BOSTON, Massachusetts (CNN) -- Four years ago Massachusetts became the first state to allow same-sex couples to marry. Since then, more than 10,000 gay and lesbian couples have exchanged vows in the state.
David Wilson and Rob Compton were among the first to say, "I do." The impact, they say, has been huge. Wilson says it was the switch from partner to husband that made a difference.
"Just using the word husband brings a level of confidence that helps say to the person we're talking with we have a right to be together, we are a couple and we love each other," Wilson says.
Wilson and Compton chose to keep their own surnames, but they say the need to define or justify their relationship is gone -- everyone understands what being married means.
Initially, there was a rush to the altar in Massachusetts. In the six months after May 17, 2004, when Massachusetts began issuing marriage licenses for gay and lesbian couples, an estimated 6,100 same-sex couples married. They now average less than 1,000 a year, according to MassEquality.org, a grassroots organization working to help gay and lesbian couples achieve equality.
Having the same rights as heterosexual couples means the same issues -- like divorce. So far, at least 48 same-sex divorces have been reported. Same-sex divorces are hard to track because they are recorded by the last names of the parties involved, without reference to gender, according to Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, a leading gay rights organization.
There have been several attempts to stop same sex marriage in Massachusetts since the state made it legal. The most recent attempt was in 2007, when a proposed amendment to ban such unions was defeated.
Massachusetts State Rep. Paul Loscocco, a Republican, was one of several dozen lawmakers who changed their minds on the vote, deciding to vote against a ban. The change, he says, is reflective of society at large.
"I can't tell you how many calls I got from people saying, 'I called you before and now my grandson is gay -- now they're a couple -- now I've changed my mind and I want you to vote the other way,' " says Loscocco.
Groups opposed to same-sex marriage said their fight, though less visible, remains strong.
"It has not gone away in hearts and minds of people, particularly parents," said Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute.
"The costs to family, children and culture are too great to concede this battle to those who would see marriage and family redefined to the point of irrelevancy," the group says on its Web site.
For Wilson and Compton, legalization and wider acceptance means they're finally able to reap the same benefits of heterosexual married couples, such as hospital visitation rights. Compton was able to exercise his rights recently when he was in Rhode Island for a conference and needed emergency surgery for a kidney stone.
"I said, 'Well my husband will be coming,' and you know they didn't even blink. They just smiled and they knew I was from Massachusetts and didn't say anything," recalls Compton.
Other benefits include the possibility of obtaining health insurance through a spouse's work and the right to file joint state tax returns, transfer property, automatically inherit shared assets and make medical decisions for a spouse.
Fears that Massachusetts might become a destination for same-sex marriage for the rest of the country were put to rest when then-Gov. Mitt Romney dusted off a 1913 statute barring marriage in the commonwealth if a couple's home state did not recognize the union.
But it's a different story in California, where marriage benefits will follow same-sex couples to wherever they settle. Wilson and Compton plan to be in California to celebrate, as the state on Monday becomes the second in the country to allow same-sex matrimony.
Still, until same-sex marriage receives federal recognition, Wilson and Compton say, the unions will remain second-class marriages.
"We've begun the process, California is second and as all of these couples go back to their home states, they want those same benefits. They're going to take them back to those states and absolutely they will ask for those rights," says Wilson.
"I see it as a building block and eventually we will see this get to the federal level."
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
A frequently asked question at Pride...
Many same-sex couples came to our booth at Pride with the following question: "If we get married in California and bring our certificate back to Minnesota, will it be valid?" The short answer is, "no." Here's why...
In 1996, the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was written into law. It provides that:
1. No state (or other political subdivision of the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
2. The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states
At the time, it was expected that a number of states would soon allow same-sex couples to marry in some capacity (i.e. through fully recognized marriage or civil union). This was the first wave of protection for states fearing that they would have to recognize same-sex marriages from other states because of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution. The second wave of protection came when individual states began to adopt their own DOMAs. A third wave of protection came when many states introduced and passed amendments to their constitutions banning same-sex marriage.
