Two weeks ago we brought you news about the four states that have marriage-related ballot initiatives this fall. As the election quickly approaches, each of the campaigns in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington have begun running television ads that highlight the stories of individuals, religious leaders, and community leaders who support the freedom to marry. These ads show the underlying issue at stake this fall – that marriage, both for straight and gay couples, is about building a life with someone and making a commitment to take care of and love one another.
Here is a look at some of the stories being told:
Maine – Lifelong Republican Supports Freedom to Marry
Republican Representative Stacey Fitts of Pittsfield, Maine voted against same-sex marriage while serving in the legislature in 2009, but has since changed his mind. Now in 2012, he's standing up and speaking out about his support for the freedom to marry as a Republican.
Please note that by playing this clip You Tube and Google will place a long-term cookie on your computer. Please see on their website and on theirs to learn more. To view the ACLU's privacy statement, click here.
Stacey says, “Deciding who you marry is the most important decision you will ever make. I don’t believe the government should tell anybody who they can love, or who they can marry. Voting ‘Yes’ protects religious freedom, and it protects individual freedom. To me that’s what our country is all about. We should allow gay people the freedom to marry, and we should protect individual liberty too. Voting ‘Yes’ on Question 1 will do both.”
The ACLU of Maine and couldn't do the important work of bringing Republicans – and people of all parties – together to support marriage for same-sex couples without the leadership of Representative Fitts. His choice to share his personal journey will help others think about why they should support marriage for loving and committed same-sex couples across our state, regardless of their political affiliation.
Maryland – A Matter of Civil Rights and Fairness
The ACLU of Maryland is a board member of the , which on Monday released its latest ad in support of Question 6, the Civil Marriage Protection Act. The ad features NAACP Chairman Emeritus Julian Bond and is airing in the Washington, D.C. market.
Please note that by playing this clip You Tube and Google will place a long-term cookie on your computer. Please see on their website and on theirs to learn more. To view the ACLU's privacy statement, click here.
Bond affirms that Question 6 protects civil rights for all, saying, “My name is Julian Bond. I know a little something about fighting for what’s right and just. Maryland’s gay and lesbian families share the same values, and they should share in the right to marry. I believe people of faith understand this isn’t about any one religious belief; it’s about protecting the civil right to make a lifelong commitment to the person you love. Join me in supporting Question 6. It’s the right thing to do.”
The campaign also has two ads airing in the Baltimore market that feature of Baltimore’s Southern Baptist Church and of Mt. Ennon Baptist Church in Prince George's County. Both affirm that Question 6 protects religious freedom while treating people fairly under the law.
Minnesota – Love is Bigger Than Government
With three weeks until the election, , of which the ACLU of Minnesota is a member, has been kicking their campaign – to defeat the hurtful and freedom-limiting constitutional amendment to ban marriage for same-sex couples – into high gear by sharing the stories of real Minnesotans talking about why they are voting “No” and standing up for the freedom to marry.
The latest TV ad to be released, Land of the Free, highlights the amendment as too much government intrusion, that limits a basic freedom.
Please note that by playing this clip You Tube and Google will place a long-term cookie on your computer. Please see on their website and on theirs to learn more. To view the ACLU's privacy statement, click here.
“Government isn’t telling people who they can fall in love with, so government should not be telling people who they can marry. We’re supposed to be the home of the brave, land of the free. If two people – gay, straight – commit to each other and want to take responsibility for each other through marriage, there is no reason for the government to get in the way of that. The constitution is supposed to protect our freedom, not take it away. I’m voting ‘No.’ Love is bigger than government.”
Another ad features , a Catholic Republican couple who discuss their journey to arrive at voting No. A third ad features, from Richfield, Minnesota discussing the importance of marriage in his own life, and how he doesn't want to deny that happiness to anyone – gay or straight.
Check out a whole host of videos of people talking about why they are voting no .
Washington – It’s A Question of Fundamental Fairness
In February of 2012 Washington state Governor Chris Gregoire signed SB 6239, an historic bill granting civil marriage to gay and lesbian couples in the state. Opponents of marriage equality collected enough signatures to challenge the bill at the ballot this November. Washington voters must approve Referendum 74 to secure the freedom to marry for gay and lesbian couples.
, a coalition of more than 600 organizations, including the ACLU of Washington, has launched several beautiful ads showing a broad base of support for marriage equality. Among them is a recent statewide ad by Republican WA State Representative Maureen Walsh (R – District 16). Her ad speaks about the freedom to marry as “a question of fundamental fairness.” It is reminiscent of her moving testimony on the house floor, back in February, which became a national sensation when the went viral on YouTube.
Please note that by playing this clip You Tube and Google will place a long-term cookie on your computer. Please see on their website and on theirs to learn more. To view the ACLU's privacy statement, click here.
“I was married for 23 years to the love of my life, and he died six years ago, and I miss him every day. I think to myself, ‘How could I deny any couple, whether they’re gay or straight, that incredible bond of marriage?’” Walsh says. “We’re all God’s children – who am I to pass judgment on others? As a Republican, I don’t believe the government should tell anyone who they can or cannot marry.”
View additional ads and videos from Washington United for Marriage .
Learn more about 2012 freedom to marry ballot initiatives: Sign up for breaking news alerts, , and .
