消息

(Washington, DC, October 6, 2014)—The United States Supreme Court today 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. Today’s 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.

The plaintiff couples in the Utah case are Kody Partridge and Laurie Wood, Derek Kitchen and Moudi Sbeity, and Kate Call and Karen Archer. The couples are represented by Peggy Tomsic of the Salt Lake City law firm Magleby & Greenwood, P.C., Shannon Minter of the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), Mary Bonauto of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), and former acting U.S. Solicitor General Neal Katyal of the law firm Hogan Lovells.

“We are thrilled by today’s decision, which means that same-sex couples are now equal citizens of this state,” said Derek Kitchen. “We are honored to be part of this historic moment and to know that as a result of today’s decision by the Supreme Court, never again will same-sex couples and their families be subjected to the discrimination and indignity that has caused so much harm to so many children and families over the years in Utah. This is a great day, and we are grateful to everyone who worked so hard to make it possible.”

“The Supreme Court’s decision today is a long-awaited victory not only for the courageous couples who brought this case, but for the entire state,” said Tomsic. “By allowing the Tenth Circuit’s ruling to stand, the Supreme Court has ensured that same-sex couples and their families in Utah will be treated equally and can have the same protection and stability that other families enjoy.”

Minter, who serves as NCLR legal director, said: “This is a huge step forward for Utah and the entire country. We are hopeful that the other cases pending across the country will also vindicate the freedom to marry so that all couples, no matter where they travel or live, will be treated as equal citizens and have the same basic security and protections for their families that other Americans enjoy.”

Added Bonauto: “This is fantastic news for the citizens of Utah and the 10 other states who are no longer denied the ability to marry or respect for their marriages. It is also a powerful signal to the many other courts considering the issue that there is no reason to delay and perpetuate the harms to same-sex couples around the nation.”

Kitchen was the first federal district court victory in a marriage equality case after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act in United States v. Windsor, and the first such victory in a federal court of appeals. Since then, three other federal appeals courts also ruled in favor of the freedom to marry for same-sex couples.

消息

家 » 国家/联邦 » Page 51

There exist both state and federal employment anti-discrimination laws that protect employees if they are discriminated against because they possess certain characteristics. All the state employment anti-discrimination laws in New England have sexual orientation as an explicit protected characteristic and, with the exception of New Hampshire, also have gender identity as a protected characteristic. The federal employment anti-discrimination law is called Title VII, and it does not contain explicit protections for either sexual orientation or gender identity. The federal agency that receives employment discrimination complaints is the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

In 2012, the EEOC announced that it would accept discrimination complaints from transgender employees as a form of sex discrimination. Recently EEOC Commissioner Chai R. Feldblum issued a memorandum that further clarifies protections for LGBT employees. The Commissioner states: “Any LGBT person who has experienced workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity may file a charge . . . claiming sex discrimination. A charge must be filed within 300 days (or sometimes 180 days) from the date of the discriminatory act.”

The EEOC considers gender identity discrimination a form of sex discrimination and will accept all charges of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and investigate them to determine if they state a claim of sex discrimination. For example, one type of sex discrimination involving sexual orientation is when it is assumed that men and women should only be sexually attracted to and marry individuals of a different gender.

In this memorandum, the EEOC also advocates for changing Title VII to include both sexual orientation and gender identity as specific protected characteristics because “. . . civil rights laws that explicitlyprotect LGBT people will raise visibility regarding such protection, will be a deterrent to discrimination, and will provide certainty that courts across the country will enforce the protections of these laws for LGBT people.”

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would add sexual orientation and gender identity protections to Title VII, has been introduced in Congress repeatedly, but has never passed.

You can see Commissioner Feldblum’s memorandum 这里.

If you have questions or want further information, please contact GLAD Answers by email or live chat at www.GLADAnswers.org 或拨打800-455-GLAD (4523)。

特维亚诉科尔文

家 » 国家/联邦 » Page 51

更新： 经过三年的抗争，黛博拉·特维亚终于收到了自 2011 年妻子帕特里夏·贝克去世以来她应得的社会保障遗属福利金。2014 年 12 月 1 日星期一，社会保障局向黛博拉支付了超过 $30,000 美元的拖欠福利金。

点击此处阅读 GLAD 声明.

