Gay Couples Law Blog

Florida Gay Adoption Approved for Third Time

Gideon Alper — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 17:00:00 -0500

Gay adoption has been illegal in Florida since 1977, but another judge has nevertheless allowed it. This makes three approved gay adoptions within the last year.

What's going on?

Circuit-judges hearing adoption cases have said that the gay adoption ban is unconstitutional, and therefore grant the adoptions despite the law against them. You might remember from discussion around the Proposition 8 trial about what makes a law unconstitutional. It's not whether it's discriminatory, but rather, whether the state has a good enough reason for discriminating.

That's why the judge said in her ruling that the law is unconstitutional because the state government's reason for it--that gay adoption is bad for children and society--isn't good enough:

There is no rational connection between sexual orientation and what is or is not in the best interest of a child. The child is happy and thriving with [his lesbian mother]. The only way to give this child permanency . . . is to allow him to be adopted.

Meanwhile, the Court of Appeals for the Third District in Florida will soon rule on the Gill adoption case, the first of three times when a judge in Florida granted a gay adoption.

YouTube Video about Proposition Trial 8 Broadcast Ban

Gideon Alper — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 15:26:46 -0500

Came across a Schoolhouse Rock-type video about how the Supreme Court banned public broadcast of the Proposition 8 trial on YouTube.

It at least has a catchy jingle. Note that while the video says that California is defending Proposition 8, both Governor Schwarzenegger and the attorney general have declined to defend the law. Instead, various political organizations took up the defense.

Two Biological Moms: Who Gets Parental Rights?

Gideon Alper — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 10:11:11 -0500

Scientific developments in surrogacy are particularly important to lesbian couples because they could lead to changes in legal rights that so often affect them.

Case in point: a new development pointed out by California family lawyer Theresa Erickson, written about in a New York Times article on the developing science of surrogacy. The article talks about how scientific developments are making it possible for a child to have more than one biological parent. Defective DNA of a pregnant woman can be replaced with DNA from another woman, giving a child 2 biological moms.

This creates problems because state laws are set up with the assumption that a child can only have two biological parents. While a handful of cases have recently recognized the legal possibility of three parents, such as a Pennsylvania decision that made three adults pay child support, most states, including Georgia, have no such cases.

Theresa does note that the article makes a good suggestion for how the law can cope with these scientific advances:

Parenthood cannot be reduced to a formula, but the law should move toward a greater recognition that the intent of the people involved is more important than the genes. That would provide useful guidance for courts to think about fractional parents — especially if the day comes when three or more people want to combine their DNA to create a baby.

In other words, parental rights should be based on who take care of a child, not who's biologically related. I'm not sure if this is a good solution, because often in child custody cases more than two adults have helped take care of the child. Certainly, it should be a factor, but I don't think it's necessarily a better system than biological relatedness.

On the other hand, if the law does move to place more weight on who takes care of a child when deciding parental rights, that may make more rare situations where rights are given to sperm donors solely because they're biologically related to the child.

Risks of Using a Known Sperm Donor

Gideon Alper — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 11:15:28 -0500

Seattle University Law School professor Julie Shapiro had a interesting post this past weekend on why lesbians should think twice before using a known sperm donor.

Professor Shapiro points out what's unique about a California where a lesbian couple split up five months after one woman gave birth to twins. Now they fight for custody.

Smith [the non-birth mother] is not simply opposed by Quale [her former partner, the birth-mother] but also by Wallace [the sperm donor], and Wallace is not simply a party in the case, he is present as Quale’s new partner. Quale and Wallace can present themselves as a heterosexual couple, both of whom are related to the child–a traditional, man/woman, genetically constructed family.

It’s not hard to imagine that a court might seize an opportunity to ensure the twins are raised in an ordinary heterosexual, genetically constructed household.