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
President Biden Must Veto Defense Bill Attacking Military Families with Transgender YouthPresident Biden Must Veto Defense Bill Attacking Military Families with Transgender Youth
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate today passed a version of the National Defense Authorization Act that would ban coverage for gender-affirming care for transgender youth whose parents are active-duty military personnel. The American Civil Liberties Union is opposing final passage of the defense bill over the inclusion of this health care ban and calling on President Joe Biden to veto the bill. Section 708 of the NDAA would prohibit insurance coverage for “medical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoria” such as hormone therapy and puberty-suppressant medications, which Speaker Mike Johnson says would “permanently ban transgender medical treatment for minors.” The same treatments would be covered by TRICARE for any medical purpose other than treating gender dysphoria, the clinical diagnosis for the psychological distress experienced by transgender people related to their gender identity. “By passing this bill, the House and Senate are forcing thousands of active-duty service members to choose between their careers in the military and the future of their transgender children,” said Mike Zamore, national director of policy & government affairs at the ACLU. “This unconscionable and unjustifiable attack on those families stands in direct contrast to President Joe Biden’s legacy of defending the civil rights of transgender Americans — including when few in his own party showed the courage to do so. President Biden should cement his legacy by vetoing this bill and sending it back to Congress to pass without Speaker Johnson’s last minute health care ban for servicemembers’ kids.” If signed by President Biden, this health care ban would be the first new anti-LGBTQ provision enacted by Congress and signed into law by the president since the enactment of the military’s since-repealed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy for LGBTQ servicemembers and the since-repealed federal law barring recognition of same-sex marriages known as the Defense of Marriage Act. It is unknown how many transgender youth are currently enrolled in TRICARE or how many of those enrolled are currently receiving coverage for gender-affirming care. In one 2022 analysis, 2,500 minor patients sought care for gender dysphoria through TRICARE Prime insurance at military or civilian treatment facilities in 2017, and 900 received puberty suppressants or gender-affirming hormones. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a landmark case brought by the ACLU, the ACLU of Tennessee, Lambda Legal, and Akin Gump on behalf of three families and a medical provider challenging a Tennessee ban on gender-affirming hormonal therapies for transgender youth on the grounds the ban violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Montana Court Blocks State From Refusing to Correct Sex Markers on Transgender People's Birth Certificates and Driver's LicensesMontana Court Blocks State From Refusing to Correct Sex Markers on Transgender People's Birth Certificates and Driver's Licenses
HELENA, Mont. – A Montana court has granted a preliminary injunction preventing the state of Montana from enforcing policies that bar transgender people from obtaining accurate sex designations on their birth certificates and driver’s licenses. After a prior restriction on amendments of birth certificates was struck down by the courts, in early 2024 the state of Montana enacted a new rule that categorically bars transgender Montanans from correcting the sex designation on their birth certificates. Around the same time, the Montana Department of Justice adopted a policy similarly restricting amendment of driver’s licenses. The plaintiffs challenged these policies in state district court, arguing that they violate various constitutional provisions, including the right to equal protection of the law. In a recent Montana Supreme Court decision, two justices concluded that discrimination on the basis of transgender status – as the state is engaging in here – is a form of sex discrimination that violates the Montana Constitution’s equal protection clause. The plaintiffs, two transgender women, are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Montana, and Nixon Peabody LLP. Plaintiff Jessica Kalarchik, a veteran who served in the United States Army for 31 years, said: “After finally being able to live my life openly as the woman I know myself to be, I am frustrated that my birth state, Montana, wants me to carry around a birth certificate that incorrectly lists my sex as male. I live my life openly as a woman, I am treated as a woman in my daily life, and there is no reason I should be forced to carry a birth certificate that incorrectly identifies me as male. Fortunately, the court agrees that this ridiculous policy should not be in effect.” “Once again the State of Montana chose to adopt a draconian policy that is clearly intended to marginalize transgender Montanans, only for that discriminatory action to be blocked by the courts,” said Akilah Deernose, executive director for the ACLU of Montana. “Here in Montana we treasure our right to privacy and to live our lives free from governmental intrusion. The State of Montana clearly has not learned any lessons from the past few years, where courts have repeatedly struck down unconstitutional laws targeting transgender Montanans.” “Forcing anyone to carry documents that contradict their identity unjustly violates their rights to privacy, equal treatment, and not being compelled to convey a government message about their sex that they disagree with,” said Malita Picasso, staff attorney for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. “Such a policy marks transgender people for further mistreatment and discrimination, essentially requiring them to carry papers that out them as transgender any time they need to provide identity documents. Fortunately, the court has refused to allow the state of Montana to subvert the freedom of transgender Montanans to control their own identity as this case goes forward.” In granting the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, the court held, “[i]f the challenged state actions discriminate against transgender individuals on the basis of their transgender status, they also necessarily discriminate the basis of sex.” The state has the option of appealing the district court’s ruling to the Montana Supreme Court, but the underlying case will proceed in district court. A trial has not yet been scheduled. -
FloridaDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Keohane v. DixonKeohane v. Dixon
On September 30, 2024, the Florida Department of Corrections rescinded its policy regarding treatment of gender dysphoria, which allowed for hormone therapy when deemed medically necessary, as well as access to clothing and grooming standards that accord with one’s gender identity. Under this new policy, grooming and clothing accommodations have been stripped away, and hormone therapy is not permitted unless an exception is deemed constitutionally required. The ACLU brought a class action challenging the policy. -
IdahoDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Robinson v. LabradorRobinson v. Labrador
Two incarcerated transgender women have sued the state of Idaho alleging that HB 688, a 2024 law barring state funding for gender-affirming medical care for transgender people, denies them access to the health care their doctors have prescribed for them and is a violation of their Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. They represent a class of all incarcerated folks within the state of Idaho who face the loss of hormone therapy due to HB 668.