Update, September 2014: Through proactive discussions and careful deliberation amongst our legal representatives, we have jointly reached an agreement, the terms of which are confidential, that results in the spousal survivor benefit requested. We are pleased that Jerry is going to be receiving these benefits, and we are equally pleased with the manner in which Bayer has addressed and resolved this legal issue.
(Boston, MA) John Abdallah Wambere, wybitny ugandyjski działacz na rzecz praw gejów, który wystąpił w filmach dokumentalnych „Call Me Kuchu” i „Missionaries of Hate”, złożył dziś wniosek o azyl w Stanach Zjednoczonych.
Wambere jest aktywistą od czternastu lat, jako współzałożyciel Spectrum Uganda Initiatives, w ramach którego działa na rzecz zapewnienia bezpieczeństwa społeczności LGBTI, zmniejszenia stygmatyzacji, pomocy aresztowanym Ugandyjczykom LGBTI oraz edukacji na temat HIV. Społeczność LGBTI w Ugandzie jest w ostatnich latach narażona na coraz silniejsze ataki publiczne, polityczne i fizyczne, których kulminacją było uchwalenie ustawy antyhomoseksualnej i jej podpisanie 24 lutego 2014 roku przez prezydenta Yoweriego Museveniego.
„To była dla mnie bardzo, bardzo trudna decyzja” – powiedziała Wambere. „Poświęciłam życie pracy na rzecz osób LGBTI w Ugandzie i bardzo mnie boli, że nie mogę być z moją społecznością, sojusznikami i przyjaciółmi, gdy są oni narażeni na coraz większe ataki. Ale w głębi serca wiem, że to jedyna opcja i że w więzieniu nie byłabym dla mojej społeczności niczemu przydatna”.
Ustawa o zwalczaniu homoseksualizmu nakłada surowsze kary za związki osób tej samej płci, w tym karę dożywotniego pozbawienia wolności. Wprowadza również nowe kary za wszelkie działania uznawane za „pomoc i podżeganie do homoseksualizmu” oraz „promowanie homoseksualizmu”. Ustawa ma szeroki zakres i kryminalizuje nawet aktywizm i edukację w zakresie zdrowia publicznego na rzecz osób LGBTI, w tym osób żyjących z HIV.
„Powrót Johna do Ugandy po prostu nie jest bezpieczny” – powiedział Janson Wu, starszy prawnik w organizacji Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), która reprezentuje Wambere. „Jeszcze przed podpisaniem ustawy, John został ujawniony jako gej przez gazety, nękany przez nieznajomych, otrzymywał groźby śmierci przez anonimowe telefony, został eksmitowany z domu i pobity. Teraz grozi mu dożywocie, jeśli wróci”.
Po podpisaniu ustawy 30 000 Ugandyjczyków zebrało się na stadionie na wiecu, aby podziękować prezydentowi za podpisanie ustawy. Słuchali mówców, którzy nazywali osoby LGBTI „przestępcami”, „zwierzętami” i „diabłami”. Od czasu podpisania ustawy osoby LGBTI w Ugandzie były aresztowane, część z nich zeszła do podziemia, a inni uciekli z kraju. Organizacja zajmująca się HIV została zinfiltrowana i rozbita przez policję.
W Ugandzie nastroje antygejowskie były promowane przez amerykańskich ewangelików, takich jak Scott Lively, który podróżował do kraju, aby głosić i promować ustawę, która wówczas nazywała się „Zabić gejów”, ponieważ przewidywała karę śmierci, która została zniesiona.
„Stany Zjednoczone mogą zrobić dwie bardzo ważne rzeczy” – powiedziała Allison Wright, prawniczka GLAD. „Możemy zapewnić bezpieczniejszą przystań, w której odważni ugandyjskie osoby LGBT będą mogły nadal zabierać głos i działać na rzecz zmian; możemy też działać na rzecz powstrzymania eksportu uprzedzeń, potępiając działania Amerykanów zmierzające do szerzenia homofobii w innych krajach”.
Skrócona i zredagowana wersja Johna Abdallaha Wambere'a oświadczenie pod przysięgą Informacje o azylu można znaleźć na stronie internetowej GLAD pod adresem www.gladlaw.org/wambere.
Oprócz GLAD, Johna Wambere reprezentuje Hema Sarang-Sieminski z Kancelarii Prawnej Hema Sarang-Sieminksi.