I agree. While Smith, the non-birth mother, might have a legitimate claim to keeping parental rights, I doubt the court will do anything other than award full parental rights to the birth mom and dad. Especially since the the lesbian couple split up just five months after the twins were born.

Why Proving Discrimination Isn't Good Enough for Gay Marriage Supporters in Prop 8 Trial

Gideon Alper — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 08:00:00 -0500

Some people ask how it could be constitutional to ban gay marriage when its clearly discriminatory. The answer is that whether a law is constitutional or not doesn't depend on whether or not it discriminates. Instead, it's all about whether the government has a good enough reason for making the law.

For example, often times courts say that affirmative action laws (such as public school policies) are constitutional even though they discriminate. In those cases, courts say that the government has a good enough reason (correcting effects of past discrimination) to discriminate. Certainly, affirmative action negatively affects those races not benefited by the rules, but the laws are nevertheless legal.

That's why in the California Proposition 8 trial, the fight isn't about whether the the law discriminates or even whether the law hurts gay couples wanting to get married. Instead, it's about whether California has a good enough reason to have the law.

What does "good enough" mean?

It depends. There's 3 versions of "good enough" that the district court can use. Which of these the court should use is one of the things that the lawyers argue about. Auto-straddle, a blog covering lesbian legal issues, explains:

With strict scrutiny, Prop 8 lawyers have to demonstrate that the law is narrowly tailored to further a compelling governmental purpose.

With intermediate scrutiny, Prop 8 lawyers have to demonstrate that the law is substantially related to an important governmental purpose.

With just rational basis, [Prop 8 lawyers have] to demonstrate that the law is rationally related to any legitimate governmental purpose.

Strict scrutiny is the hardest one to show, while rational basis is the easiest.

What's a governmental purpose?

Let's take the argument that the reason to ban gay marriage is to promote families that can naturally procreate. If the court chooses the "strict scrutiny" version of "good enough," then lawyers supporting the gay marriage ban would need to show two things:

Proposition 8 does very little else except promote naturally procreating families and also actually does promote these kind of families (narrowly tailored)
Promoting naturally procreating families is a compelling governmental purpose.

But if the court chooses the "rational basis" version, then the side against gay marriage only needs to show the following:

Proposition 8 is rationally related to promoting naturally procreating families. So, it wouldn't have to actually be effective and it could have lots of side effects. They'd just need to make some rational argument that it's related.
Promoting naturally procreating families is a legitimate governmental purpose. Note the difference here: the purpose only has to be legitimate--it doesn't have to be a particularly good purpose, and especially not a compelling one.

Putting It All Together

First the court needs to decide which version of "good enough" to use. Once it does, it'll look at each reason for having the gay marriage ban and determine whether it meets that definition of "good enough."

Research Shows that Gay Parents Are Good Parents

Gideon Alper — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 08:00:00 -0500

Opponents of gay marriage often say that gay marriage should be disallowed because children do better with opposite sex parents. But a new study says otherwise. Sharon Jayson reported last week in the USA Today about research by University of Southern California sociologists that showed that kids with same sex parents do just as well as kids with opposite sex parents.

Timothy Biblarz, one of the two researchers, explained:

Children being raised by same-gender parents, on most all of the measures that we care about, self-esteem, school performance, social adjustment and so on, seem to be doing just fine and, in most cases, are statistically indistinguishable from kids raised by married moms and dads on these measures.

This isn't the first study to claim that kids with same sex parents do just as well as kids with opposite sex ones. This past September a multi-state study reached the same conclusion.

Lesbian Mother Loses Ohio Custody Court Battle

Gideon Alper — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 15:40:38 -0500

A lesbian mother that took care of a child was denied parental rights by an Ohio court, but a sperm donor that had almost no contact was given them. Here's what happened:

Two women, partners, want a child.
Male friend donates sperm. Signs contract giving up rights to child.
Woman gives birth to baby girl.
Couple splits up two years later.
Birth mother moves out with child.
Non-birth mother sues for custody rights. Denied.

