme Court was rejected by voters since the state’s current system began in 1962.

Since the successful demonization of the three recalled justices (who will be honored in May with receipt of the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award) things seemed quiet—until this week. In something that could have easily appeared in the Bizarro Times, it was a DEMOCRATIC president this week accusing an “unelected” body of judges of “judicial activism,” and a REPUBLICAN Congress chiding him for stirring up the fringe with hyperbole and incendiary rhetoric.

Specifically, Republicans accused President Obama of attempting to “intimidate” the Supreme Court by suggesting that a ruling against “Obamacare” would be “judicial activism.” Using language taken straight out of the GOP playbook, the president warned the “unelected” justices against legislating from the bench.

Completing the topsy-turvy imagery, it was a Republican U.S. Senator, Utah’s Orrin Hatch, who said it is a “fantasy” to consider “every law you like [to be] constitutional and every Supreme Court decision you don’t [to be] ‘activist.’”

“Judicial activism or restraint is not measured by which side wins but by whether the Court correctly applied the law,” said Hatch.

He is right, of course: he’s just making the opposing team’s argument. My quarrel with the strict constructionist set (those who argue for the narrowest interpretation of the law by judges) is that their arguments often appeal to our meaner natures, and are often shrouded in language that seems to cloak disdain for common sense. The Limbaughs and Hannitys (and now apparently, Obamas) of the world who declaim against judges who legislate from the bench are ignoring the very history of the office.

As any good religious conservative can tell you, it was Moses the Lawgiver who established the office of judge, as described in the Biblical Book of Exodus. The acts of the Old Testament’s more famous jurists are detailed in the Books of Judges (I and II) and Samuel (I and II). They all paint a portrait of “activist” arbitrators, men who brought to bear the collected wisdom of a lifetime to help decide upon matters that would impact many lives and futures: the sort of judge to make Rick Santorum’s (or Rick Scott’s) blood freeze.

Aside from its Biblical antecedents, the tradition of “judicial activism” is as old as the Republic itself. America’s longest-serving Chief Justice, John Marshall, played a dominant role in the development of the nation’s legal system during his 34 years on the high court (1801-1835).

Marshall championed the principle that the courts are obligated to exercise judicial review, including discarding laws that violate the Constitution. In doing so, he cemented the judiciary’s position as an independent branch of the government.

Many of the people who throw the “activist judge” label around are really afraid of judges whose sense of “justice” may have been defined beyond the narrow context of Judeo- Christianity. As recent rulings against the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and California’s Proposition 8 have shown, Republican-appointed federal judges are just as susceptible to the “activist” gene as are those appointed by Democratic presidents.

As Orrin Hatch noted, activist judges are typically found in the eye of the beholder. Justice Hugo Black (served 1937-1971) argued that the Constitution’s language that Congress shall make no law [emphasis added] says just that: “no law” means “no exceptions.”

Ironically, Black’s historic legacy is as a judicial activist.

By RORY BARBAROSSA

NEW YORK, NY – The growing support for LGBT rights among American corporate leaders is turning into tangible results for the nation’s LGBT workers, with a growing number of blue chips and other companies offering non-fiduciary benefits and other forms of compensation to their LGBT workforces, and their partners: married, domestic, or what have you.

For example, Ernst & Young, one of the nation’s largest accounting firms, is one of about three-dozen companies that now compensate their LGBT employees because of a provision in the tax code that requires them to pay income taxes on their partners’ health benefits—an amount that straight married couples are not required to pay. Approximately three-dozen companies now offer the so-called “gross-up benefit,” which, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) reports, is close to three times as many that offered the benefit just twelve months ago.

HRC reports that other companies that began offering the benefit as of Jan. 1 include American Express, Bank of America, Microsoft, and Yahoo. Both HRC and legal experts say that the tax requirement is a federal issue, and therefore trumps even laws in states that recognize gay marriage. “Four letters,” says Chris J. Mancini, a Broward County attorney who has represented many LGBT clients on domestic partnership issues. “D-OM- A.” Mancini, a former federal prosecutor, notes that the federal Defense of Marriage Act does not recognize same-sex couples as being married, even in the eight states that have legalized marriage equality.

“Under DOMA and its federal spousal definitions, a man on his wife’s health plan doesn’t pay federal taxes on his share of benefits, but a man on his husband’s plan does,” Mancini explains.