Aktualizacja 26 listopada 2014 r.: John „Longjones” Abdallah Wambere otrzymał list od Służby Imigracyjnej i Obywatelskiej USA informujący, że jego wniosek o azyl został w pełni rozpatrzony.
11 września 2014 r.: John „Longjones” Abdallah Wambere otrzymał rekomendację do ubiegania się o azyl w Stanach Zjednoczonych. list z dnia 11 września 2014 r.Służba Imigracyjna i Obywatelska USA poinformowała Wambere’a, że jego wniosek został zalecony do rozpatrzenia, pod warunkiem przejścia rutynowej kontroli bezpieczeństwa. Przeczytaj więcej.
John Wambere odbył rozmowę kwalifikacyjną 25 sierpnia 2014 roku z urzędnikiem ds. azylu w Biurze Służb Obywatelskich i Imigracyjnych w sprawie swojego wniosku o azyl. W związku z rozmową kwalifikacyjną i na poparcie wniosku Johna, złożyliśmy Raport o Warunkach Krajowych w Ugandzie. który można przeczytać tutaj.
GLAD złożył wniosek o azyl w imieniu Johna Abdallaha Wambere, wybitnego ugandyjskiego działacza na rzecz praw gejów, który wystąpił w filmach dokumentalnych Mów mi Kuchu I Misjonarze nienawiściWspółpracujemy z bostońską prawniczką imigracyjną Hemą Sarang-Sieminski z Kancelaria Prawna Hema Sarang-Siemiński.
John przebywał w Massachusetts, gdzie promował swoją pracę na rzecz społeczności LGBTI w Ugandzie, gdy 24 lutego prezydent Museveni podpisał ugandyjską ustawę antyhomoseksualną. Ustawa ta przewiduje surowe kary – w tym dożywocie – za związki osób tej samej płci, a także za wszelkie działania uznawane za „promujące homoseksualizm”.
Powrót Johna do Ugandy nie jest bezpieczny. Jeszcze przed podpisaniem ustawy, John został ujawniony jako gej przez gazety, nękany przez nieznajomych, eksmitowany z domu, pobity i otrzymywał groźby śmierci przez anonimowe telefony. Teraz grozi mu dożywocie, jeśli wróci.
Wambere jest aktywistą od czternastu lat, współzałożycielem Spectrum Uganda Initiatives, w ramach którego działa na rzecz zapewnienia bezpieczeństwa społeczności LGBTI, zmniejszenia stygmatyzacji, pomocy aresztowanym Ugandyjczykom LGBTI oraz edukacji na temat HIV. Społeczność LGBTI w Ugandzie jest w ostatnich latach narażona na nasilające się ataki publiczne, polityczne i fizyczne, których kulminacją było uchwalenie ustawy antyhomoseksualnej.
„To była dla mnie bardzo, bardzo trudna decyzja” – powiedział Wambere w oświadczeniu dla mediów. „Poświęciłem życie pracy na rzecz osób LGBTI w Ugandzie i bardzo mnie boli, że nie mogę być z moją społecznością, sojusznikami i przyjaciółmi, gdy są oni narażeni na coraz większe ataki. Ale w głębi serca wiem, że to moja jedyna opcja i że w więzieniu nie byłbym dla mojej społeczności przydatny”.
Często zadawane pytania dotyczące sprawy In re WamberePrzeczytaj więcej o historii Johna
Ugandyjska gazeta ujawnia nazwiska i zdjęcia członków społeczności LGBTI
Chronologia działań antygejowskich w Ugandzie
Przeczytaj pełne oświadczenie GLAD
Ten Koalicja społeczeństwa obywatelskiego na rzecz praw człowieka i praw konstytucyjnychkoalicja ugandyjskich organizacji zajmujących się walką z tym aktem, opublikowała niedawno wytyczne dla partnerów międzynarodowych, jak najlepiej wspierać działania w Ugandzie. Zachęcamy do wspierania działań Koalicji, a także innych ugandyjskich koalicji i organizacji zajmujących się prawami człowieka, takich jak: Inicjatywy Spectrum Uganda I Mniejszości seksualne w Ugandzie
A broad swath of marriage equality supporters weighed in with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit yesterday, filing amicus briefs in Kitchen v. Herbert I Bishop v. Smith, the Utah and Oklahoma marriages cases respectively.
Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders’ Civil Rights Project Director Mary L. Bonauto coordinated the amicus effort, involving attorneys and interested organizations representing religious leaders, child welfare organizations, business leaders, health care professionals, experts in family law, constitutional law and relationship recognition, and military leaders and service members. The amici urge the Court of Appeals to uphold the Utah and Oklahoma District Court rulings finding that the bans on marriage for same-sex couples violate the United States Constitution
“I am honored to assist my legal colleagues so that same-sex couples have the freedom to marry the person they love no matter where they live,” said Bonauto, who litigated the groundbreaking Goodridge marriage equality case in Massachusetts (2003), and who filed the first multi-plaintiff challenges against the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 2009 and 2010. “These briefs came together in a short period of time with a lot of help from many people, and provide overwhelming evidence that the government gains nothing legitimate, and only does harm, in depriving loving, committed couples the ability to secure a government marriage license.”
Update October 6, 2014: The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals decision striking down Utah’s marriage ban for same-sex couples, thereby permitting that decision to stand, as well as a similar decision from Oklahoma. The Court also denied review of decisions by the Fourth and Seventh Circuit Courts of Appeals, which had struck down marriage bans in Virginia, Indiana, and Wisconsin.
By denying review of the Kitchen v. Herbert case, the Court let stand the June 2014 decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit that found Utah’s ban on marriages by same-sex couples unconstitutional. The decision means that same-sex couples in Utah, Oklahoma, Colorado, Kansas and Wyoming—all in the Tenth Circuit—have a constitutionally protected right to marry and to have their marriages treated equally. Read the full statement from NCLR and GLAD.
Update September 4, 2014: Three diverse voices – those of business, states, and family and equality groups – filed amici curiae briefs in the Kitchen v. Herbert case. The briefs argue that the high court should take a case or cases in order to resolve the harm and discrimination imposed by marriage bans. The briefs can be read in the list at right.
Update August 28, 2014: —Today, the three couples challenging the State of Utah’s ban on marriage for same-sex couples asked the United States Supreme Court to accept the request of Utah state officials to review the case. In the brief today, the plaintiffs argue that Supreme Court review is required because same-sex couples in Utah and across the country urgently need to have the security of marriage wherever they work or travel to fully protect themselves and their families. The brief argues that only a Supreme Court decision affirming their right to marry and to have their marriages respected nationwide can resolve this fundamental inequality. Przeczytaj więcej.
ZADOWOLONY has joined colleagues at the National Center for LGBTQ Rights (NCLR) and Utah attorney Peggy Tomsic as counsel in this historic federal case representing same-sex couples seeking the freedom to marry in Utah. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled June 25, 2014 that Utah’s ban on the freedom to marry for same-sex couples violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection and due process.
The U.S. Supreme Court has been asked to review the case.
GLAD previously submitted a brief of amicus curiae in support of the plaintiffs-appellees in the appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The brief was filed on GLAD’s behalf by attorneys from the firm of WilmerHale.
Case Developments Excerpted From NCLR:
On June 25, 2014, the Tenth Circuit ruled that Utah’s ban on the freedom to marry for same-sex couples violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection and due process. The decision is the first federal appellate court ruling in a freedom to marry case since the United States Supreme Court ruled in June 2013 that the federal government must recognize the marriages of same-sex couples.
On August 5, 2014, the State of Utah asked the Supreme Court of the United States to review the Tenth Circuit’s decision. The Tenth Circuit’s decision states that Utah couples will not be able to marry until after the Supreme Court decides whether to review the case. If the Supreme Court decides to review the case, couples will not be able to marry until after the Supreme Court issues its decision.
For further background visit www.nclrights.org
In addition to NCLR, GLAD and attorney Peggy Tomsic of Magleby & Greenwood, P.C. (Salt Lake City), the plaintiffs are also represented by the D.C. film of Hogan Lovells.
In 2014, GLAD represented Kerry Considine in a discrimination suit against her employer, Brookdale Senior Living, after Brookdale denied her the right to put her wife, Renee, onto her employer-provided health plan. Kerry’s claim charged that Brookdale discriminated against her on the basis of her sex, in violation of Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Pay Act and the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act.
Kerry filed her claim with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and shortly thereafter Brookdale changed its policy and decided to extend health insurance benefits to both same-sex and different-sex spouses. Subsequently, the EEOC made an initial determination that there was “reasonable cause to believe that the Respondent [Brookdale] has discriminated against the Charging Party [Kerry] on account of her sex.” Kerry then received a right-to-sue letter from the EEOC.