Although Minnesota does not have a constitutional amendment, it enacted its own DOMA in 1997. Minnesota has the protection of the Federal DOMA and the State DOMA, so it does not have to, and will not, recognize marriage certificates from other states, including California. In California, individuals dared to challenge the Constitutionality of California's DOMA. The same could happen in Minnesota in coming years. For now, however, same-sex couples remain at a disadvantage.
In the mean time, same-sex couples in Minnesota should continue to take action to protect their relationships through contracts and legal documents. Among the most important are Domestic Partnership Agreements, Wills, Health Care Directives, and Financial Powers of Attorney. Give us a call if you have any questions, or if you'd like to sit down and talk about what you can do today to protect your relationship: 612-321-9800.
In 1996, the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was written into law. It provides that:
1. No state (or other political subdivision of the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
2. The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states
At the time, it was expected that a number of states would soon allow same-sex couples to marry in some capacity (i.e. through fully recognized marriage or civil union). This was the first wave of protection for states fearing that they would have to recognize same-sex marriages from other states because of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution. The second wave of protection came when individual states began to adopt their own DOMAs. A third wave of protection came when many states introduced and passed amendments to their constitutions banning same-sex marriage.
Although Minnesota does not have a constitutional amendment, it enacted its own DOMA in 1997. Minnesota has the protection of the Federal DOMA and the State DOMA, so it does not have to, and will not, recognize marriage certificates from other states, including California. In California, individuals dared to challenge the Constitutionality of California's DOMA. The same could happen in Minnesota in coming years. For now, however, same-sex couples remain at a disadvantage.
In the mean time, same-sex couples in Minnesota should continue to take action to protect their relationships through contracts and legal documents. Among the most important are Domestic Partnership Agreements, Wills, Health Care Directives, and Financial Powers of Attorney. Give us a call if you have any questions, or if you'd like to sit down and talk about what you can do today to protect your relationship: 612-321-9800.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Twin Cities Pride -- This Weekend!
To all our friends (new, old, and soon-to-be),
Come visit our Pride booth this weekend, June 28th and 29th, in the Quorum Village at Twin Cities Pride. Quorum Village is located at the Southeast edge of Loring Park. To be really specific (we don't want you to miss us), if you catch the path into Loring Park at the intersection of Willow Street and West 15th Street, and follow it forward, you'll find us on the left among the Quorum Village booths.
We look forward to seeing you there!
Come visit our Pride booth this weekend, June 28th and 29th, in the Quorum Village at Twin Cities Pride. Quorum Village is located at the Southeast edge of Loring Park. To be really specific (we don't want you to miss us), if you catch the path into Loring Park at the intersection of Willow Street and West 15th Street, and follow it forward, you'll find us on the left among the Quorum Village booths.
We look forward to seeing you there!
Monday, March 3, 2008
Immigration Officials Conduct Enforcement Action in Worthington
Check out this article by Mark Steil, Minnesota Public Radio. Call us if you or your family have questions or need assistance. 612-321-9800
February 27, 2008
St. Paul, Minn. — Officials with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement confirm that an immigration enforcement action is underway in Worthington and in Sioux Falls, S.D.
U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement officials will not say how many people have been arrested.
Attorney Gloria Contreras-Edin with Centro Legal in the Twin Cities said her group has spoken by telephone with three people detained by ICE in the Nobles County jail in Worthington.
"ICE agents have knocked on individual family doors, family home doors, and are looking for individuals who've had prior orders for deportation," said Contreras-Edin.
Nobles County jail officials could not be reached for comment.
There is no indication the latest action stems from the fatal bus crash in Cottonwood involving a woman who officials say is in the country illegally.
Earlier this week ICE officials conducted raids in other Midwestern states, including Wisconsin and Illinois.
Two major ICE enforcement actions in Minnesota in the last 15 months have resulted in nearly 300 arrests.
February 27, 2008
St. Paul, Minn. — Officials with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement confirm that an immigration enforcement action is underway in Worthington and in Sioux Falls, S.D.