In the court's opinion [PDF], the judge recognizes that that the non-birth mother acted as a parent while the couple was together, including the facts that the non-birth mother's name was on the birth certificate and that she had been able to make health and support decisions for the child.

Julie Shaprio, a professor at Seattle University Law, pointed out what happened to the sperm donor:

By contrast, the court found that [the sperm donor] was a parent, even though he had signed an agreement to relinquish his rights and he played only a limited role in the child’s life. (This finding wasn’t appealed, so it isn’t discussed in the opinion. It’s not clear to me why his written agreement is without force.)

So could this happen anywhere? No. I've talked before about how different states have different laws about the rights of non-birth mothers that separate from a relationship with the birth mother. It's possible in this case that the non-birth mother wasn't given parental rights because, after finding that the sperm donor was a parent, the court didn't want to assign a third parent to the child.

Launched: Atlanta Divorce Law Blog

Gideon Alper — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 09:55:31 -0500

I've started a new blog, the Atlanta Divorce Law Blog. It will provide resources and information on Georgia divorce and family law.

I hope the new blog will help make the law easier to understand so that people can make more informed decisions about their families. Check it out!

Supreme Court Decision on Proposition 8 Hard to Predict Because Historic Majorities Don't Apply

Gideon Alper — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 09:30:28 -0500

No matter which way the judge rules in the California Proposition 8 trial, the case will almost certainly be appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and then the Supreme Court.

How would the Supreme Court rule? It's hard to predict because historic political majorities of the Court wouldn't apply.

It's not so simple as dividing up the Court into conservatives and liberals. First let's look at the traditional conservative majority. Usually it falls into two camps:

Libertarians: "People can do whatever they want--as long as it doesn't cost anything, we don't care."
Traditional right: "If it's not moral, you can't do it."

When it comes to gay marriage, these two camps will disagree. Libiterians will say that as long as gay couples getting married doesn't cost anything and doesn't affect other people, then it's fine. But the traditional right won't like gay marriage because they don't think it's moral.

But the historic liberal side doesn't apply to the gay marriage debate either:

Traditional left: "The government can't restrict personal freedom."
Liberal subgroup: "The government should prevent people from harming themselves through laws and regulation."

The traditional left will support gay marriage, because they see marriage as a personal freedom and don't think the government should interfere. But a subgroup of liberals will support banning gay marriage if there's any reason that it's bad for society. Or, they'll want to ban gay marriage if they think gay sex is particularly risky (an argument that has much rarer than it was during the AIDS crisis).

So predicting how the Supreme Court would rule on gay marriage isn't as simple as counting the number of conservatives and liberals on the Court. A perfect example lies in the lead attorney for the side in the trial supporting gay marriage: Ted Olsen, a traditional conservative and President Bush's former solicitor general. See his article in a recent Newsweek about the conservative case for gay marriage.

Gay Marriage: Facts and Resources

Gideon Alper — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 11:08:10 -0500

With the Proposition 8 trial still going on this week, a lot of people just want the facts before they make their own opinion about how the court should rule. Here's three of the best resources that show the laws and statistics about gay marriage in an unbiased way.

State by State Map of Gay Marriage Laws. The Wall Street Journal compiled information from the Human Rights Campaign, the National Conference of State Legislatures, and other sources, to compile a user-friendly interactive map.

Text of State Constitutional Amendments Targeting Same-Sex Marriage. If you're one of those people who wants to read the laws themselves to see how exactly gay marriage is outlawed, check out this collection put together by Lambda Legal.

Year 2000 Census Information on Same Sex Households. Expect these numbers to increase in 2010 more than other types of families. The 2010 census will be the first to let gay couples report as married.

Lesbian Custody Battle with Sperm Donor in Canada Highlights Similar U.S. Issues

Gideon Alper — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 09:00:27 -0500

Shocker: not all the news in gay couples law this week is about the Perry trial.

