ACLU Seeks Freedom to Marry for Pennsylvania Couples
Also Announces Marriage Lawsuits in Virginia and North Carolina
July 9, 2013
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: 212-549-2666, media@aclu.org
HARRISBURG, Pa. – The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Pennsylvania, and volunteer counsel from the law firm of Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin & Schiller filed a federal lawsuit today on behalf of 23 Pennsylvanians who wish to marry in Pennsylvania or want the commonwealth to recognize their out-of-state marriages. The ACLU will also amend an existing adoption lawsuit in North Carolina today to also seek the right to marry, and will file a lawsuit in Virginia in the coming weeks as co-counsel with Lambda Legal.
The Pennsylvania lawsuit alleges that the state's Defense of Marriage Act and refusal to marry lesbian and gay couples or recognize their out-of-state marriages violates the fundamental right to marry, as well as the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This lawsuit comes in the wake of the ACLU's victory before the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. Windsor, which requires federal recognition for lesbian and gay couples who are married under state law. Plaintiffs argue that the court should closely scrutinize this discriminatory treatment because the state's Defense of Marriage Act burdens the fundamental right to marry and because it discriminates based on sex and sexual orientation.
"We only want what every married couple wants – to express our love and commitment in front of friends and family, and the security and protections that only marriage provides," said plaintiff Deb Whitewood, who has been together with her spouse Susan Whitewood for 22 years. "Our life is built around our relationship and the family we have made."
The plaintiffs include 10 couples, two minor children of those couples, and one widow who recently lost her partner of 29 years. The lead plaintiffs in the lawsuit are Deb and Susan Whitewood of Bridgeville in Allegheny County, along with their teenage daughters, Abbey and Katie. Their family also includes 2-year-old Landon, who was placed in foster care with Deb and Susan by the Allegheny County Department of Children and Youth Services when he was 11 months old and later was adopted by the couple. Deb and Susan have lived together in a committed relationship for 22 years. They are devout Christians and their family is actively involved in the Christ United Methodist Church of Bethel Park.
In 1993, Deb and Susan had a holy union ceremony at the church they attended at the time, after which they both changed their last names to Whitewood, a combination of their surnames. In 2001, they entered into a civil union in Vermont. Despite their demonstrated commitment to each other, Pennsylvania law treats them as legal strangers, and they know that they and their family do not have the security or the dignity of a legally recognized marriage.
"As the cradle of American liberty, it is shameful that Pennsylvania denies some families the dignity and respect that can only come with marriage," said Reggie Shuford, executive director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania. "It's wrong that the state where these couples live, work, and raise families treats them as second-class couples."
In addition to the Whitewoods, the Pennsylvania plaintiffs include Dawn Plummer and Diana Polson (Pittsburgh), Fernando Chang-Muy and Len Rieser (Philadelphia), Angela Gillem and Gail Lloyd (Philadelphia), Fredia and Lynn Hurdle (Pittsburgh), and Ron Gebhardtsbauer and Greg Wright (State College), who are lesbian and gay couples in committed relationships who wish to be legally married and to give one another the security and protections that only marriage provides.
Additional Pennsylvania plaintiffs Edwin Hill and David Palmer (Bangor, Northampton County), Helena Miller and Dara Raspberry (Philadelphia), Heather and Kath Poehler (Downingtown, Chester County), and Marla Cattermole and Julia Lobur (Harrisburg) are already married, having wed in other states, but are treated as legal strangers in their home state. Plaintiff Maureen Hennessey (Philadelphia) is a widow who lost her spouse after 29 years together. Because her spouse was a woman, their marriage is not recognized by the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and she is not provided the protections afforded to widows under state law.
"We believe that this law cannot stand under any level of scrutiny because excluding same-sex couples from marriage does not further any legitimate government interest. It serves only to insult and hurt lesbian and gay couples and their families," said Mark Aronchick of Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin & Schiller. "We have filed this case today because these families deserve the security of knowing that, in times of crisis, their loved ones will be protected and provided for."
The ACLU also announced today that it will amend an existing adoption lawsuit in North Carolina in the coming days to also seek the freedom to marry and will file a marriage lawsuit in Virginia as co-counsel with the ACLU of Virginia and Lambda Legal in the coming weeks as well.
"In the past few years, we have seen an astonishing and welcome shift toward Americans embracing the idea that married same-sex couples and those who wish to marry should not be regarded as less than any other family," said Leslie Cooper of the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Project. "Whether it's through litigation, through the legislature, or at the ballot box, we will continue to work to broaden the number of states where same-sex couples can marry."
The ACLU and the ACLU of North Carolina originally filed a case in that state last year on behalf of six same-sex couples seeking the right to obtain second-parent adoptions for their children. If partners are allowed to marry, one parent would be able to adopt the other spouse’s child. The amended complaint will seek the freedom to marry as well as second-parent adoptions.
LGBTQ Rights
Whitewood v. Wolf - Freedom to Marry in Pennsylvania
LGBTQ Rights
Whitewood v. Wolf - Freedom to Marry in Pennsylvania
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
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.