Patricia Martinez is a client in the 's case , in which the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, ruled that valid same-sex marriages performed outside the state are entitled to recognition in New York. In her contribution to the ACLU's online symposium in celebration of LGBT Pride, Patricia talks about how life has changed since the appeals court recognized her marriage to Lisa Ann Golden, and how seemingly small steps taken to advocate for equality can have a larger impact.
On February 1 of this year, we needed the fingers of only one hand to count the number of LGBT people we knew in our community. As a friend once put it, we were "nesters" who rarely left home and never, ever participated in our community.
But all of that changed when the . Seemingly overnight we went from quiet, private people to virtual poster children for marriage equality in New York State. Since that day so many wonderful people have touched our lives that we couldn’t begin to list them all.
Lisa jokingly describes our life these days as "living in a snow globe." Just when things settle down a bit, something happens to shake the globe up again. Media feeding frenzies have arisen every time there is a new development.
followed three weeks later by the county executive’s announcement that she would appeal the ruling. We attended two rallies in support ofmarriageequality outside the county offices one day. We were both amazed and humbled by the number of people — perfect strangers — who came up to us and thanked us for what we had done. We granted interviews to the local media explaining why we filed the suit, and why we were at the protest that day. We explained that, as taxpayers, we were tired of being relegated to second-class citizen status and that all we wanted was to be treated equally.
As part of the steering committee for Newly Wed In New York (which was a community celebration of the ruling), we attended the vow renewal ceremony as well as the community reception later that evening. A documentary crew from the LGBT channel LOGO accompanied us that night, to wrap up the filming that they had begun in early March for a program on commitment.
In early May because there were smaller issues that hadn’t been completely decided before the county filed their appeal. At about that time, we were asked to be this year’s Grand Marshals at the Rochester Gay Pride Parade — the parade’s theme this year is Happily Ever After and, as we were told, it just made sense to have us there. We received special recognition at the Empire State Pride Agenda’s Annual Spring Dinner where, via previously recorded video, Governor David Paterson congratulated us, and .
Everyplace we go, we are met with handshakes, hugs, congratulations, words of encouragement, and, sometimes, thunderous applause or standing ovations. Often we feel like we are outside a building, looking in on someone else’s lives, living through them.
We knew that our decision to pursue the lawsuit was an important decision with far-reaching implications, but we never imagined that we would make such an impact on so many people’s lives. It has been an experience of a lifetime to be a part of a landmark decision that may help to pave the way for full marriage equality in New York State. And with this impact, we have begun to feel a new sense of responsibility to our community, to do whatever we can to help educate and advocate for marriage equality. We’re no longer "nesters." We’re now activists, advocates, ambassadors.
We continue to try to spread the message that if two people like ourselves can accomplish so much toward marriage equality by simply taking one step out of our comfort zone, imagine what the LGBT community can accomplish as a whole, and individually, if each of us steps out of our comfort zone and does just one small thing to advance the cause of marriage equality for all of us.
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.