A lesbian couple in Canada who used a friend's sperm to conceive a child is now taking their friend to court to prevent him from seeing their child. Their original arrangement was that their friend was not to have any parental rights, but after the child was born he nevertheless tried to fulfill the role of father.

The dispute raises numerous issues, including whether a child can have more than two legal parents, whether a man has parental rights to children conceived from his sperm, and whether you can contract away legal obligations to children.

In the U.S., each state makes its own laws about these issues. Usually the laws of the state where the sperm donation took place will apply.

Most states follow the Uniform Parentage Act, which says that men have no rights to children conceived from their sperm. But not all. Just last month, a Pennsylvania Superior Court ordered a sperm donor to pay child support, even though two others already paying. That meant three adults were legally obligated to support one child.

Will sperm donors get more rights in the future? Probably not--it's pretty well settled in most states that sperm donors won't have legal rights to their children. But Jacob Appel, a bioethicist and contributor to many academic publications, says that sperm donors will continue to seek parental rights through the courts, such as in this Canada case. In exchange, he says states should make laws that more clearly prevent sperm donors from claiming parental rights:

A generation of progressives -- women's rights advocates, gay rights advocates, supporters of artificial reproductive technologies -- have fought to transform the definition of "family" from one based solely upon molecular biology to one based upon love and mutual respect. In order to protect this progress, legislation is needed -- either at the state or national level -- to guarantee the rights of established families over the efforts of interloping sperm donors.

How Will Supreme Court Rule on Public Broadcast of Perry Trial?

Gideon Alper — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 15:20:19 -0500

The Perry v. Schwarzenegger trial was going to be recorded and uploaded to YouTube, but the Supreme Court temporarily prevented that until Wednesday so that it can consider the issue in more depth. Once it does, how will it rule?

To begin with, Judge Walker no longer wants to upload recorded videos of the trial to YouTube; instead, he wants to have a link to the videos placed directly on the court's website.

It comes down to who's supposed to make public broadcasting rules for the federal courts:

The side wanting to prevent broadcasting of the trial says it should be the U.S. Judicial Conference, which writes the general policies for federal courts.

The side wanting to allow broadcasting says it should be the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council, which makes policy for the Ninth Circuit, where the trial is being held.

Lyle Denniston suggested over at SCOTUSblog, which tracks Supreme Court developments, that the Supreme Court might even decide that it shouldn't meddle into the trial procedures of federal district courts:

This exchange apparently signals that, when the Supreme Court further considers the issue, it may have to decide the legal status of the Judicial Conference policy, as compared to that of the Ninth Circuit’s Judicial Council, which has authorized the TV “pilot project” to apply to the Prop. 8 trial. And the Justices may also have to consider the scope of their own “supervisory power” over a question of trial procedure in the federal District Courts.

Both sides filed briefs with the Court last night and this morning, so I expect a ruling by tomorrow.

Unbiased Recap of Perry Proposition 8 Trial

Gideon Alper — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 10:33:28 -0500

I've gotten a couple of emails asking where to get just an unbiased summary, but not a full transcript, of what happened at the Perry trial yesterday. This makes sense, as a lot people are busy and don't have time to read full transcript, but still want an unbiased recap.

Shannon Minter, Legal Director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, provided just that at Pam's House Blend. Here's an excerpt:

From the first moment to the closing bell, Judge Walker moved the proceedings forward at a rapid clip. It was a great day for our side, spiced with some intriguing hints from Judge Walker about how he may be viewing some of the key legal issues in the case. Photo of NCLR's Legal Director Shannon MinterTed Olson and San Francisco Deputy City Attorney Therese Stewart gave eloquent opening statements. Both plaintiff couples presented emotional and moving testimony during their examinations and cross-examinations. And by the end of the day, the plaintiff's first expert witness (the distinguished American history scholar, Professor Nancy Cott) had made significant headway through her testimony, showing that that marriage has never been universally defined as a union of one man and one woman, and that religion has never had any bearing on the legality of a marriage.

