ACLU FIGHTS FOR RIGHTS &
ACLU Denounces Proposed Anti-Gay Constitutional Amendment That Would Deny Millions of American Families Their Fundamental Rights
Saying it would deprive millions of fami-lies of their most fundamental rights, the Ameri-can Civil Liberties Union today denounced a new proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution as an unwarranted attempt to limit liberty in the United States. "With only a few exceptions, most of the anti-gay attacks in Congress are the legal equivalent of sticks and stones," said Christopher E. Anders, an ACLU Legislative Counsel. "This amendment is the legal equivalent of a nuclear bomb. It will wipe out every single law protecting gay and lesbian families and other unmarried couples."
The amendment was introduced at a Washington news conference. The ACLU said the new proposal would deprive the families of lesbians and gay men - and all other unmarried couples - of all legal protections for their relationships by overriding any federal or state constitutional protections and federal, state and local laws.
The ACLU said that the impact of the amendment would be extremely harmful. Specifically, the amendment would invalidate all state and local domestic partnership laws, including those in at least eight states and in more than 100 counties, cities and towns across the country. "The extreme measure would even prohibit state and local governments from making their own decisions on providing benefits to their employees," Anders said.
During last year's presidential campaign, Vice President Dick Cheney explicitly said that "people should be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to enter into." He added: "different states are likely to come to different conclusions, and that's appropriate. I don't think there should necessarily be a federal policy in this area."
The ACLU said the proposed amendment would undermine state adoption, foster care and kinship care laws. In many states, the ACLU said, unmarried persons-including unmarried relatives, heterosexual couples, gay and lesbian couples and even unrelated clergy members - have the same rights as married persons to jointly adopt or provide foster care or kinship care.
The proposed amendment would also reverse the tradition of protecting -- not harming-individual liberty through constitutional amendments and of allowing states to adopt stronger civil rights protections.
"The few amendments to the Constitution that have been adopted in the last 200 years are the source of most of the Constitution's protections for individual liberty rights," Anders said. "The proposed amendment, by contrast, would deny all protection for the most personal decisions made by millions of families."
An ACLU letter to the House and Senate on the proposed amendment can be found at: http://www.aclu.org/congress/l071101a.html
Atlanta Lesbian Couple 'Related' Through Vermont Civil Union, ACLU Says in Appeal of Custody Case
A woman being denied visitation with her own children because she lives with her same-sex partner should be allowed to see her kids because she and her partner are "related" by a Vermont civil union, the American Civil Liberties Union said in court papers filed recently.
A state court ruled last year that Susan Freer was violating a visitation agreement that said she couldn't see her children while she was living with an adult to whom she wasn't either married or "related within the second degree." Freer, who shares a home with her partner, is appealing that decision.
"Susan hasn't seen her 9-year-old or her 12-year-old twins in a year, even though she is in compliance with the original court-ordered visitation agreement," said Debbie Seagraves, Executive Director of the ACLU of Georgia. "We hope -- and expect -- that the court will see that this is just plain wrong."
The civil union the couple received in Vermont on July 4, 2000, makes them "related within the second degree" under Georgia law, which recognizes a range of non-blood, non-marital relationships-including those established outside the state -- the ACLU said in its friend-of-the-court brief filed in a state court appeals court. Thanks to Vermont's civil unions, this couple was able to legally demonstrate their level of commitment to each other," Seagraves said. "There should be no question that these women are closely related, and the original visitation order should be enforced immediately."
The 25-page brief filed by the ACLU of Georgia and the ACLU's national Lesbian & Gay Rights Project goes beyond interpreting legal definitions of "related," and argues that Freer's constitutional rights are being violated. "People have a right to create a family, choose who to live with, and decide who can be around their kids," Seagraves said, citing constitutional rights to privacy, due process and equal protection under the law. "Those fundamental rights don't depend on whether you're gay, or where you live."
Until now, much of Freer's case has focused on whether a court will force the state to recognize Vermont's civil union as the equivalent of marriage. While that may well be the result, the ACLU contends that the civil union shows that the two are in a loving, committed, long-term relationship and thus legally related at the very least.
Today's case is Burns v. Burns [Freer legally took the name of her partner last year, but remains with her original name in court records.], Case No. A01A1827 in the Georgia Court of Appeals.
Employment Protection Bill Reintroduced; Measure Would Protect Gay Employees in the Workplace
Heralding its best chance yet to become law, a bipartisan group of lawmakers today re-introduced a federal bill banning workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation.
"Every worker should have the equal right to be free from bias at their jobs," said Christopher E. Anders, an ACLU Legislative Counsel. "This legislation affirms the basic principle that employment in the United States should not be based on one's sexual orientation."
The legislation, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, is cosponsored by a long list of members of Congress, including Republican Reps. Chris Shays of Connecticut and Mark Foley of Florida and Democratic Reps. Barney Frank of Massachusetts and Ellen Tauscher of California. In the Senate, lead sponsors include Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, Independent Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont, and Democratic Sens. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts and Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut.
"The ACLU recommits itself to winning passage of this simple legislation," Anders said. "This bill would protect everyone, gay or straight, from being fired simply because of their sexual orientation. This is not a gay issue, but an equality issue."
Anders said the bill enjoys widespread support on Capitol Hill, with more than 175 original cosponsors in the House and nearly forty cosponsors in the Senate. In addition, dozens of corporations, not-for-profit organizations, and religious groups are supporting the legislation.
ENDA would add sexual orientation to the current list of federal employment protections that ban discrimination based on race, religion, gender, national origin, age and disability. The bill would prohibit employers with 15 or more employees from using a person's sexual orientation in decisions such as firing, hiring, promotion or compensation.
The bill would exempt religious organizations, including schools and institutions of higher learning owned or operated by a religious organization, and the military, and would not establish preferential treatment or quotas.
Currently, it is legal to fire employees because of their sexual orientation in 38 states. In recent months, Maryland joined New Hampshire, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Nevada, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia in outlawing sexual orientation discrimination.