Following the filing of our complaint in the federal district court in Connecticut, it came to light that Kerry had, as a condition of her employment, signed a mandatory arbitration agreement. Brookdale moved to compel our case to arbitration, and the US District Court judge agreed, ruling that an arbitrator had to determine whether Kerry’s claims were subject to arbitration.
In arbitration, Kerry argued that her claims for declaratory and injunctive relief should not be in arbitration and should return to federal court based upon an express exclusion in the arbitration agreement. Brookdale asserted that, at best, the agreement was ambiguous and, therefore, must be interpreted to favor arbitration. On the merits, Brookdale also argued that Kerry had no current claim because she was now receiving the benefits that previously were denied. The arbitrator has now ruled that Kerry’s claim is subject to arbitration, and that Kerry’s claim on the merits should be dismissed in arbitration because it was not ripe (meaning essentially that she has no current, live controversy with Brookdale because she is receiving the benefits).
We do not believe the arbitrator’s ruling is correct on any point, but the arbitrator’s ruling is final and cannot be appealed.
Social Security announced earlier this month that it is now processing some widow and widower claims, including Medicare claims, for those married to a spouse of the same sex. The new guidance applies to surviving spouses if the worker was domiciled in a state that recognizes marriage equality and the marriage took place in the U.S. Similarly, Social Security is now processing claims for lump sum death benefits if the deceased worker was domiciled in a state that recognizes marriage equality.
If a marriage was entered into in a foreign country, Social Security may process the claim but only after getting a legal opinion on the validity of the marriage.
Social Security is continuing to hold several claims, including applications where:
• The deceased worker was domiciled in a non-marriage recognition state; or
• The marriage does not meet the duration requirement and the claimant alleges a prior non-marital legal same-sex relationship such as a civil union.
Anyone who was or is married to a spouse of the same sex and thinks they may be eligible for Social Security, should apply immediately to preserve their rights to benefits.
The Social Security Administration’s press releases are here:
• Same-Sex Marriage – Benefits for Surviving Spouses
• Same-Sex Marriage – Lump Sum Death Payment (LSDP)
Social Security also maintains a Często zadawane pytania section on its website.
For information about other federal benefits for married same-sex couples, visit www.gladlaw.org/doma
Transgender Rights Project Director Jennifer Levi shares an update on some of the critical work GLAD is doing in the area of transgender legal rights:
GLAD continues to play a national role in ensuring transgender people receive justice in the family law context. The centerpiece of that work is our groundbreaking book, Transgender Family Law: A Guide to Effective Advocacy, published last year. Attorneys around the country are using the book to better advocate for their clients, and transgender people are using it to better advocate for themselves.
Education in the Courts
Our next step in leveling the playing field for transgender people in family court is getting the book into the hands of more attorneys and judges and educating them about the unique needs and vulnerabilities of transgender people in this context. In September, Polly Crozier, a contributor to Transgender Family Lawand a partner at Kauffman Crozier LLP, organized and moderated a panel focused on transgender family law issues attended by family court judges who hear cases throughout Massachusetts.
All attendees received a copy of the book and heard from legal and medical experts: Elizabeth Monnin-Browder, my Transgender Family Law co-editor and an attorney Ropes & Gray; Connecticut Superior Court Judge Maureen M. Murphy, the presiding judge in Waterbury Family Court; and Dr. Norman Spack, a renowned expert in treating transgender children.
Name-changes for Transgender Children
We’re also continuing critical legal work to change the experience of transgender people in probate courts, specifically around name-changes for transgender children, an issue on which we’ve fielded a number of concerning calls from parents in the past year.
We’ve fielded a number of concerning calls in the past year from parents of transgender youth facing obstacles when trying to change their child’s name. These parents are understandably looking for an immediate solution and we intervene as we can to help them. But GLAD is also on the lookout for cases that can have a precedential impact – that is, cases that create changes in the law from which everyone can benefit.
If you think you or a family member is being discriminated against in the probate system, please contact Odpowiedzi GLAD.
The Transgender Rights Project is doing critical work as part of a national movement to remove barriers to transition-related health care for all transgender people. This includes our administrative challenge to Medicare’s ban on transition-related care.
Challenging Medicare’s Ban on Transition-Related Care
GLAD has joined with the National Center for Lesbian Rights, the ACLU, and civil rights attorney Mary Lou Boelcke to represent Denee Mallon, a Medicare recipient whose doctors have recommended surgery to treat her severe gender dysphoria. Medicare, the federal program that provides healthcare to Americans 65 or older and younger people with disabilities, prohibits all forms of gender reassignment surgery regardless of an individual patient’s diagnosis or serious medical need. The ban was instituted 30 years ago, when there was little research about the efficacy of gender reassignment surgery. Now that we know these procedures are safe and effective, we have a strong case to make for doing away with this outdated policy.