Head over to Pam's House Blend for the full summary.

Five Perry v. Schwarzenneger Resources to Follow

Gideon Alper — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 09:41:29 -0500

Although I'll be covering the Perry v. Schwarzenneger trial here, check out these other great resources for commentary and trial recaps:

Proposition 8 and the Right to Marry. A law librarian with over 20 years experience, Michael Ginsborg has blogged on the topic since 2008 and always links to the best posts and news around the internet concerning gay marriage rights and California's Proposition 8.

Law Dork. Chris Geidner's insights on LGBT legal developments are always spot on. He helpfully provides links to trial transcripts and court orders as well.

Prop 8 Trial Tracker. A project by the Courage Campaign, a California marriage equality group, this blog is run by by longtime bloggers Robert Cruickshank and Julia Rosen. Check out their recent post that goes over the names and players in the trial.

Pam's House Blend. While definitely a political site, multiple contributors and readers insure that breaking news is always reported here very quickly. If you want to be the first to read about recent developments, this is the place to go. In fact, they've just added a few things to their blog to make finding breaking news about the trial even easier.

Wall Street Journal Law Blog. If you're looking for in depth legal analysis of the trial, you can't beat the WSJ Law Blog. Don't expect a post on the trial more often than once a day, but do expect for it to be engaging and to come with insightful comments by readers.

YouTube Broadcast at Risk in Proposition 8 Case

Gideon Alper — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 11:46:20 -0500

The Supreme Court this morning temporarily stopped the uploading of the Perry v. Schwarzenegger trial to YouTube. The trial will still begin today--it just won't be broadcasted or recorded.

Defenders of the Proposition 8 ban had said that the broadcasting shouldn't be allowed because it would intimidate witnesses at the trial. The Supreme Court said that it needs time to consider the arguments before making deciding whether the court hearing the case should be allowed to upload videos of the trial. Until it makes that decision, the court won't be allowed to.

If you were looking forward to watching the trial on YouTube, don't be discouraged. The Supreme Court's order temporarily stopping the broadcasting doesn't mean that the Court will ultimately disallow it. However, it does mean that the first few days of the trial will be unavailable. Because the Supreme Court's order includes prohibiting cameras in the court room, it's not possible that videos of the trial during this temporarily ban could be uploaded later.

I'll be dissapointed if the Court does decide later that the California federal district court hearing the case can't be recorded and uploaded. The YouTube broadcast would have been a step forward not just for federal gay marriage litigation, but for transparency of our country's judicial process overall.

A Constitutional Argument for Gay Marriage

Gideon Alper — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 11:40:12 -0500

Ted Olsen, the famous conservative lawyer for the gay couples in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, laid out what he called the "conservative argument for gay marriage" in this past weekend's Newsweek.

Because conservatives often say that allowing gay marriage would require an activist interpretation of the Constitution, Olsen spent time spelling out why it would not.

The Argument

Olson said that marriage is a Constitutional right:

The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly held that marriage is one of the most fundamental rights that we have as Americans under our Constitution. It is an expression of our desire to create a social partnership, to live and share life's joys and burdens with the person we love, and to form a lasting bond and a social identity. The Supreme Court has said that marriage is a part of the Constitution's protections of liberty, privacy, freedom of association, and spiritual identification. In short, the right to marry helps us to define ourselves and our place in a community. Without it, there can be no true equality under the law.

While the Court traditionally has considered marriage in terms of heterosexual relationships, Olsen said that "the underlying rights and liberties that marriage embodies are not in any way confined to heterosexuals."

So Is That It?

No. Even though the Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law, both state and federal governments are allowed to deny equal protection if they have legitimate reasons for doing so. So what it comes down to is whether the federal government (and California, in regards to Proposition 8) has legitimate reasons for denying equal marriage rights to gay couples.

