What North Carolina's Refusal to Recognize the Marriages of Same Sex Couples Really Means
Think of what it would mean for someone who has been with their partner for decades to confront losing a spouse, while the state insists they're not really married. That's exactly what many same-sex couples face in North Carolina.
Today, we filed a new lawsuit seeking relief for three North Carolina families in desperate situations.
Our clients -- three lesbian couples in long-term, loving, and committed relationships -- include a decorated war veteran and others who honorably serve and contribute to their communities in numerous ways. Yet North Carolina law treats them as second-class citizens, denying them respect of their marriages.
Our new plaintiffs are Ellen ("Lennie") Gerber and Pearl Berlin, Lyn McCoy and Jane Blackburn, and Esmerelda Mejia and Christina Ginter-Mejia.
Because of their age and medical conditions, all three have a substantial fear that one of them could pass away before their marriage is recognized by North Carolina, depriving them forever of the dignity and social recognition that state-recognition would bring.
Lennie and Pearl have been together for 47 years and were married in Maine. Pearl is 89 years old and was hospitalized twice last year.
Lyn and Jane have been a couple for 22 years and were married in the District of Columbia in 2011. Jane has Stage IV breast cancer and is currently undergoing chemotherapy and other treatments.
Esmeralda and Christina have been together 19 years and were recently married in Maryland. Esme is a decorated retired Army major. She left the Army after being diagnosed with cervical cancer. Four years later, she received a second cancer diagnosis for a tumor in her left lung. She has undergone many procedures, including surgery to remove the upper lobe of her lung and three ribs and a liver transplant. When Esme has been hospitalized, Christina has been unable to take family leave to care for her because the state does not recognize their relationship. And as a veteran, Esme's legally recognized children would be entitled to significant benefits. Because the state will not allow Esme to adopt the child she and her spouse have been raising for the past seven years, he is not considered her legal child and is thus ineligible for these protections.
These three families live in a constant state of uncertainty and fear about their ability to exercise their proper role as each other's spouse and medical proxy or to be allowed to stay with their spouse during medical procedures and emergencies. If any were to die, their relationships with their spouses (and, for one family, their child) would never be legally recognized in North Carolina.
Having lived in a loving and committed relationship for decades, our clients should not have to face the end of life (and, for the surviving spouse, the thought of losing their life partner) with the knowledge that their community refuses to recognize the worth and solemnity of their relationship in ways it does for others. They deserve all the support they can get, not the indignity and grief of knowing their home state treats them as legal strangers.
Because of the urgency of their specific situations, we filed suit seeking a preliminary injunction requiring the state to respect their marriages. At the same time, we are also seeking urgent relief on behalf of one of the families in our earlier lawsuit on behalf of six couples raising children in North Carolina.
In our earlier case filed in 2012, plaintiffs Shana Carignan and Megan Parker, along with their son Jax have been waiting for a decision about whether the state can continue to disregard their marriage. Jax, who was four at the time the lawsuit was filed, faces serious developmental delays due to cerebral palsy. Because North Carolina does not respect their marriage or allow two unmarried adults to adopt a child, Shana is unable to adopt her son and cannot cover him on her health insurance. Jax desperately needs medical treatments that the couple cannot afford to pay for on their own but would be covered by insurance if Shana could adopt Jax. As each day passes, his parents fear that Jax is missing critical opportunities for intervention that would have a profound impact on his development.
Since the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could no longer refuse to recognize marriages of same-sex couples in United States v. Windsor, nine federal courts across the country have concluded that excluding same-sex couples from marriage, or refusing to recognize their valid marriages, is unfair and unjustifiable. We and our clients are hopeful that the district court in North Carolina will soon join this chorus of decisions striking down such bans as unconstitutional.
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.