“Big Five” accounting firm Ernst & Young has offered benefits to same-sex domestic partners since 2002. The matter of the tax inequity came up during a town hall meeting held in November by the company’s diversity department. According to HRC estimates, the gross-up benefit provides an extra $1,200 on average to an employee’s family. Competitors KPMG and Pricewaterhouse Coopers have likewise added the gross-up benefit gay employees and their partners.

Bank of America offered domestic partner health benefits beginning in 1998: the company added the tax benefit this year for both domestic partners of employees and eligible children.

WASHINGTON, DC – White House officials are clarifying remarks made last week by Michelle Obama during a New York City fundraiser, explaining that the First Lady was not trying to imply that President Obama’s Supreme Court nominees support same-sex marriage, and that she was not endorsing marriage equality on her own behalf or that of the president.

“For the first time in history, our daughters and our sons watched three women take their seat on our nation’s highest court. And let us not forget what their decisions–the impact those decisions will have on our lives for decades to come–on our privacy and security, on whether we can speak freely, worship openly, and, yes, love whomever we choose. But that’s what’s at stake. That’s the choice that we face,” Obama said on March 19.

“That is a reference to the president’s position on the Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA],” White House press secretary Jay Carney said afterwards, referring to the 1996 law that federally defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

In 2011, the Obama administration announced that part of DOMA was unconstitutional and ordered the Justice Department to stop defending the law in court.

There were those on the political left who were hoping that the First Lady was making reference to marriage equality as well as signaling a White House plan to appoint Supreme Court justices who support gay marriages.

By CLIFF DUNN

PHOTO: OFA - Obama For America

A movement is underway within the Democratic Party leadership to add language to the party’s platform, or statement of goals and principles, that gives full support to marriage equality. The proposed language would be included in the platform at this year’s Democratic National Convention, which will be held from Sept. 3 – 6 in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Every four years, both major political parties–and many smaller ones as well— issue a manifesto known as a “platform” that outlines a list of principles and actions which the organization supports as a means of appealing to the broader electorate. The platform is a statement of intent of what the party plans to accomplish legislatively and what social policies it proposes to support.

The platform is comprised of individual proposals and statements of principle and intent in support of (or opposition to) topics of political urgency, social relevance, and often controversy. Known as “planks,” they are named after the wooden slats that are assembled to construct a speaker’s platform.

Among the upper echelon of Democrats who have come out in support of a plank that espouses marriage equality is House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-California). The LGBT rights group Freedom to Marry has crafted language that proposes a reversal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which bans federal recognition of same-sex marriage.

Last month the group, which was formed in 2003, launched its “Democrats: Say I Do” campaign, to gather signatures in support of the proposed plank. Thus far, about 30,000 people have signed the organization’s online petition to add marriage equality to the party platform.

Pelosi, who was the nation’s first female Speaker of the House of Representatives (2007-2011), is joined by U.S. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-New Hampshire). Shaheen’s state is one of eight states to have legal-ized same-sex marriage. Former Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin has likewise endorsed the Freedom to Marry proposal.

The language as it would appear in the party platform reads: “The Democratic Party supports the full inclusion of all families in the life of our nation, with equal respect, responsibility, and protection under the law, including the freedom to marry. Government has no business putting barriers in the path of people seeking to care for their family members, particularly in challenging economic times.

We support the Respect for Marriage Act and the overturning of the federal so-called ‘Defense of Marriage Act,’ and oppose discriminatory constitutional amendments and other attempts to deny the freedom to marry to loving and committed same-sex couples.”

Last week, the Washington Blade reported that 22 U.S. senators, including Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Al Franken (D-MN), John Kerry (D-MA), Frank Lautenburg (D-NJ), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), and Chuck Schumer (D-NY), had announced their support for the platform language.

“These 22 senators from across the nation all know firsthand why marriage matters to gay and lesbian couples, their kids, their kin, and our country,” said Evan Wolfson, president and founder of the New York-based advocacy group.

“Their support for Freedom to Marry’s ‘Say I Do’ campaign shows real momentum among Democrats for what the Democratic Party does at its best — overcome discrimination and barriers and lead the way toward a more perfect union. Freedom to Marry looks forward to working with these Democratic leaders, others joining the call, and those signing our online petition to put the Party and then America squarely on the side of liberty and justice for all.”