案件背景

GLAD 在美国罗德岛地区法院对社会保障局 (SSA) 提起诉讼，指控 SSA 在 56 岁的 Deborah Tevyaw 的妻子 Patricia Baker 去世后错误地拒绝向其发放遗属抚恤金。

阅读抱怨和附件.

2005年，黛布在马萨诸塞州与罗德岛州职业惩教官帕特结婚。帕特被诊断出患有肺癌四期，并于2011年8月去世。在生命的最后几个月里，她一直在罗德岛州积极游说争取婚姻平等，并努力确保黛布的经济安全。但社会保障局（SSA）一再拒绝向黛布发放遗属抚恤金，导致她三年多来几乎没有收入。

尽管黛布与帕特的婚姻合法，但社会保障局最初在2012年援引《婚姻保护法》（DOMA）拒绝向黛布发放残疾寡妇抚恤金和一笔一次性死亡抚恤金。黛布对这一拒绝提出上诉期间，每月仅靠$723的残疾收入生活。她被迫卖掉了居住了38年的房子，从此一贫如洗，只能依靠亲朋好友生活。

2013 年 6 月，在《捍卫婚姻法案》被美国最高法院推翻后，社会安全法协会继续驳回黛布的上诉，声称罗德岛州在帕特去世时不会承认黛布和帕特的婚姻。

代表黛布提起的诉讼声称，2011 年帕特去世时，罗德岛州就会承认帕特和黛布的婚姻有效。

“我们毫不怀疑，罗德岛州在2011年帕特去世时会承认帕特和黛布的婚姻关系有效，而社会保障局对法律的解读完全是错误的。”——高级律师詹森·吴

有关 Deb 和 Pat 的故事的更多信息：

帕特里夏·贝克和黛博拉·特维亚在罗德岛州参议院委员会作证支持婚姻平等 (德撒律新闻)

科特诉沃尔玛

家 » 国家/联邦 » Page 51

2017 年 5 月 15 日，一名联邦法官批准了沃尔玛和前沃尔玛员工 Jacqueline Cote 之间 $ 750 万美元的集体诉讼和解，该和解质疑沃尔玛在 2014 年之前没有为沃尔玛员工的同性配偶提供健康保险福利。 阅读更多.

同性恋者反歧视联盟 (GLAD) 和华盛顿律师委员会联合律师、Outten & Golden LLP 律师事务所的 Peter Romer-Friedman 对沃尔玛提起集体诉讼，指控该零售商歧视与同性配偶结婚的员工，拒绝为其配偶提供健康保险福利。

2016 年 12 月 22 日，审理集体诉讼的地区法院初步批准了和解协议，并指示各方向和解集体成员发出通知，以便他们了解和解协议并有机会提交索赔以获得赔付。

已于 2017 年 1 月 23 日向班级成员发出通知。阅读更多

为了根据和解协议获得付款，和解集体成员必须不迟于 2017 年 3 月 20 日向和解管理员提出索赔。

这起集体诉讼源于GLAD于2014年9月代表Jackie向平等就业机会委员会（EEOC）提交的一份投诉。2014年1月29日，EEOC发布最终裁定，认定沃尔玛对Jackie的待遇构成非法性别歧视。2015年5月29日，EEOC发出了一封诉权信。

除了 GLAD、Outten & Golden LLP 和华盛顿律师委员会之外，Jacqueline Cote 的律师代理机构还有 Arnold and Porter LLP。

黛安娜·史密森和杰奎琳·科特。图片：777 Portraits 默特尔比奇，南卡罗来纳州下载照片

消息

家 » 国家/联邦 » Page 51

约翰“Longjones”阿卜杜拉·瓦姆贝雷 (John “Longjones” Abdallah Wambere) 是一位著名的乌干达同性恋活动家，从业已超过 17 年，他已获准前往美国寻求庇护。在 2014 年 9 月 11 日的一封信中，美国公民及移民服务局通知 Wambere，他的申请建议批准，但需进行例行安全检查。

“我不知所措，”瓦姆贝雷说道。“我必须说我很幸运，但还有很多故事可以分享。我呼吁所有帮助过我的人继续支持世界各地的LGBTI群体以及所有在美国寻求庇护的人们。我的心与乌干达同在；我夜不能寐，因为我担心着那里的社群。”

