A year ago, we stood in a ballroom at the Parker House in Boston, a band of LGBT lawyers, same-sex married couples, and widowers, milling around the microphones, ready to go.  We were there to announce our filing of Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, the first serious legal challenge in the country to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

The Parker House, right on the Freedom Trail, is a great place to challenge the status quo:  it’s where JFK announced his initial run for Congress in 1946, where Malcolm X worked as a teenager, and where in 2003 GLAD talked to the press when we won Goodridge– making Massachusetts the first marriage equality state. 

It’s been a busy year since we filed Gill.  An initial flurry of national press coverage was followed by analysis in the National Law Journal, the New Yorker, and in blogs from Politico to Pam’s House Blend.  Other cases were filed (Perry v Schwarzenegger, Massachusetts vs HHS), and marriage equality passed legislatively for the first time in Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine. (Though Maine voters took it back, for now.)

Gill has moved forward with briefings from GLAD and counter-briefings from the Department of Justice. We even won an interim victory for same-sex spouses seeking new passports in their married names. Briefing is now complete and the next step will be for the judge to set a hearing date (stay tuned).

But the most important DOMA development of this past year is this:  hundreds of same-sex couples got married, in Iowa, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire and, most recently, Washington D.C.  And when they did, they ran smack-dab into DOMA.  We keep hearing from folks – on our InfoLine, through our DOMA survey, by email and phone call, of the many and poignant ways in which DOMA hurts their families.

One woman wrote to us about her wife, who had just been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s.  They are worried about the road ahead and the federal government’s denial of their marriage, for the life they’ve built together, and for the struggles they will face together and someday alone. A young couple wrote in disbelief when they found that one of them, a federal employee, would not be able to put the other, who is self-employed, on her health insurance.  Another frets about her Mexican fiancée,– unlike heterosexual married couples, gay people cannot sponsor their spouses for citizenship.

These stories continue to flow, as we knew they would a year ago when Herb Burtis stood at the microphone in the Parker House ballroom and told about his 60 years with John, their marriage, and John’s death from Parkinson’s disease.  “Just as I struggled to cope with John’s loss, I never thought I would have to fight the federal government for the legal and financial protections that I need, and that other surviving spouses can count on.”

Herb and all of our plaintiffs will soon have their first day in court. On that day, we will all take the next giant step in bringing down DOMA.

Today we are launching DOMA Stories: Federal Discrimination Hurts Families.  Each week, we will publish a new story from a family whose life is impacted by DOMA. This week, read about Rebecca Rehm, Judi Burgess and their daughter Beau, A Very Ordinary Family.

GLAD staff are available to speak to members of the media about particular cases GLAD is handling, and about the legal rights of gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, transgender people, and people with HIV/AIDS. If you would like to speak to our staff for an article or interview, please call us at (617) 426-1350.

At just past 3:30 on the day of the O’Donnabhain decision, Tuesday, February 2nd, we heard yelling coming from the legal wing of GLAD’s office.  “We won!  We won!”  Though everyone had been waiting for this decision for 2 ½ years, the news was at first too general, too random.  We won?  Who is we?  And what was won?  Had the legal assistants been betting against the development office on the correct spelling of Lady GaGa’s birth name?  Had one of GLAD’s attorneys given the legal assistants an hour to find the awkward homonym in the department of justice’s 30 page motion to dismiss in Gill v. Office of Personnel Management?  We won?  After losing the vote in Maine last November it was too unfamiliar a sound. 

Eventually we found the source of the yelling:  senior staff attorney, Karen Loewy, sat at her desk reading from the computer screen.  “O’Donnabhain!” she said.  “We won O’Donnabhain.”  The sweet sensation of victory spilled out of Loewy’s office and generated looks of astonishment on the faces of the staff members congregating in the hallway.  “Oh…  My…  God…” someone said.  “Everything?  Did we win everything?”  “I don’t know yet,” Loewy said, still reading, while Gary Buseck, GLAD’s legal director, stood behind her, peering over her shoulder as if her computer were the only potential news feed in the office. 

In the hallway, the announcement: “We won O’Donnabhain” was passed from person-to-person with no variation, defying the usual results of the telephone game.  There were smiles and tears, then as quickly as the crowd had amassed, it dispersed:  public affairs this way, development that way, administration to their offices at the other end of the hallway. 

There was a plan.  A carefully thought out plan. The plaintiff, Rhainnon O’Donnabhain, had to be called; the AP reporter contacted; the “O’Donnabhain Wins” email pulled up and edited for finer details once the legal team had digested the 140 page decision.  The sudden flurry of activity, the mounting pressure to absorb and quickly transmit the news was so much sweeter because it was a win.  A just and deserving win, but one that couldn’t be assumed.  Thus, the preparation of two versions of every press release, every email to board members and GLAD supporters, and statements to feed inquiring reporters. 

