訊息

Washington, DC – Today, the Supreme Court struck down a central part of the Voting Rights Act, invalidating crucial protections passed by Congress in 1965 and renewed four times in the decades since. The sharply divided decision will significantly reduce the federal government’s role in overseeing voting laws in areas with a history of discrimination against African-Americans.

We, America’s leading LGBT advocacy organizations, join civil rights organizations – and indeed, all Americans whom this law has served to protect – in expressing acute dismay at today’s ruling. Not only had Congress repeatedly reaffirmed the need for this bedrock civil rights protection, but authoritative voices from across America had filed amicus briefs urging the court not to undermine the law: the NAACP; the American Bar Association; the Navajo Nation; the states of New York, California, Mississippi and North Carolina; numerous former Justice Department officials charged with protecting voting rights; dozens of U.S. senators and representatives; and many others.

These varied and powerful voices attest to the self-evident reality that racial protections are still needed in voting in this country. As recently as last year’s elections, political partisans resorted to voter suppression laws and tactics aimed at reducing the votes of people of color.

Voting rights protections, which have long served our nation’s commitment to equality and justice, should not be cast aside now. The court has done America a grave disservice, and we will work with our coalition partners to undo the damage inflicted by this retrogressive ruling.

黑人平等中心
CenterLink：LGBT中心社區
The Consortium of Higher Education LGBT Resource Professionals
平等聯盟
家庭平等委員會
結婚自由
男女同性戀倡議者和捍衛者
Gay Men’s Health Crisis (GMHC)
人權運動
Immigration Equality Action Fund
Lambda 法律
全國黑人正義聯盟
全國女同性戀權利中心
國家跨性別平等中心
全國男女同性戀特別工作小組
The National Queer Asian Pacific Islander Alliance
平等工作場所倡議者
PFLAG – Parents, Families, & Friends of Lesbians and Gays
Pride at Work, AFL-CIO
Unid@s

訊息

家 » 國家/聯邦 » Page 55

Fifteen years ago, on June 26, 1998, the lead story in the 《紐約時報》 read: “People with HIV infection can be covered by the federal law that bars discrimination on the basis of disability even if they have no symptoms, the Supreme Court ruled today in a major victory for people with the virus that causes AIDS.”

The case was 布拉格登訴阿博特案, which involved a Maine dentist refusing to treat a woman with HIV. The victorious lawyer representing Sidney Abbott was Ben Klein, Director of the AIDS Law Project of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD).

“While people living with HIV can now live longer and with less fear of discrimination, stigma has certainly not gone away,” said Klein. “There is much work still to do to ensure that people with HIV can live full lives unencumbered by discrimination.”

To mark the anniversary, GLAD is rolling out a series of educational materials about the legal rights of people living with HIV:

• GLAD’s new shareable graphic illustrates the protections that people living with HIV enjoy under the Americans with Disabilities Act as a result of the victory in Bragdon.

• GLAD’s podcast about the Bragdon case tells the story of how the refusal of a dentist in Maine to treat Ms. Abbott became the basis for nationwide protections for people living with HIV.

• GLAD has produced new editions of the Overview of Legal Issues for People Living with HIV for the six New England states. The overviews explain the legal rights of people living with HIV in employment, health care, privacy, and more.

GLAD has litigated over 100 HIV-related cases over the years, and is currently focusing on access to health care for people living with HIV. GLAD is spearheading the Treat Lipodystrophy Coalition in Massachusetts, which supports legislation requiring insurance coverage of medical treatment for lipodystrophy, a debilitating and disfiguring side effect of HIV medications.

Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders is New England’s leading legal rights organization dedicated to ending discrimination based on sexual orientation, HIV status, and gender identity and expression. GLAD’s Legal InfoLine operates Monday-Friday from 1:30-4:30 p.m. at 1-800-455-4523.

訊息

家 » 國家/聯邦 » Page 55

To mark the anniversary, GLAD is rolling out a series of educational materials about the legal rights of people living with HIV:

• GLAD’s new shareable graphic illustrates the protections that people living with HIV enjoy under the Americans with Disabilities Act as a result of the victory in Bragdon.

• GLAD’s podcast about the Bragdon case tells the story of how the refusal of a dentist in Maine to treat Ms. Abbott became the basis for nationwide protections for people living with HIV.

訊息

家 » 國家/聯邦 » Page 55

HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment and protections are our entire LGBT community’s issues. Join us in taking the pledge to end this epidemic at http://www.wethelgbt.org

GLAD’s AIDS Law Project has been at the forefront of fighting HIV discrimination in state and federal courts since its founding in 1984.