近年来，乌干达的LGBTI群体遭受着日益升级的公众、政治和人身攻击，最终导致《反同性恋法案》的通过，并于2014年2月24日由总统约韦里·穆塞韦尼签署生效。作为“光谱乌干达倡议”的联合创始人，瓦姆贝雷自2月起一直居住在美国，并于2014年5月6日申请庇护。

同性恋者反歧视联盟律师艾莉森·赖特表示：“我们很高兴约翰能够在美国继续代表乌干达 LGBTI 群体开展重要工作，他将不再因其性取向和大胆的行动主义而遭到逮捕和监禁。”

“美国必须继续向来自世界各地的LGBTI人士提供庇护，他们在原籍国无法享受最基本的自由，他们的生命仅仅因为他们的身份而受到威胁，”同性恋者反歧视联盟高级律师Janson Wu表示。“庇护是一个拯救生命的制度，它保护着那些被迫逃离乌干达、俄罗斯和牙买加等地的LGBTI群体中的弱势群体，因为在这些地方，外出根本不安全。”

John “Long Jones” Abdallah Wambere 与 GLAD 律师 Janson Wu 和 Allison Wright，
和律师 Hema Sarang-Sieminksi

反同性恋法将一系列罪行定为犯罪，并处以从7年监禁到终身监禁不等的严厉惩罚。该法后来因技术原因被乌干达宪法法院驳回，但立法者誓言将重新引入并通过该法。无论立法者是否履行承诺，根据《刑法典》第145条，同性恋在乌干达仍然是非法的。《刑法典》第145条将“非自然犯罪”定为犯罪，自20世纪50年代起就已存在，至今仍在乌干达严格执行。

在乌干达，瓦姆贝雷被报纸曝光是同性恋，遭到陌生人骚扰，收到匿名电话的死亡威胁，被捕，被赶出家门，还遭到殴打。根据《反同性恋法》，他将面临终身监禁，而且如果他返回乌干达，根据《刑法》第145条，他仍然面临被捕的威胁。

Wambere 申请庇护时提交的国家状况报告可在以下网址阅读： www.gladlaw.org/work/cases/in-re-wambere，以及他的删节版宣誓书。

乌干达的反同性恋情绪受到了斯科特·莱弗利等美国福音派人士的推波助澜。莱弗利曾前往乌干达宣讲并推广当时被称为“杀死同性恋”的法案，因为该法案中包含了死刑，但后来死刑被废除。2014年8月15日，一名联邦法官就此案作出了裁决。 乌干达性少数群体诉莱夫利案 莱弗利必须因反人类罪接受审判。

LGBTI 人士在美国寻求庇护的资源可以通过联系以下机构获取： www.GLADAnswers.org.

除了 GLAD 之外，John Wambere 的代理律师还包括 Hema Sarang-Sieminski 律师事务所的 Hema Sarang-Sieminski。

GLAD’s National Marriage Work

家 » 国家/联邦 » Page 51

Taking Marriage Over the Finish Line

GLAD Civil Rights Project Director Mary L. Bonauto argued before the U.S. Supreme Court April 28, 2015 on behalf of same-sex couples challenging their states’ marriage bans. She stood on behalf of petitioners April DeBoer 和 Jayne Rowse 在密歇根州的案件中 德波尔诉斯奈德案 and Timothy Love, Lawrence Ysunza, Maurice Blanchard and Dominique James in the Kentucky case 洛夫诉贝希尔案 （加入 伯克诉贝希尔案) and same-sex couples across the country.

2015年6月26日：胜利！ In a blockbuster legal and cultural moment for the country, the Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples in the United States, no matter where they live, have the same legal right to marry as different-sex couples. 阅读更多

Background: GLAD’s work for marriage in New England and beyond

GLAD won the first marriage state in Massachusetts in 2003 with our 古德里奇 case, and took part in winning every New England state by every conceivable method – ballot, legislation，和 litigation. We laid the groundwork for the defeat of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in our cases Gill 和 佩德森.