GLAD’s legal team finally determined that the decision was a total win.  Rhiannon was right in deducting expenses for her sex reassignment surgery and hormone treatments from her taxes back in 2001, and now, thanks to the tax court’s decision, others in the U.S. would be able to do the same without fear of challenges from the IRS.  Sweet, sweet victory.

By 8pm the news of the decision had appeared in an AP dispatch to the Boston Herald:  “Court Allows Tax Deduction for Woman’s Sex Change.”  The press release declaring the win against the IRS was sent out to over 800 media outlets. 

Day Two-Teleconferences

As part of the follow-up plan, GLAD had arranged three teleconferences for the next day:  a morning conference with GLAD donors, a noon media conference, and a 6pm community conference.  GLAD attorneys, Jennifer Levi, Karen Loewy, and Ben Klein attended the conferences and Rhiannon O’Donnabhian would join them for the final community conference moderated by National Center for Transgender Equality’s Mara Keisling. 

At noon, reporters from Agence France Press, NPR, Pam’s House Blend, and Keen News Service, among others, joined in on the teleconference.  Attorney Karen Loewy introduced the case and explained the scope of the tax court’s decision.  Follow-up questions focused largely on whether the IRS would file an appeal and whether the decision would have any influence on how insurance companies handled SRS claims in the future.  Loewy explained that the IRS had 90 days to appeal, and though the ruling was unequivocal in its determination that gender identity disorder warranted medical treatment, it was too early to tell what effect this would have on other agencies.

Emails and phone calls of congratulations would come into the office throughout the afternoon from GLAD supporters, sister organizations, and the community.  A small office celebration was planned for 5pm. 

At 4:30 Rhiannon arrived and was greeted with hugs and congratulations.  All of GLAD’s staff gathered in the boardroom for a toast to Rhiannon and GLAD’s legal team.  Wearing her trademark dark slacks and white button down blouse, her curls of dark red hair and multiple ear piercings, Rhiannon was both joyous and overwhelmed to be there, toasting the favorable decision after waiting so many years.  “I’m at a loss for words,” she would say more than once that evening. 

By 6pm GLAD staff had once again dispersed, leaving Rhiannon, attorneys Ben Klein and Jennifer Levi, and Manager of Public Education, Alison Cashin, to take part in the teleconference.  NCTE’s executive director, Mara Keisling, and managing director, Stephanie White, were on the line with over 70 callers from around the country.  Unfortunately, many had to be turned away.

Keisling began by thanking GLAD for all their work on LGBT rights and transgender rights in particular.  She praised Rhiannon for her courage:  “She was strong,” Keisling said.  “It was not easy, I’m sure, and she has won a huge victory for all of us.”  On hearing this, Rhiannon was obviously moved. 

Jennifer Levi, GLAD’s Transgender Rights Project Director, returned the praise for NCTE and Keisling’s leadership in Washington D.C.  She then expressed how “tremendously proud” she was to work on Rhiannon’s case with attorneys Ben Klein, Karen Loewy, and tax attorneys at Sullivan and Worcester.  After detailing the history of the case, Levi introduced Rhiannon to the community:  “We wouldn’t be here today,” she said.  “Without the courage and conviction of our client, Rhiannon O’Donnabhian.”

Rhiannon introduced herself, then apologized for reading from a prepared text:  “This is an affirmation that my cause was a right cause and that I was right in perusing this through the court.”  She paused, wiping tears from her eyes.  “Now the long wait is over and my brothers and sisters can take a medical deduction for their treatment for gender identity disorder without fear that their medical deduction is going to be denied by the IRS.” 

Jennifer Levi explained that the court’s decision went beyond expectations in its agreement that the triadic therapy of the Benjamin standards (the real life test, hormone therapy, and SRS) was the “appropriate” treatment for GID and that surgeries involved in that treatment are not considered cosmetic. 

The conference was then opened up for questions.  Callers hailed from California, Washington, Arizona, Illinois, Wisconsin and New York, among other states.  Questions covered topics such as deductions for flexible spending accounts, whether overseas travel expenses were deductible, and whether other surgeries such as facial feminization surgery or hair removal were deductible.  Levi was careful to explain that she was not an accountant and that questions regarding tax codes should be directed to a tax attorney.  Regarding other surgeries, she pointed out that if the treatment is “therapeutic in nature” and deemed so by the physician then it should be deductible. 

By 7pm the conference came to a close, and two hectic, yet satisfying, days neared their end. 

Rhiannon said goodbye to everyone; hugs were exchanged, and she left GLAD’s office. 

While walking up Winter Street to catch the Red Line home, a woman came up to Rhiannon and asked her for some change.  Without hesitating, she reached into her wallet and pulled out a dollar, giving it to the woman with a smile.  As she continued walking towards the T station she shook her head, “That could easily be me,” she said.
 