U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement officials will not say how many people have been arrested.
Attorney Gloria Contreras-Edin with Centro Legal in the Twin Cities said her group has spoken by telephone with three people detained by ICE in the Nobles County jail in Worthington.
"ICE agents have knocked on individual family doors, family home doors, and are looking for individuals who've had prior orders for deportation," said Contreras-Edin.
Nobles County jail officials could not be reached for comment.
There is no indication the latest action stems from the fatal bus crash in Cottonwood involving a woman who officials say is in the country illegally.
Earlier this week ICE officials conducted raids in other Midwestern states, including Wisconsin and Illinois.
Two major ICE enforcement actions in Minnesota in the last 15 months have resulted in nearly 300 arrests.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Same-sex divorce challenges legal system. Most states lack law, precedents to settle issues
By Dafna Linzer
The Washington Post
Tues., Jan. 1, 2008
When her three-year-old marriage broke up, the 44-year-old doctor assumed she and her ex would split their property and jointly parent their two children. Her stay-at-home spouse wanted sole custody and the right to move the children out of Massachusetts.
In pretrial motions, both parents made the same argument to a judge: The children should be with me; I'm their mother.
For years, family court judges leaned toward a maternal preference when it came to custody disputes. But what to do when both parents are women, or neither is? Judges in Massachusetts have been grappling with that question since gay and lesbian couples began filing for divorce in 2004, seven months after the state Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage.
Nearly 10,000 gay and lesbian couples married after the ruling. Massachusetts does not keep records on the number who have divorced, but lawyers who specialize in family cases say it is in the dozens. Those who choose to end their marriages soon discover that the trauma of divorce is compounded by legal and financial difficulties that heterosexual couples generally are spared.
"One of the benefits of marriage is divorce," said Joyce Kauffman, a Boston divorce lawyer who has handled a dozen same-sex divorce cases. "But for a lot of couples, that benefit is very complicated and very costly in ways that heterosexual couples would never have to experience."
‘Not treated as fairly’In the case of the doctor, she and her spouse each gave birth to a boy fathered by the same sperm donor. They then adopted one another's sons. Biologically, their children are half-siblings; legally, they are full brothers.
"Up to now, I've been lucky with the court," said the doctor, who spoke on the condition of anonymity so as not to prejudice her court case. "Giving birth to one of our children has given me leeway because judges often show a preference toward a biological mother. I've spoken to other lesbian women who were in a similar situation, except that they were not the biological mothers of their children, and, in my opinion, they were not treated as fairly by the court."
While the parties are litigating, a family court in Boston has come up with a Solomonic ruling, saying that each of the women can spend half the week alone in the family home with the children.
For same-sex couples, divorce can be financially ruinous. Heterosexual couples claim a tax deduction for alimony payments, but that benefit is not available to gay and lesbian spouses because the Internal Revenue Service does not recognize their marriages.
Divorce lawyers say that, while gay people making alimony payments are hurt the most by the IRS policy, their ex-spouses are also affected, because a tax deduction often provides an incentive for larger payments.
"In a straight context, alimony is an income stream from one person to another and tax-deductible to the person who is paying it," said David W. Eppley, a divorce lawyer with lesbian clients. "But in a gay divorce, there aren't two parties, there are three, and that third party is Uncle Sam."
Michael, a 42-year-old Bostonian whose divorce settlement precludes him from speaking publicly about its details, met his older and far wealthier spouse 17 years before they were able to marry. He came to the relationship fresh out of college, with no assets and little means of independent support.
‘Legal maneuvering’His partner bought and sold companies and owned homes around the world where they vacationed with friends and family. When the relationship foundered, two years after they married, the men imagined splitting personal possessions they had amassed.
"I wasn't aware of how messy things were going to get," Michael said in an interview. "The legal maneuvering we had to go through was enormous, and it was difficult to find attorneys who were willing to handle the issue because there just aren't that many lawyers familiar enough with the law and how it affects a gay divorce."