From our 1998 groundbreaking Supreme Court victory in 布拉格登訴阿博特案, which established that people with HIV are protected from discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act, to our current work fighting for privacy and healthcare coverage for people with HIV, our commitment has never waivered.

Today, GLAD and 34 LGBT and HIV/AIDS organizations from across the United States are rededicating our time, talent, and resources to the fight against HIV.

Join us: visit www.wethelgbt.org to read the letter and sign the pledge to do your part in ending the HIV epidemic.

Read GLAD’s press release here.

訊息

家 » 國家/聯邦 » Page 55

With April 15 on the horizon, the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) means that married same-sex couples across the country are dealing with the indignity, confusion, and expense caused by the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

DOMA means that married same-sex couples cannot file their federal income taxes jointly as married. For some, this means paying more in taxes, and for others, it means paying less. For all, it is a stark reminder that the federal government doesn’t respect their marriage or their family. In tax year 2012, couples from Maine and Washington have been able to marry, and are confronting these problems for the first time.

For couples and members of the media, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders is making a number of resources available.

Guides for Couples and Tax Preparers

Navigating Income Taxes for Married Same-Sex Couples
https://www.gladlaw.org/uploads/docs/publications/navigating-taxes-married-couples.pdf

Tax Time and Preserving Your Federal Rights (information on preserving the right to claim a prior-year refund if DOMA is ruled unconstitutional)
https://www.gladlaw.org/uploads/docs/publications/tax-time.pdf

Blog Post

GLAD’s InfoLine Manager Bruce Bell, who has received hundreds of calls about tax-filing, prepared this blog post to help couples think through the issues.

Legal InfoLine

Volunteers with GLAD’s Legal InfoLine can answer questions for couples and tax preparers. The Legal InfoLine can be reached at 800-455-GLAD (4523), or by email at gladlaw@glad.org, or for live chat at https://www.gladlaw.org/rights/infoline-contact.

Stories of Tax-Filing Couples Harmed by DOMA

Beth Ryan and Jenny O’Flaherty of Vermont: They moved from Virginia to Vermont to protect themselves and their children from anti-gay laws, but federal discrimination followed them.

Suzanne and Geraldine Artis of Connecticut: At tax time, they must decide to whom their three children belong: to Geraldine or Suzanne. Says Suzanne, “They’re not property, they’re my family.”

Joel Howard and John Tracy Tucker of Connecticut: This couple has paid an additional $12,000 in taxes because of DOMA. “We are basically paying a penalty for being a gay couple,” says Joel.

Ailsa Wu and Kate Herman of Massachusetts: With their modest income, it’s a significant loss to be unable to file jointly. They must hire an accountant to prepare two sets of returns instead of one, and they pay more.

Paul Ruseau and Bob Ruseau of Massachusetts: With two small children and one stay-at-home dad, Paul and Bob take a tax hit that worries them for their children’s future.

There are more stories of couples affected by DOMA at www.gladlaw.org/doma/stories.

訊息

家 » 國家/聯邦 » Page 55

(Washington, D.C., March 29, 2013)—Last week, several national LGBT groups and a cooperating attorney filed an administrative challenge to Medicare’s ban on medically necessary healthcare for transgender patients. Medicare, which provides healthcare to Americans ages 65 and older and younger people with certain qualifying disabilities, currently prohibits all forms of gender reassignment surgeries regardless of the individual patient’s diagnosis or serious medical needs.

The National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), and civil rights attorney Mary Lou Boelcke initiated the challenge on behalf of Denee Mallon, a transgender woman whose doctors have recommended surgery to alleviate her severe gender dysphoria.

“Medicare’s categorical exclusion of this care lacks any scientific basis,” said Shannon Minter, the Legal Director at NCLR. “Study after study has shown that these surgeries are the only effective treatment for many patients suffering from severe gender dysphoria.”

Ms. Mallon joined the United States Army when she was 17 years old and worked as a forensics investigator for a city police department after she was honorably discharged from the Army. She was later diagnosed with gender identity disorder, a serious medical condition that is characterized by intense and persistent discomfort with one’s birth sex.

“The American Medical Association, the Endocrine Society, and the American Psychological Association all support these treatments for transgender patients,” said Joshua Block, a staff attorney with the ACLU’s LGBT and AIDS Project. “These procedures have been performed for decades and are proven to be safe and effective.”

Medicare adopted the ban, which is codified as National Coverage Determination (NCD) 140.3, more than thirty years ago. Decades of extensive scientific and clinical research since that time have established that these surgeries are safe and effective.