Advocating for Health Care for Transgender Prisoners
GLAD is also taking on a more active role in the Massachusetts case Kosilek v. Spencer, advocating for transgender inmates to receive medically necessary care. We are currently awaiting a decision in the case from the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals.
Advocating for incarcerated transgender people to receive medically necessary transition-related care is an important piece of this work both because of the horrific treatment transgender people face in prisons and also because of the broader impact such rulings have on the entire community. Right now, GLAD is awaiting a decision in Kosilek v. Spencer from the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals. The case involves Michelle Kosilek, a transgender woman who successfully sued the Mass. Department of Corrections for medical treatment of her gender dysphoria in federal district court, a ruling the state has appealed. Michelle’s longtime attorney, Frances S. Cohen, who expertly litigated this case for more than 10 years, recently departed her firm Bingham McCutcheon for a new job, so GLAD is taking a more active role in this case.
Eliminating Barriers in Insurance Coverage
We are making remarkable progress toward eliminating barriers to transition-related healthcare. In April, Vermont’s Division of Insurance issued a bulletin making clear that under state law health insurance companies operating in Vermont must cover treatment related to a person’s gender transition, including coverage for gender reassignment surgery.
This bulletin is a critical victory for the transgender community in Vermont and GLAD was proud to partner with local LGBT and health care advocates to educate insurance commissioners and encourage the Division of Insurance to issue the bulletin. For more information about the bulletin check out this FAQ from our partner RU12 Community Center.
We are now partnering with advocates in Maine and Massachusetts to explore options in those states to ensure fair insurance coverage. Stay tuned for updates in those states.
GLAD today unveiled “GLAD Answers”, an updated version of our venerable Legal InfoLine. GLAD Answers is an information and referral service that GLAD has run since our inception, in recent years receiving more than 2,000 inquiries annually from LGBT people and people living with HIV.
The new features of GLAD Answers are:
• A dedicated URL, www.GLADAnswers.org
• An enhanced live chat function
• A new, direct email address: GLADAnswers@glad.org
• Use of an interpretation service for non-English speakers
• And a snappy new name and logo:
GLAD Answers retains its regular phone hours of 1:30-4:30 p.m. Monday-Friday, and its phone number of 1-800-455-GLAD. The service is staffed by highly trained volunteers who provide callers with legal information and referrals that can help resolve issues ranging from school bullying to employment discrimination.
In addition to empowering those who make use of the service, GLAD Answers enables GLAD to identify new legal issues, patterns of discrimination, and cases to litigate.
“Often, empowered with legal information, people can resolve their situations themselves,” said Bruce Bell, Public Engagement and Information Manager. “For example, we recently heard from a mom in Maine whose son was getting resistance from his school when he tried to start a Gay-Straight Alliance. We gave her the information and tools she needed to talk with administrators and within two weeks the school approved the GSA.”
“GLAD Answers is my go-to resource whenever I have questions pertaining to the rights of LGBT youth and young adults. I call them directly for help and I also strongly encourage our youth to contact them if they have a question about their rights,” said Jayeson Watts, MSW, Direct Services Coordinator of Youth Pride, Inc., in Rhode Island. “The staff and volunteers are easy to talk to, knowledgeable and committed to helping LGBT people get the fair treatment they deserve. GLAD Answers is an invaluable resource.”
Although GLAD Answers specializes in LGBT/HIV legal information for the six New England states, the service provides help to anyone who contacts it.
The U.S. Treasury Department and the IRS announced today that all legally married same-sex couples will be able to file their federal taxes as married. This will apply even if a couple resides in a state that does not recognize their marriage, so long as they were married in a state that does.
“Today’s ruling provides certainty and clear, coherent tax filing guidance for all legally married same-sex couples nationwide. It provides access to benefits, responsibilities and protections under federal tax law that all Americans deserve,” said Treasury Secretary Jack Lew.
You can read the full announcement Tutaj. The IRS has also posted an FAQ for married same-sex couples, available Tutaj.
Polski 
Español de México 
Português 
简体中文 
香港中文 
Français 
Tiếng Việt 
العربية 
Русский 
Deutsch 
Kreyòl Ayisyen