Retirement savings and pension plans, easily split for heterosexual couples divorcing, would have to be cashed out and would be heavily taxed for gay couples. Current tax law allows only $12,000 to be transferred from one gay spouse to another without being subject to a gift tax.
"Federal law looks at gay divorcees as strangers," Eppley said. "Bob can't transfer property to Steve without it counting as a taxable transfer, whether in capital gains or a gift and potentially both."
Lawyers have found no shortage of creative solutions around the tax codes by swapping assets, setting up irrevocable trusts and parceling out years' worth of payments in amounts that meet the tax threshold.
Barbara J. Macy, a divorce lawyer with a number of lesbian clients, recalled a recent case in which the tax implications for a simple health insurance benefit led to weeks of negotiations in order to avoid one party being saddled with thousands of extra dollars a year in taxes.
"The emotional issues and personal issues in gay divorce are similar to straight divorce. But the legal issues, the tax issues and complications make your mind feel like it's going to break," she said.
To ease the financial losses arising from his divorce, Michael's former spouse employed a $1 million lifetime tax exemption often reserved for estate planning. He gave money from his estate to Michael, who would not have to pay taxes on it. But when Michael's ex-spouse dies, the amount he can bequeath to his heirs tax-free will be reduced by the amount he gave to Michael.
"You can pass $1 million free and clear of tax, so a portion of what was passed between us had to come from my partner's death tax. When he dies and his estate is worth $10 million, his heirs will not have the $1 million tax cushion, so the government even then will get its money," Michael said.
Massachusetts is an equitable-distribution state, and a major factor in determining the distribution of assets is the duration of the marriage. But gay couples are fighting that in court, contending they would have been married longer if it had been allowed. The argument is gaining ground with judges who have been willing in same-sex divorce cases to take account of the entire length of the relationship in deciding on division of assets.
"If a couple has been together for 25 years in Massachusetts, their assets would be divided 50-50," said Elizabeth Zeldin, who has handled several same-sex divorces. "But a same-sex couple has only been married a maximum of three years, so do you treat it as a three-year marriage or a 25-year marriage? A lot of judges are now saying: Treat it as a long-term marriage."
Where the courts have not always responded is on the status of children.
In Massachusetts, a child born into a heterosexual marriage is a child of the marriage, regardless of whether both spouses are the child's biological or legal parents.
That is not necessarily the case for same-sex couples.
‘Adopt, adopt, adopt’Kauffman represented a woman who unsuccessfully sued her departing spouse for child support. Since the spouse was not the biological parent, she had no legal obligation to the child, whom she had not co-adopted. "A lot of couples ran out to get married when they should have run out to co-adopt," Kauffman said. "I tell all my clients: 'Adopt, adopt, adopt. It is the only way to protect your child.' "
In 1996, Congress passed, and President Bill Clinton signed, the Defense of Marriage Act, which says that no state is required to recognize a same-sex marriage that occurred in another state. States that do not recognize those marriages "would probably not divorce a same-sex couple from Massachusetts," said a 2004 handbook on marriage produced by the Massachusetts Lesbian and Gay Bar Association.
Under Massachusetts law, both people seeking a divorce must reside in the state. That left Cassandra Ormiston and Margaret Chambers of Rhode Island in a bind. The two were wed in Massachusetts in 2004, soon after the state legalized same-sex marriages. But in 2006, they filed for divorce in their home state, where the law is silent on whether such marriages are legal.
The divorce issue then fell to the Rhode Island Supreme Court, which ruled in December that the state's family court lacks the authority to grant a divorce for same-sex couples because the state legislature has not defined marriage as anything other than a union between a man and a woman.
"There is now no way for me to get divorced unless I move back to Massachusetts, establish residency and then wait a year before I file, and I simply will not do that," a bitter Ormiston said after the ruling.