But Olsen said that the reasons that gay marriage opponents usually give are not legitimate:

It's tradition. "Simply because something has always been done a certain way does not mean that it must always remain that way. Otherwise we would still have segregated schools and debtors' prisons."

States need to encourage procreation. "Preventing lesbians and gays from marrying does not cause more heterosexuals to marry and conceive more children. Likewise, allowing gays and lesbians to marry someone of the same sex will not discourage heterosexuals from marrying a person of the opposite sex."

It threatens the institution of marriage. "I have yet to meet anyone who can explain to me what this means. In what way would allowing same-sex partners to marry diminish the marriages of heterosexual couples?"

Not Everyone Agrees

Despite Olson's argument, some people say that marriage should still be left to the states. So even if a state doesn't have legitimate reasons for disallowing gay marriage, that doesn't mean that the federal government has to . Jonathan Adler, a professor at Case Western Law School, agreed with Olson that marriage would benefit gay families, but said:

I remain deeply skeptical of the constitutional argument. I am unconvinced the equal protection clause requires states to recognize same-sex marriages, though I believe the federal government should recognize any marriage recognized under state law.

In other words, just because the federal government should recognize gay marriages performed by particular states doesn't mean it has to make all the states recognize them too.

This brings us to Perry v. Schwarzenegger, where defenders of Proposition 8 ban will try to show that California has legitimate reasons for unequal treatment.

Perry v. Schwarzenegger: Basics You Should Know

Gideon Alper — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 10:50:51 -0500

With all the attention yesterday about how Perry v. Schwarzenegger will be the first non-criminal federal trial publicly broadcasted (and on YouTube), it's smart to take some time to go over some basics.

Who's Challenging the Ban?

Perry: Perry is the last name of Kristin Perry, who was denied a marriage license with her partner Sandra Steir. The two join Paul Katami and Jeffrey Zarrillo, who were also denied a license. The court uses the name "Perry" to refer to all four of them. They're challenging Proposition 8, which bans gay marriage, in federal court because they say it violates the U.S. Constitution.

Famous Lawyers: Representing the people challenging the gay marriage ban are two famous lawyers, former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson and trial lawyer David Boies. You may have heard of them--they represented President Bush and Al Gore in the 2000 Supreme Court case that ended up deciding the presidential election.

Who's Defending the Ban?

Schwarzenegger: Although the case name says it's versus Governor Schwarzenegger, the governor isn't actually defending Proposition 8. He said he's neutral. Moreover, the California attorney general agreed that the law should be struck down.

Instead, a bunch of religious and conservative groups have gotten together to defend the ban in the governor's place. The main lawyer for this side is Charles Cooper.

What's a Bench Trial?

A bench trial is mostly just like a jury trial, except that it's in front of a judge. On one hand, this means that the trial might seem more boring, because the lawyers won't have to ham it up for a jury. On the other hand, the lawyers do know that the trial will be made public, so maybe they'll try to make it interesting. The bench trial starts this Monday, January 11th.

What's Each Side Trying to Prove?

In general, the Constitution says that states can't make discriminatory laws unless there's a good enough reason. So Perry's lawyers will try to prove that there isn't a good enough reason for the marriage discrimination, while the lawyers on the other side will try to show why there is.

That's why they're having the bench trial. The trial will first determine what the effects of gay marriage are, such as the effects on children of gay parents and the effects of gay marriage on heterosexual marriages in general. If it finds that gay marriage has negative social effects, the court may decide that the state trying to prevent those effects by banning it is a good enough reason.

What's at Stake?

Because the case is in federal court and is about whether a state gay marriage ban violates the U.S. Constitution, the case could eventually be appealed the the U.S. Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court hears the case, then its decision could affect all state marriage bans, not just California's.

For more information, keep up with the court's special website for the case, or check back here.

