I know it suddenly seems like marriage is breaking out all over, even though what we’re seeing is the product of long-planned campaigns. It’s getting hard to keep up with all the good news, so here’s a quick guide to what’s happening with efforts to expand marriage for same-sex couples on the ground now and what’s in store for us during the rest of 2012.
Washington State: Gov. Christine Gregoire signed the new marriage law yesterday, making Washington the seventh state in the country (plus D.C.!) to open marriage to committed same-sex couples. The law goes into effect on June 7, but if marriage opponents gather enough signatures before then, the law will be suspended pending a referendum on the November ballot asking whether voters approve of the marriage law. The ACLU of Washington is a leader on the steering committee of the campaign, and lobbied hard for the marriage bill.
New Jersey: The state yesterday, and the Assembly is expected to vote for it on Thursday. Gov. Chris Christie has vowed to veto the bill, but we and our allies have almost two more years to gather the votes to override that veto, and we’re committed to making that happen. The ACLU of New Jersey has been lobbying for the marriage bill in Trenton and has gotten ACLU members out in force.
Maryland: The House of Delegates held hearings last week on a marriage bill supported by Gov. Martin O’Malley. Here, as in Washington, if the marriage bill passes, there’s a real chance that the issue will end up on the ballot in November. The ACLU of Maryland is on the steering committee of , and has hired organizing staff to help with the campaign. Laura Murphy, who is legislative director for the national ACLU, testified in favor of the marriage bill before the House of Delegates.
Maine: Back in 2009, the Maine legislature passed a freedom to marry law and the governor signed it, but the law was narrowly rejected by the people at the ballot that fall. Now we are putting the issue back on the ballot in November 2012. The ACLU of Maine is on the executive committee of the campaign, and is hiring organizing staff to team up with partner organizations.
Minnesota: We face a bad marriage amendment in Minnesota, which is on the ballot in November 2012 and would bar marriage for same-sex couples. The ACLU of Minnesota is a member of the coalition and is working to educate the state about the freedom to marry.
North Carolina: In May 2012, we’re facing an even worse amendment to the state’s constitution that would ban marriage or other forms of relationship protection for same-sex couples. The ACLU of North Carolina is on the steering committee of the , and has hired organizing staff to help fight the amendment.
These contests are all important. We stand to win the freedom to marry in as many as four new states this year, catapulting us from six to 10 marriage states in one year. As important, we have a real chance to win marriage fights at the ballot box, which we have managed to do only once in the past (Arizona in 2006, and that lasted only until 2008, when we lost at the ballot again). A ballot box win alone would change the national debate and would reinforce the polls showing growing majorities across the country that support marriage for committed same-sex couples. Finally, expanding the number of marriage states is the best way to help the Prop. 8 lawsuit succeed if it gets before the Supreme Court.
All across the country, the ACLU is proud to join with our allies and help lead the struggle for the freedom to marry.
As you celebrate Valentine’s Day today, please take the time to help other couples and families have their love and commitment recognized. Call your legislators if marriage is before your state's legislature, or support the campaigns where marriage will be on the ballot this fall. Clearly, love is in the air. Help us keep the momentum to expand the freedom to marry going strong.
Learn more about LGBT rights: 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.