Andrew Koppelman, a law professor at Northwestern University, published a book in 2006, "Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines." Koppelman urged states that oppose same-sex marriage to agree at least to perform divorces. "You have to have a way for people to get out of these things, otherwise you have multiple claims on the same property and no protections for people entering into new marriages. I think states that try to adopt these rules refusing to recognize the marriages just haven't thought it through."
Staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.
© 2008 The Washington Post Company
The Washington Post
Tues., Jan. 1, 2008
When her three-year-old marriage broke up, the 44-year-old doctor assumed she and her ex would split their property and jointly parent their two children. Her stay-at-home spouse wanted sole custody and the right to move the children out of Massachusetts.
In pretrial motions, both parents made the same argument to a judge: The children should be with me; I'm their mother.
For years, family court judges leaned toward a maternal preference when it came to custody disputes. But what to do when both parents are women, or neither is? Judges in Massachusetts have been grappling with that question since gay and lesbian couples began filing for divorce in 2004, seven months after the state Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage.
Nearly 10,000 gay and lesbian couples married after the ruling. Massachusetts does not keep records on the number who have divorced, but lawyers who specialize in family cases say it is in the dozens. Those who choose to end their marriages soon discover that the trauma of divorce is compounded by legal and financial difficulties that heterosexual couples generally are spared.
"One of the benefits of marriage is divorce," said Joyce Kauffman, a Boston divorce lawyer who has handled a dozen same-sex divorce cases. "But for a lot of couples, that benefit is very complicated and very costly in ways that heterosexual couples would never have to experience."
‘Not treated as fairly’In the case of the doctor, she and her spouse each gave birth to a boy fathered by the same sperm donor. They then adopted one another's sons. Biologically, their children are half-siblings; legally, they are full brothers.
"Up to now, I've been lucky with the court," said the doctor, who spoke on the condition of anonymity so as not to prejudice her court case. "Giving birth to one of our children has given me leeway because judges often show a preference toward a biological mother. I've spoken to other lesbian women who were in a similar situation, except that they were not the biological mothers of their children, and, in my opinion, they were not treated as fairly by the court."
While the parties are litigating, a family court in Boston has come up with a Solomonic ruling, saying that each of the women can spend half the week alone in the family home with the children.
For same-sex couples, divorce can be financially ruinous. Heterosexual couples claim a tax deduction for alimony payments, but that benefit is not available to gay and lesbian spouses because the Internal Revenue Service does not recognize their marriages.
Divorce lawyers say that, while gay people making alimony payments are hurt the most by the IRS policy, their ex-spouses are also affected, because a tax deduction often provides an incentive for larger payments.
"In a straight context, alimony is an income stream from one person to another and tax-deductible to the person who is paying it," said David W. Eppley, a divorce lawyer with lesbian clients. "But in a gay divorce, there aren't two parties, there are three, and that third party is Uncle Sam."
Michael, a 42-year-old Bostonian whose divorce settlement precludes him from speaking publicly about its details, met his older and far wealthier spouse 17 years before they were able to marry. He came to the relationship fresh out of college, with no assets and little means of independent support.
‘Legal maneuvering’His partner bought and sold companies and owned homes around the world where they vacationed with friends and family. When the relationship foundered, two years after they married, the men imagined splitting personal possessions they had amassed.
"I wasn't aware of how messy things were going to get," Michael said in an interview. "The legal maneuvering we had to go through was enormous, and it was difficult to find attorneys who were willing to handle the issue because there just aren't that many lawyers familiar enough with the law and how it affects a gay divorce."
Retirement savings and pension plans, easily split for heterosexual couples divorcing, would have to be cashed out and would be heavily taxed for gay couples. Current tax law allows only $12,000 to be transferred from one gay spouse to another without being subject to a gift tax.
"Federal law looks at gay divorcees as strangers," Eppley said. "Bob can't transfer property to Steve without it counting as a taxable transfer, whether in capital gains or a gift and potentially both."
Lawyers have found no shortage of creative solutions around the tax codes by swapping assets, setting up irrevocable trusts and parceling out years' worth of payments in amounts that meet the tax threshold.