Supporters of the plank as well as those who urge caution about the timing of the language note the irony of North Carolina as the site of the 2012 Democratic National Convention.

In May, Tar Heel State voters will consider a proposed amendment to North Carolina’s constitution that would reaffirm the state’s ban on same-sex marriage, and which LGBT activists say would threaten all forms of domestic partnerships and civil unions for gay couples. Rights advocates have called the proposed Amendment One “draconian.”

“The proposed amendment to our state constitution is wrong on multiple levels. It denies equal rights under the law, a mainstay of America’s democracy since the beginning,” warned Cecil Bothwell, a Democratic candidate in the state’s Congressional primary.

“It is so poorly worded that it is likely to cause real harm to women, to unmarried couples with children, to seniors living together, in addition to its stated goal of preventing same-sex marriage,” added Bothwell, who is straight.

Voters in 30 states have approved bans on gay marriage, and a January survey by Raleigh-based Public Policy Polling found that 56 percent of North Carolina voters favor Amendment One. President Barack Obama has also muddied the political waters with his mixed signals on marriage equality.

In 2008, Obama—who is counting on North Carolina’s 15 electoral votes in November—announced that he supported civil unions for gays, but opposed marriage equality. He has since said, murkily, that his position is “evolving.”

And there are Democrats who support LGBT rights but are urging caution on this most sensitive of social issues. “I think the most important thing that we need to do at the convention is stay focused on jobs,” Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley recently told the Huffington Post. O’Malley last week signed marriage equality into law in the Old Line State, but says he doesn’t want the party’s emphasis to shift from jobs and the economy to social issues, which could alienate independent voters.

“That’s what’s going to re-elect the president and hopefully elect more Democrats to Congress,” said O’Malley, who chairs the Democratic Governors Association.

WILTON MANORS, FL  – Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Wilton Manors) should expect to start receiving petitions from an unusual constituency: users of the gay hookup app Grindr. The Courage Campaign, a California-based LGBT rights group, announced last week that they have partnered with the developers of the gay-oriented smartphone app in an effort to lobby the Democratic National Committee (DNC), which Wasserman Schultz chairs, to fund marriage equality efforts during this year’s elections cycle.

In a statement, the Courage Campaign described Grindr as “the world’s largest all-male social network.” According to the company, more than 3 million people have downloaded the app. The Grindr campaign will entail the company sending messages to people who have downloaded the app, requesting them to sign a petition in favor of DNC support for same-sex marriage initiatives. The petition will then be sent to DNC Chairwoman Wasserman Schultz, whose 20th Congressional District includes parts of Broward and Miami-Dade counties.

“There’s a social dating site for really every kind of person and flavor,” said Adam Bink, director of online programs for the Courage Campaign, of the petition, which is called “Grindr for Equality.” “We really have to reach people where they are,” he added. Bink noted that Grindr is just the latest in a long line of dating sites and software, including straight dating site OkCupid, and JDate, for Jewish singles. Straight people might have a physical relationship after meeting on those sites, Bink said. Grindr previously encouraged its members to support the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), as well as asking them to support a California law requiring the inclusion of the contributions of the LGBT community in social science lessons.

By Rory Barbarossa

SAN?FRANCISCO, CA – The top members of the House Republican leadership have filed an appeal with the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, based in San Francisco, to overturn the decision of a lower court that declared the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the 1996 law prohibiting the federal government from recognizing gay marriages, to be unconstitutional.

On Friday, Feb. 24, attorneys for the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group notified the lower court that they are requesting a review by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals of a ruling made last week by U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White. In that decision, White told the federal Office of Personnel Management that it could not use DOMA to deny medical coverage to a gay attorney who had enrolled her wife in a family health insurance plan.

Last year, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) appointed the five-member advisory group to defend DOMA against legal challenges. This came after Attorney General Eric Holder, Jr. said that Justice Department would no longer defend the law in court because the President Barack Obama had announced that it violates the civil rights of LGBT Americans.

Boehner was joined by the other Republican members of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor  (R-Virginia), and Majority Chief Deputy Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-California)  in bringing the appeal. The two Democratic House members of the advisory group, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-California) and Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Maryland), refused to take part.

Last year, U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California) and Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-New York) introduced separate  bills to repeal DOMA. So far, the Republican leadership has brought neither to a floor vote.