The reality of my early sports career in junior high and high school placed me as both a valued athlete and an object of anti-gay jokes and slurs. At that age, I had yet to embrace “gay” as my identity, yet my lack of machismo fueled doubt about my heterosexuality. Severe harassment, taunts, and a general climate of anti-gay attitudes hindered any possibility of coming out, and I would selectively participate only on teams I perceived as less hostile. Unable to seek recourse from my coaches or teammates, I continued to struggle both on and off the playing field, failing to answer my athletic potential.

By the time I began college at Dartmouth, I never imagined reconciling my sexuality and love for sports. My previous experiences didn’t provide incentive to risk further humiliation, and the lack of widely available resources and support for LGBT athletes left me feeling isolated and alone. Despite having the cards stacked against me, I had the unique, and deeply fortunate, opportunity to participate with welcoming coaches and teammates on the track and field team, who both affirmed and embraced my identity. For the first time in my athletic career, I finally felt like I was on a team. 

While I had an exceptional support network at Dartmouth, I witnessed many friends at other schools being ridiculed into quitting their teams, or further repressing their sexuality for fear of being discovered. There remains today a serious need for support and recourse for LGBT athletes at all levels.

If we wish to create a sports culture of inclusion for all athletes, we must begin by telling our stories. I am humbled and fortunate to be a part of GLAD’s efforts to tackle homophobia and transphobia in sports. I wish there had been such a resource when I was in high school and college, especially for those who experienced far greater prejudice and discrimination. I look forward to a day when the challenges LGBT athletes face come from competition, and not from teammates.

Please share your story by taking GLAD’s survey, and help create a culture of inclusion for LGBT athletes.

It’s not just Uncle Sam - GLAD wants you to take part in the 2010 census!

This is an historic opportunity to show who we are as families.  For the first time, the census will count married same-sex couples, in addition to counting same-sex couples living in the same household.

Visibility matters.  If we’re not represented as part of the community, then we’re written off - legally, politically, and in the hearts and minds of other Americans.  GLAD and all LGBT groups use census data in our advocacy work to make us visible to lawmakers, courts, the media, and the general public.

The last time there was a census, in 2000, there was no such thing as a “married same-sex couple.” Today, because of the hard work of the LGBT community, tens of thousands of same-sex couples are legally married and living all over the country.  Those couples will be counted by the 2010 census.

It’s also important for couples who live together but are not married to participate in the census. This part of our community was undercounted last time around - let’s make ourselves visible, no matter where we live and no matter whether we are married or not.

No survey can capture the wonderful variety of our community, and the 2010 census is not a perfect tool.  The form has not yet evolved to include questions about individual sexual orientation or gender identity (see the helpful FAQ at ourfamiliescount.org for more information on this). But the counting of married same-sex couples and same-sex households represents progress.  This is an historic opportunity to gather information that our community itself would never have the resources to gather.  That’s why participation is so important.  When your census form arrives in the mail in early March, complete it, return it, and make sure you are counted!

For more information about the census, visit www.2010census.gov.  You can also call GLAD’s InfoLine at 800-455-4523 with any questions.

Excerpted from the ABA Family Advocate

As Justice Ginsburg famously noted in 1996, the history of our constitution is the history of extending constitutional protections to those who were once ignored or excluded from American society. [United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996)]. That journey to citizenship is well under way for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Americans as well. The first efforts to secure legal respect for committed relationships, inspired by the U.S. Supreme Court’s crucial 1967 decision in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), striking down state “anti-miscegenation” laws, were summarily dismissed, a mark of gay people’s outsider status at that time. See, e.g., Baker v. Nelson, 191 N.W.2d 185 (Minn. 1971).

Over the years, however, the larger community has come to understand that gay people are part of the fabric of American life, a perception confirmed by a historical review of polling information. See Karlyn Bowman & Adam Foster, Attitudes About Homosexuality & Gay Marriage, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (June 3, 2008). In addition to issues such as hate crime laws, nondiscrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations, and parenting issues, same-sex couples also are seeking to take on the legal obligations and commitments of marriage. Inaugurated by the Hawaii marriage litigation in the early 1990s, state courts and legislatures have been examining anew the question of what legal rights and protections should be extended to committed same-sex couples.

Continue reading

U.S. Tax Court Sets Precedent, Says Treatment is Medical Care

GLAD staff are available to speak to members of the media about particular cases GLAD is handling, and about the legal rights of gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, transgender people, and people with HIV/AIDS. If you would like to speak to our staff for an article or interview, please call us at (617) 426-1350.

GLAD staff are available to speak to members of the media about particular cases GLAD is handling, and about the legal rights of gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, transgender people, and people with HIV/AIDS. If you would like to speak to our staff for an article or interview, please call us at (617) 426-1350.

GLAD staff are available to speak to members of the media about particular cases GLAD is handling, and about the legal rights of gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, transgender people, and people with HIV/AIDS. If you would like to speak to our staff for an article or interview, please call us at (617) 426-1350.