Barbara J. Macy, a divorce lawyer with a number of lesbian clients, recalled a recent case in which the tax implications for a simple health insurance benefit led to weeks of negotiations in order to avoid one party being saddled with thousands of extra dollars a year in taxes.
"The emotional issues and personal issues in gay divorce are similar to straight divorce. But the legal issues, the tax issues and complications make your mind feel like it's going to break," she said.
To ease the financial losses arising from his divorce, Michael's former spouse employed a $1 million lifetime tax exemption often reserved for estate planning. He gave money from his estate to Michael, who would not have to pay taxes on it. But when Michael's ex-spouse dies, the amount he can bequeath to his heirs tax-free will be reduced by the amount he gave to Michael.
"You can pass $1 million free and clear of tax, so a portion of what was passed between us had to come from my partner's death tax. When he dies and his estate is worth $10 million, his heirs will not have the $1 million tax cushion, so the government even then will get its money," Michael said.
Massachusetts is an equitable-distribution state, and a major factor in determining the distribution of assets is the duration of the marriage. But gay couples are fighting that in court, contending they would have been married longer if it had been allowed. The argument is gaining ground with judges who have been willing in same-sex divorce cases to take account of the entire length of the relationship in deciding on division of assets.
"If a couple has been together for 25 years in Massachusetts, their assets would be divided 50-50," said Elizabeth Zeldin, who has handled several same-sex divorces. "But a same-sex couple has only been married a maximum of three years, so do you treat it as a three-year marriage or a 25-year marriage? A lot of judges are now saying: Treat it as a long-term marriage."
Where the courts have not always responded is on the status of children.
In Massachusetts, a child born into a heterosexual marriage is a child of the marriage, regardless of whether both spouses are the child's biological or legal parents.
That is not necessarily the case for same-sex couples.
‘Adopt, adopt, adopt’Kauffman represented a woman who unsuccessfully sued her departing spouse for child support. Since the spouse was not the biological parent, she had no legal obligation to the child, whom she had not co-adopted. "A lot of couples ran out to get married when they should have run out to co-adopt," Kauffman said. "I tell all my clients: 'Adopt, adopt, adopt. It is the only way to protect your child.' "
In 1996, Congress passed, and President Bill Clinton signed, the Defense of Marriage Act, which says that no state is required to recognize a same-sex marriage that occurred in another state. States that do not recognize those marriages "would probably not divorce a same-sex couple from Massachusetts," said a 2004 handbook on marriage produced by the Massachusetts Lesbian and Gay Bar Association.
Under Massachusetts law, both people seeking a divorce must reside in the state. That left Cassandra Ormiston and Margaret Chambers of Rhode Island in a bind. The two were wed in Massachusetts in 2004, soon after the state legalized same-sex marriages. But in 2006, they filed for divorce in their home state, where the law is silent on whether such marriages are legal.
The divorce issue then fell to the Rhode Island Supreme Court, which ruled in December that the state's family court lacks the authority to grant a divorce for same-sex couples because the state legislature has not defined marriage as anything other than a union between a man and a woman.
"There is now no way for me to get divorced unless I move back to Massachusetts, establish residency and then wait a year before I file, and I simply will not do that," a bitter Ormiston said after the ruling.
Andrew Koppelman, a law professor at Northwestern University, published a book in 2006, "Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines." Koppelman urged states that oppose same-sex marriage to agree at least to perform divorces. "You have to have a way for people to get out of these things, otherwise you have multiple claims on the same property and no protections for people entering into new marriages. I think states that try to adopt these rules refusing to recognize the marriages just haven't thought it through."
Staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.
© 2008 The Washington Post Company
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
No Justice For Gay and Lesbian Couples in Rochester
Judge Dismisses Lesbian Lawsuit Against Rec Center ROCHESTER, Minn. (AP) ―
A district judge dismissed a discrimination lawsuit filed by two Rochester women Tuesday, saying the Rochester Athletic Club did not discriminate against the women by refusing to sell them a family membership. An attorney for Amy and Sarah Monson said they will appeal the decision to the Minnesota Court of Appeals.