We developed unparalleled expertise in winning marriage, and helped our colleagues across the nation do the same. Since the Supreme Court struck down DOMA in June 2013 (温莎), GLAD has remained steadfast in its commitment to ending marriage discrimination nationwide.

AMICUS WORK

GLAD also helped movement colleagues and private attorneys with their amicus strategies:

GLAD wrote an 法庭之友 brief at the request of the National Center for LGBTQ Rights and the ACLU on behalf of New Mexico civil rights groups in the case Griego v. Oliver in the New Mexico Supreme Court in September 2013.
GLAD led coordination of the 法庭之友 内裤第十巡回上诉法院 after trial court wins in Utah and Oklahoma. GLAD’s work in the 10th Circuit, the first federal appeals court to hear marriage cases post-温莎, has streamlined the process for 法庭之友 filings in all of the other cases pending at a U.S. Court of Appeals.
GLAD has also played an extensive role in coordinating amici filings in the 4th (Virginia, Bostic v. Shaefer), 5th (Texas, DeLeon v. Perry), 6th (Michigan, DeBoer v. Snyder; Ohio, Obergefell v. Himes, Henry v. Himes; Tennessee, Tanco诉Haslam; Kentucky, 伯克诉贝希尔案) and 11th (Florida, Grimsley v. Scott 和 Brenner v. Armstrong) circuits.

GLAD’s Own Amici 内裤

In virtually every federal appeal, GLAD filed its own 法庭之友 brief discussing “rational basis review.”

These briefs reinforce the government’s guarantee of equal protection and its promise of even-handedness when the rights of persons are at stake. We set forth the two elements of rational basis review:

the government’s actions in classifying who can and cannot marry must be for “legitimate” reasons rather than because of stereotypes, prejudice or favoritism; and
the classification system – who is in and who is out – must have a relationship to the government’s claimed objectives.

Under these standards, GLAD’s briefs demolish each rationale advanced by the states defending their marriage bans and the 法庭之友 briefs supporting the state’s positions.

GLAD’s briefs were authored with Wilmer Hale attorneys Paul Wolfson, Mark Fleming, Alan Schoenfeld, Felicia Ellsworth and Dina Mishra.

See our briefs in the 10th Circuit (基钦诉赫伯特案); the 4th Circuit (Bostic v. Shaefer); the 6th Circuit ) Obergefell v. Himes, Henry v. Himes, 德波尔诉斯奈德案, 伯克诉贝希尔案, Tanco诉Haslam); the 7th Circuit (Baskin v. Bogan); and the 5th Circuit (DeLeon v. Perry).
CONSULTING

GLAD consulted with attorneys around the nation about legal arguments and strategy in marriage and marriage recognition cases in both state and federal courts.

For example, we were on the ground when the Michigan case 德波尔诉斯奈德案 went to trial, identifying and prepping expert witnesses and providing trial support to the legal team of private attorneys (Carole Stanyar, Kenneth Mogill, Dana Nessel and Robert Sedler).

这 judge found in favor of the couple, and the case was then heard on appeal (on August 6, 2014) at the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently issued a decision upholding bans on marriage for same-sex couples in Michigan as well as Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee. The Supreme Court has now agreed to review all four cases this Term.

消息

家 » 国家/联邦 » Page 51

In a letter to Congress on September 4, 2013, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that President Obama has directed the Executive Branc to take steps allowing for same-sex spouses of military veterans to collect federal benefits.

The Attorney General’s letter to Congress can be found 这里.

消息

家 » 国家/联邦 » Page 51

犹他州婚姻平权原告请求美国最高法院复审此案

2014年9月4日更新： 三种不同的声音——企业、国家、家庭和平等团体的声音—— 已提交 法庭之友 内裤 基钦诉赫伯特案 案件。辩护状称，最高法院应该受理一个或多个案件，以解决婚姻禁令造成的伤害和歧视。

本事：

今天，三对挑战犹他州禁止同性婚姻禁令的夫妇请求美国最高法院接受犹他州官员的复审此案的请求。在今天提交的简报中原告认为，最高法院审查是必要的，因为犹他州乃至全美各地的同性伴侣迫切需要婚姻的保障，无论他们在哪里工作或旅行，都能充分保护自己和家人。该案的辩护状指出，只有最高法院的裁决确认同性伴侣的结婚权利，并使其婚姻在全国范围内得到尊重，才能解决这一根本性的不平等。