As a result of the administrative challenge, the Department Appeals Board (DAB) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) must review the ban, determine whether it is reasonable based on current standards of care, and reverse it if it is not. The DAB is staffed by career civil servants who have been tasked with providing an impartial independent review of disputes concerning Medicare and other HHS programs. Earlier last week, the HHS Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) on its own initiative included a statement on its website that it would be reconsidering the ban. CMS subsequently withdrew its proposal to reconsider the ban and through a spokesperson explained that the ban would instead be reviewed through the independent DAB process.

“What matters to us is that there will be a fair and scientifically based review of the ban. We don’t think the medical data supports it and are hopeful that CMS will agree,” said Jennifer Levi, Transgender Rights Project Director for Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders.

###
The American Civil Liberties Union’s Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Project works to end discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. http://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights

Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders is New England’s leading legal organization dedicated to ending discrimination based on sexual orientation, HIV status, and gender identity and expression. https://www.gladlaw.org

全國女同性戀權利中心是一個全國性的法律組織，致力於透過訴訟、公共政策倡議和公共教育來促進女同性戀、男同性戀、雙性戀和跨性別群體的人權和公民權利。 http://www.nclrights.org

Mary Lou Boelcke is a civil rights attorney in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

訊息

家 » 國家/聯邦 » Page 55

Last week, several national LGBT groups and a cooperating attorney filed an administrative challenge to Medicare’s ban on medically necessary healthcare for transgender patients. Medicare, which provides healthcare to Americans ages 65 and older and younger people with certain qualifying disabilities, currently prohibits all forms of gender reassignment surgeries regardless of the individual patient’s diagnosis or serious medical needs.

點擊此處了解更多。

訊息

家 » 國家/聯邦 » Page 55

Washington, DC – The Supreme Court heard oral arguments today in 美國訴溫莎案, challenging Section 3 of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” which defines marriage as between a man and a woman for all federal purposes.

The following statement was made by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders’ Executive Director Lee Swislow after oral arguments today in 美國訴溫莎案:

“For every day DOMA continues to be enforced by our federal government, thousands of legally married same-sex couples are denied critical protections.

DOMA is a blatantly discriminatory law which targets a particularly disliked group, impacts important personal interests, and represents a one-time departure from the usual process of allocating federal rights and benefits.

Same-sex couples who are legally married in their home states should be treated like all other married couples in this nation – with respect and dignity.

I am confident this case got a fair hearing today in our nation’s highest court. This day has been long in the making, and the question is not if, but when, this discriminatory law will be overturned.”

GLAD 的兩項 DOMA 挑戰， 吉爾訴人事管理辦公室 和 佩德森訴人事管理辦公室 were considered at the Supreme Court conference in December, but were not granted certiorari.

GLAD filed Gill, the country’s first strategic challenge to DOMA in 2009; and filed Pedersen in 2010. Gill was the first case in which DOMA was found unconstitutional by a federal District Court, and also achieved the first appellate ruling that DOMA is unconstitutional in May 2012.

Gill was held by the Court and will most likely be addressed by the Court in June.

訊息

家 » 國家/聯邦 » Page 55

Washington, DC – The Supreme Court heard oral arguments today in Hollingsworth v. Perry, challenging California’s Proposition 8 that revoked same-sex couples’ ability to marry in the state.

The following statement was made by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defender’s Executive Director Lee Swislow after oral arguments:

“We are confident this case got a fair hearing today in our nation’s highest court. Gay and lesbian couples have the same love and make the same commitment as all couples, and deserve the same recognition as full citizens.

These couples are simply asking for the government to honor their fundamental right to marry and to treat them with equal dignity and respect under the law.

Our country’s history is one of expanding the circle of constitutional rights and protections to include more citizens, and our nation is always the better for it.

We are hopeful that the court will seize this historic moment, and come down on the side of fairness, dignity and equality.”

GLAD has been a leader in the fight to secure the freedom to marry for same-sex couples, starting with its 1997 litigation in Vermont leading to civil unions in 2000 and the landmark 2003 victory in 古德里奇訴公共衛生部 making Massachusetts the first state to legally marry same-sex couples, followed by wins in Connecticut’s Supreme Court in 2008, in the New Hampshire and Vermont legislatures in 2009, and at the ballot box in Maine in 2012.

訊息

家 » 國家/聯邦 » Page 55

GLAD Civil Rights Project Director Mary Bonauto and Edie Windsor

Marriage at the Supreme Court – Wednesday, March 27

溫莎訴美國案

Plaintiff: Edith Windsor

Federal constitutional challenge to Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits the federal government from recognizing the legal marriages of gay and lesbian couples. Read more at www.aclu.org/edie

簡介和其他資訊： www.gladlaw.org/doma/documents 和 www.aclu.org/edie

Case Brought by: Paul, Weiss and the ACLU

爭論音頻： www.supremecourt.gov

要了解華盛頓特區全天的即時更新，請關注：