"We respect the judge's decision but strongly disagree with it," said Phil Duran, staff attorney for OutFront Minnesota, the state's largest gay rights group, and one of the attorneys representing the women. Duran said he believes the club violated the Minnesota Human Rights Act by selling membership discounts only to heterosexuals.
The Monsons, identified as lesbian women in a committed relationship raising a child, filed a civil lawsuit against the club in March, claiming they were not allowed to purchase a family membership at the club in 2006 because they are not legally married.
Attorney Gregory Griffiths, representing the club and its owner, John Remick, moved for summary judgment in July. Judge Kevin Lund faxed his decision to attorneys Tuesday. Griffiths, in his argument for summary judgment, said the club's policy requires individuals -- whether male, female, heterosexual, gay, lesbian or bisexual -- to be legally married under Minnesota law to qualify for the family membership. He said the Monsons were given the opportunity to join the club, but didn't qualify for the family membership rate.
The judge said his decision shouldn't be viewed as a victory for the "traditional" family advocates or as a setback for gay and lesbian individuals or organizations advocating change. "It is neither," Lund said. The Rochester Athletic Club has chosen to define a family as a heterosexual legally married couple who files joint tax returns, he said, adding that his ruling is simply legal recognition that the state Human Rights Act does not afford protection within the context of the specific case for same-sex domestic partners. "This morally and legally defensible yet unrealistically narrow definition of family fails to recognize the underlying stability and commitment of the Monsons' relationship," the judge added. "Other, arguably more enlightened organizations, such as the Rochester Area Family Y, have chosen not to reduce the definition of family in such an anachronistic fashion," he said.
However, Lund said the athletic club is within its legal rights to define family as excluding same sex domestic couples. Lund said it is the job of the Legislature, not the courts, to determine whether nonmarital relationships such as the Monsons' deserve the statutory protection.
A district judge dismissed a discrimination lawsuit filed by two Rochester women Tuesday, saying the Rochester Athletic Club did not discriminate against the women by refusing to sell them a family membership. An attorney for Amy and Sarah Monson said they will appeal the decision to the Minnesota Court of Appeals.
"We respect the judge's decision but strongly disagree with it," said Phil Duran, staff attorney for OutFront Minnesota, the state's largest gay rights group, and one of the attorneys representing the women. Duran said he believes the club violated the Minnesota Human Rights Act by selling membership discounts only to heterosexuals.
The Monsons, identified as lesbian women in a committed relationship raising a child, filed a civil lawsuit against the club in March, claiming they were not allowed to purchase a family membership at the club in 2006 because they are not legally married.
Attorney Gregory Griffiths, representing the club and its owner, John Remick, moved for summary judgment in July. Judge Kevin Lund faxed his decision to attorneys Tuesday. Griffiths, in his argument for summary judgment, said the club's policy requires individuals -- whether male, female, heterosexual, gay, lesbian or bisexual -- to be legally married under Minnesota law to qualify for the family membership. He said the Monsons were given the opportunity to join the club, but didn't qualify for the family membership rate.
The judge said his decision shouldn't be viewed as a victory for the "traditional" family advocates or as a setback for gay and lesbian individuals or organizations advocating change. "It is neither," Lund said. The Rochester Athletic Club has chosen to define a family as a heterosexual legally married couple who files joint tax returns, he said, adding that his ruling is simply legal recognition that the state Human Rights Act does not afford protection within the context of the specific case for same-sex domestic partners. "This morally and legally defensible yet unrealistically narrow definition of family fails to recognize the underlying stability and commitment of the Monsons' relationship," the judge added. "Other, arguably more enlightened organizations, such as the Rochester Area Family Y, have chosen not to reduce the definition of family in such an anachronistic fashion," he said.