原告夫妇——科迪·帕特里奇和劳里·伍德、德里克·基钦和穆迪·斯贝蒂以及凯特·卡尔和凯伦·阿彻——认为，禁止婚姻平等的州法律违反了美国宪法所保障的平等保护和正当程序。这些夫妇在下级联邦法院赢得了有利判决，并请求最高法院复审此案，因为同性婚姻只有在全国范围内得到尊重才能真正实现平等。

这对夫妇在请求中表示：“本案事关全体美国人的自由，他们迫切需要本法院作出裁决，允许他们结婚，并使其婚姻获得与其他公民同等的承认。过去一年，全国各地的下级法院正确地认识到，禁止同性伴侣结婚的州法律违反了宪法。然而，由于这些裁决并不适用于全国，同性伴侣仍然面临巨大的不确定性和严重的伤害。他们无法安心规划自己和孩子的未来，因为他们知道，即使他们搬家或旅行，各州也可能不会剥夺他们家庭关系的法律承认。”

案件中的夫妇——基钦诉赫伯特案——其代表律师包括盐湖城 Magleby & Greenwood, PC 律师事务所的首席律师 Peggy Tomsic、全国女同性恋权利中心 (NCLR) 的 Shannon Minter、男女同性恋倡导与捍卫者 (GLAD) 的 Mary Bonauto 以及 Hogan Lovells 律师事务所的前代理总检察长 Neal Katyal。

消息

家 » 国家/联邦 » Page 51

GLAD Civil Rights Project Director Mary Bonauto and Legal Director Gary Buseck have joined colleagues at the 全国女同性恋权利中心（NCLR） and Utah attorney Peggy Tomsic as counsel in their historic federal case representing same-sex couples seeking the freedom to marry in Utah.

Thanks to the 基钦诉赫伯特案 legal team’s adept strategy and tireless advocacy, the Utah case was the first federal district court victory striking down a state marriage ban since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down DOMA. It was also the first victory in a federal court of appeals.

And, it is now the first post-DOMA freedom to marry case that the U.S. Supreme Court has been asked to review.

“We are thrilled to work with our friends and colleagues at NCLR on this important case,” says Buseck. “GLAD has a long history of collaborating with NCLR, and we have enormous respect for their legal acumen and determination.”

Among countless other legal victories on behalf of the LGBT community, NCLR played a leading role in making California the second state in the country to win the freedom to marry, in 2008. Legal Director Shannon Minter argued the case in the California Supreme Court, which ruled that the California Constitution guarantees equal dignity to same-sex couples and their families, including the freedom to marry.

“We are also thrilled to be working shoulder to shoulder with lead counsel Peggy Tomsic of the Salt Lake City law firm of Magleby & Greenwood, P.C. who first filed and has so strategically handled this case,” Buseck adds.” Likewise, we are excited about working with the committed Supreme Court experts at the D.C. firm of 霍金路伟律师事务所.”

“The Kitchen team offers unparalleled experience and knowledge as the case heads to the Supreme Court for consideration. We hope to use what we’ve learned in our work for the freedom to marry across New England, and as part of the decades-long team effort to develop a national marriage strategy, to bring value to the Utah case and help bring marriage equality to every American.”

Want to Support This Work?

Your gift today will support GLAD’s work on this historic marriage case, and all our work for equal justice under law for the LGBT community and people living with HIV. Thank you!

消息

家 » 国家/联邦 » Page 51

Every day we hear about LGBT people who are not treated equally on the job. We agree with the President that workers should be judged only by their ability to get the job done, but know that is not always the reality.

We applaud today’s executive order, which demonstrates a concrete commitment to nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. It’s a step that will make the workplace better and fairer for LGBT employees, including the tens of thousands of federal employees in the New England states.

We are proud that New England has been a leader in establishing protections on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation and that, in the absence of broad federal protections, this executive order extends important protections for LGBT employees who work for federal contractors.

LGBT employees of the federal government or of federal contractors can contact GLADAnswers for information about their rights in the workplace, and to access information and resources: www.GLADAnswers.org.