A lot of people think that the fight for the freedom to marry for gay and lesbian couples is all about legal filings, demonstrations and news coverage. I'm here to tell you that it's not: it's about real people, real lives and sometimes, real tragedy. Today, as I was readying the ACLU's response to two separate Supreme Court filings, I was reminded of Midori Fujii and Garth Wangemann, their struggles and why I want to make the case for them (and so many others) in the highest court in the land as soon as possible.
Midori Fujii is one of our clients in the Indiana marriage equality case. She lived in a committed relationship with Kristie Kay Brittain from 2000 until Kris's death in 2011. Midori and Kris met in 1997 and married in Los Angeles in the summer of 2008. Months later, when Kris was diagnosed with ovarian cancer and going through multiple surgeries, Midori became her primary caregiver, using her sick leave, paid and unpaid time off to care for her wife.
After Kris's death, despite the fact that the couple was married in California, Midori was required to pay more than $300,000 in state inheritance tax on the property that her wife left to her, including their shared home, because the law viewed them as strangers. In her time of grief, Midori was also denied the comfort and dignity of being acknowledged as Kris's widow.
Wisconsin couple Roy Badger and Garth Wangemann met in college. Together for 37 years, they have two dogs and a good life working and going to church in their Milwaukee community. Three years ago Wangemann was diagnosed with lung cancer and had much of his right lung removed. Following the operation, a complication occurred and he was put into a medically induced coma for nearly a month. During this time, Wangemann's father attempted to override Badger's power of attorney to have his son taken off life support. Luckly, before that could happen, Wangemann came out of the coma, but the couple is still shaken by the knowledge that the consequences of living without the protections that come with marriage can literally be a matter of life or death.
I'm thinking of these people now because today, Wisconsin and Indiana both filed petitions asking the Supreme Court to review last week's marriage equality ruling from the Seventh Circuit federal appeals court, which struck down those states' discriminatory marriage laws. The ACLU, as co-counsel for plaintiffs in both these cases, also filed papers this afternoon urging the Court to take up the marriage issue again. While we disagree with these states' marriage laws, we are clearly on the same page about one thing – these people, and the larger issue of marriage equality, deserve to be heard in the Supreme Court. We at the ACLU want to resolve the marriage equality issue for these two states and for the country as a whole, as soon as possible.
The ACLU has a long history with the freedom to marry. In 1967, we represented Mildred and Richard Loving in their successful fight to end state bans on inter-racial marriage, in the landmark case Loving v. Virginia. In 1970, we brought the nation's first freedom to marry lawsuit for same-sex couples, in Minnesota. And, since representing Edie Windsor in her successful challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act in June 2013, we've filed marriage lawsuits on behalf of families fighting for equality all across the country.
Since then, dozens of courts have ruled in favor of equality for loving and committed same-sex couples, and forty-four percent of the American people now live in a state with the freedom to marry. Given the appeals in many of the marriage cases, there is now an unfair and harmful patchwork of laws governing marriage for same-sex couples. It's time for marriage equality to be the law of the land and we at the ACLU plan to make that a reality.
As of today, there are now five cases petitioning the Supreme Court for a hearing – Indiana, Wisconsin, Utah, Oklahoma and Virginia (where we also serve as co-counsel). America is ready for this to be decided. With today's filings, we're closer to my dream – our dream – of marriage equality in all fifty states. We're in it to win it and will be there every step of the way in making that dream a reality.
Learn more about marriage for same-sex couples and other civil liberty issues: 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.