(Originally posted on .)
Two weeks before Christmas in 2004, my partner and I got a call from the Department of Children and Families, asking us to take in two foster children. Although we'd taken in other kids in the past, this time I said no because we were planning to move to Georgia, and I didn't want to take in kids if they'd have to be uprooted again because of our move.
The social worker said they just needed a place for about a month, because a family member had agreed to take them. I still said no. She said we were the only home in the agency with any space left. Then she said, "I bet you could give them a really nice Christmas."
I knew she was right; we could give them a great Christmas. The story of Joseph and Mary being turned away from the inn flashed through my mind. For us, Christmas had never been a time to turn away those in need, and I really hated the thought that these two might have to spend Christmas in a shelter.
They arrived two hours later, with nothing more than the clothes on their backs. Even those were tattered and dirty -- a shirt way too big and shoes four sizes too small.
On Christmas day, we had 20 people over for dinner. By that evening, our guests had filled the kids' closet and their dressers with new clothes. We made the playpen into a makeshift toy box that was overflowing with new toys.
What was supposed to be a temporary placement in 2004 is now a big part of what we call our family. Because of these boys, we sold the house in Georgia and made the choice to stay here in Miami. This will be our sixth Christmas with these two amazing boys. They came to us in need, but in return have given our family so much joy and happiness!
Although the state begged us to take in our two boys, there is a Florida law that bars gay people like us from being able to adopt them and give them the stability, permanency and legal protections that only come with adoption. With the help of the ACLU, we are challenging that law. On November 26, 2008, a Miami family court judge ruled that the law is unconstitutional and granted me adoptions for the two boys. But that decision has been appealed and is now pending before an intermediate state appeals court.
While we are anxiously awaiting the outcome of the case and eager to put it behind us, we feel truly blessed and thankful for our family, for our health, and for our jobs in this time of recession. Because we have been so blessed, for the second year in a row we have decided to put an emphasis on helping others in need. So my partner and I have been volunteering with Angels Everywhere, a group from our church (Unity on the Bay), to put on our second annual Christmas party for teens in group homes.
These teens have ended up in group homes with little chance of being adopted. These are teens who have been through so many foster homes, that the state has decided they would have more stability in a group home. They have no parents there -- just employees who work their shifts to supervise them.
In the eight Christmases we have been foster parents, we have been at a number of toy giveaways. The little kids get some great toys. But at those same toy giveaways we have seen teens walk away empty handed or with toys that were meant for someone much younger.
The problem is that most toys that are donated are for younger kids. Most people simply don't realize that there are adolescents and teens in need too. I know we never did until we became foster parents.
So again this year, my partner has worked with the social workers at our foster agency to develop a list of gifts tailored especially for the teens there. Our three kids will be Santa's helpers, giving out the gifts, in hopes that they too can learn the joy of giving.
If you are planning to donate toys to a local charity, please keep in mind that adolescents and teens need a little Christmas too.
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.