Dean Trantalis, a Wilton Manors-based attorney, LGBT rights activist, and former Vice Mayor of Fort Lauderdale, said of the GOP triumvirate’s actions: “Once again government interference in private lives rears its ugly head.”

“Hypocrisy seems to be the Republican theme in this presidential year,” added Trantalis, who co-authored the 1995 Broward County Human Rights Ordinance and the 1999 Broward County Domestic Partnership Ordinance, both seen as public
policy landmarks which helped set the stage for this decade’s battles for marriage equality.

Washington D.C.- With marriage equality one of the most hotly contested items on the nation’s 2012 social agenda, new data shows that approximately 12 percent of America’s population live in states that permit–or soon will permit— marriage equality. Proponents of same-sex marriage say that recent polling numbers points to widespread cultural acceptance for across-the-board-parity in marriage.

A dozen states have pending court battles, and voter initiatives of one form or another will litter the political landscape of 2012, a year with political as well as social consequences. Six states—Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont—as well as the District of Columbia issue same-sex marriage licenses. All the states as well as the District legislated the marriage laws.

Last week, Washington State lawmakers approved marriage equality, although that is likely to be challenged, possibly by referendum An additional five states–Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Rhode Island–allow civil unions that provide rights similar to marriage. A bill passed last week by both houses of New Jersey’s legislature was vetoed by Gov. Chris Christie, a Republican. A measure supporting samesex marriage was likewise introduced last week in Illinois, with pending bills from 2011 sessions still active in Hawaii and Minnesota. Marriage equality activists in Maine are also seeking a November ballot initiative to legalize same-sex marriage. In 2009, Pine Tree State voters overturned a state law authorizing marriage equality.

The law had been in effect for just six months. In November, voters in Minnesota and North Carolina will also consider proposals to prohibit same-sex marriage. Legislators in New Hampshire may also weigh a possible repeal of its marriage equality law. In 31 states, voters have approved ballot measures defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Lawsuits that seek to overturn bans on marriage equality or to expand civil unions are being litigated in at least 12 states’ courts, among them Hawaii, Minnesota, and the battleground, California, where a federal appeals court recently ruled against a voter-sanctioned referendum that banned gay marriage. A three-member panel found that the ban was unconstitutional, singling out gays and lesbians for discrimination. Lawyers for the religious and other groups behind the ban beat a midnight deadline to ask the full 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to rehear the 2-1 ruling that declared Proposition 8 to be a violation of the civil rights of LGBT Californians. The case will likely make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996. It defines marriage exclusively as a union between a man and a woman, and further said that states are not required to recognize samesex marriages that are performed in other states. A 1996 Gallup poll found that 68 percent of Americans opposed same-sex marriage; only 27 percent favored it. Last May, Gallup found that 53 percent of Americans favor major equality, while 45 percent opposes it.

D. W. Schultz: Santorum Scheme Doesn’t Work For Us

By Rory Barbarossa

Member of Congress and Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz says that Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum is “un-American” for his promise to invalidate same-sex marriages that are already on the books through a federal marriage amendment.

Wasserman Schultz, who represents Florida’s 20th Congressional District in the U.S. House, said during an interview at the Des Moines Convention Center on Tuesday, Jan.

3, the day of the Iowa Republican presidential caucus, that Santorum’s scheme “would be un-American, undemocratic, and entirely inappropriate and unacceptable.”

The four-term House member was responding to an earlier comment made by Santorum, who told NBC News’ Chuck Todd that existing same-sex marriages “would be invalid” if an amendment to the U.S. Constitutional was passed that bans marriage equality. Santorum–who narrowly lost to GOP opponent Mitt Romney in Iowa, the nation’s first statewide candidate contest– supports such an amendment.

Speaking of the district she has represented since 2005, Wasserman Schultz said “I represent as a member of Congress one of the largest, most vibrant, gay communities in the entire country. I’m a supporter of same-sex marriage and believe that we need to make sure that we stand up for equality for everyone.”

Asked by  reporter for the Washington Blade what message gay Americans should take away from the Iowa caucus results, Wasserman Schultz replied, “Iowa has been a forerunner when it comes to the civil rights of Americans. So many of the civil rights advances, including same-sex marriage, have begun in Iowa.”

“I think Iowans will continue to uphold the liberty that all Americans believe in, for all Americans, she added.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) was in Iowa During the Republican Primary Caucus on Tuesday