Federal Proposition 8 Gay Marriage Trial Will Be Shown on YouTube

Gideon Alper — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 12:30:00 -0500

Most changes in gay rights are made in the courts. But none of the federal court cases about gay rights has ever been publicly broadcasted.

Until now. The trial of Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the high profile federal case challenging the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8 ban on gay marriage, will be videotaped and uploaded to YouTube for the world to watch.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker's decision to share the trial via YouTube is important for several reasons:

Court staff, not a media company, will be controlling the cameras. Media companies had asked the judge for broadcast rights, but the judge preferred this way because it lets the court control the cameras.

People can watch the trial whenever they want. Most people are busy during the day and don't have time to sit and watch a trial on TV. Also, a lot of times trials have boring parts, and you can't fast forward through a live broadcast. Having the trial on YouTube lets people watch the trial when they have time to, and they can stick to the interesting parts.

It will be the first non-criminal federal trial ever publicly broadcasted. The Ninth Circuit approved public broadcasting late last year, anticipating that the gay marriage trial would be a great case to try it out.

It makes the judicial process more transparent. Judge Walker already started this, creating a separate website about the case and setting up a special email announcement list for case updates.

It sparks online discussion. When a trial is broadcasted on TV, you can't link to it. You can't share a video of it on facebook. Your comments about it are heard by your coworkers and family, not by millions of internet users.

The bench trial begins next week.

Two California Laws That Take Effect With the New Year

Gideon Alper — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 09:23:23 -0500

Many times when a law is passed it doesn’t take effect until later on. That’s the case with two laws granting more rights to California gay couples that the state passed last year: (1) the Marriage Recognition and Family Protection Act and (2) the LGBT Domestic Violence Programs Expansion Bill.

Dana Rudolph over at Mombian, a blog centered on LGBT parents, explained what the two laws do:

The Marriage Recognition and Family Protection Act, which states that same-sex couples married in any state or nation anytime before the passage of Proposition 8 must be recognized as married spouses in California. The new statute also confirms that same-sex couples married outside of California after November 5, 2008, must be given all of the rights, protections and responsibilities of married spouses under California law, with the sole exception of the designation of “marriage.”

The LGBT Domestic Violence Programs Expansion Bill, which expands access for LGBT service providers to a state fund within the California Emergency Management Agency, which supports LGBT-specific domestic violence programs across the state. The new law also allows for more than four organizations to apply for programmatic funding each fiscal cycle and eliminates the requirement for providers to offer shelter – impediments to many smaller LGBT organizations.

Hats off to Equality California for also summarizing the laws.

Because there’s so many gay couples living in California, the first law in particular grants substantially more rights. Same sex couples living in California that were married elsewhere, at any time, will be treated as married spouses by the state.

Will a Gay Marriage From Mexico City Be Recognized in the United States?

Gideon Alper — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 12:46:49 -0500

Mexico City legalized gay marriage late last year, becoming the city in Latin America to do so.

Lots of gay couples near Canada already go there to get married. I expect same sex couples in southwestern states to head to Mexico for the same reason. But will their Mexico gay marriage be legally recognized when they come back?

It depends on where they live. If they're from one of the six jurisdictions that allow gay marriage--Iowa, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont, D.C.--then their marriage from Mexico will be recognized. But if they're from one of those places, they probably aren't going to trek to Mexico to get married anyway.

The only other places that will recognize a gay marriage from Mexico City are California and New York, both of which passed laws last year to recognize same sex marriages from other jurisdictions.

New Yorkers live pretty far from Mexico, so I don't expect to see many of them head down to Mexico just to get married, especially when they live next door to three states that where they could do the same.

For Californians, on the other hand, Mexico City legalizing gay marriage means there's now a relatively easy way to get gay marriage rights. The combination of Mexico City's new gay marriage law and California's new recognition law means that all a gay couple in California has to do to get marriage rights is take a day trip to Mexico. Mexico City lets U.S. residents get married there as long as they bring the right paperwork.