However, Lund said the athletic club is within its legal rights to define family as excluding same sex domestic couples. Lund said it is the job of the Legislature, not the courts, to determine whether nonmarital relationships such as the Monsons' deserve the statutory protection.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
DHS "No-Match" Rule is No Longer in Effect (For Now)
A sigh of relief flooded across the agricultural and hospitality industries on October 10th as a Federal Judge stopped the Department of Homeland Security from using Social Security records for immigration enforcement. A U.S. District Court Judge for the Northern District of California issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting DHS from implementing the rule entitled "Safe Harbor Procedures for Employers Who Receive a No-Match Letter."
This rule was set to go into effect in September 2007 and would have changed an innocuous administrative tool into an enforcement tool to uncover undocumented workers. Employers receiving letters from the Social Security Administration informing them that the name and social security number provided by the employer did not match Social Security records, would have been required to resolve the discrepancy within 93 days. If the employer could not resolve the discrepancy within that period, they would have been required to terminate the employee. Under the proposed regulation, the employer had two choices: (1) Terminate the employee and risk lawsuits by employees who believe they were unfairly or discriminatorily fired, or (2) Continue the employment and risk severe civil and criminal sanctions from DHS. If the employer ignored a "no-match" letter, they would have been in violation of federal immigration laws.
In his decision, Judge Breyer stated that the "balance of hardships tips sharply in plaintiff's favor because altering the status quo would subject employer's to greater compliance costs and employees to an increased risk of termination, while imposing significantly less burdens on the government." The plaintiffs in this case are a consortium of unions and business groups, including the American Federation of Labor.
With the injunction in place, the law returns to the status quo. "No-Match" letters will still be mailed to employers but they will not include the DHS guidance letter. The letters will continue to be used to inform employers that the social security number submitted on the employee's W-2 form does not match SSA records and the employee is not receiving credit for their earnings. Employees who are informed of the mismatch do not need to take steps to correct the discrepancy if they choose not to and employers should not fire, or make threats to fire, their employees because of the letter. Employees should not walk off the job is they are told of the mismatch.
The sigh of relief may be short lived because the injunction is temporary and the rule could still go into effect at a later date. This injunction is binding, however, until the case goes to trial, which is likely months away. Our office will continue to monitor this case and provide updates as they arise. If you have any questions regarding this rule, or other immigration concerns, please call us. 612-321-9800.
This rule was set to go into effect in September 2007 and would have changed an innocuous administrative tool into an enforcement tool to uncover undocumented workers. Employers receiving letters from the Social Security Administration informing them that the name and social security number provided by the employer did not match Social Security records, would have been required to resolve the discrepancy within 93 days. If the employer could not resolve the discrepancy within that period, they would have been required to terminate the employee. Under the proposed regulation, the employer had two choices: (1) Terminate the employee and risk lawsuits by employees who believe they were unfairly or discriminatorily fired, or (2) Continue the employment and risk severe civil and criminal sanctions from DHS. If the employer ignored a "no-match" letter, they would have been in violation of federal immigration laws.
In his decision, Judge Breyer stated that the "balance of hardships tips sharply in plaintiff's favor because altering the status quo would subject employer's to greater compliance costs and employees to an increased risk of termination, while imposing significantly less burdens on the government." The plaintiffs in this case are a consortium of unions and business groups, including the American Federation of Labor.
With the injunction in place, the law returns to the status quo. "No-Match" letters will still be mailed to employers but they will not include the DHS guidance letter. The letters will continue to be used to inform employers that the social security number submitted on the employee's W-2 form does not match SSA records and the employee is not receiving credit for their earnings. Employees who are informed of the mismatch do not need to take steps to correct the discrepancy if they choose not to and employers should not fire, or make threats to fire, their employees because of the letter. Employees should not walk off the job is they are told of the mismatch.
The sigh of relief may be short lived because the injunction is temporary and the rule could still go into effect at a later date. This injunction is binding, however, until the case goes to trial, which is likely months away. Our office will continue to monitor this case and provide updates as they arise. If you have any questions regarding this rule, or other immigration concerns, please call us. 612-321-9800.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
