ACLU Seeks Swift Ruling to Grant Freedom to Marry to Same-Sex Couples in North Carolina
Federal Court Asked to Take Action On Behalf of Couples With Serious Medical Conditions Whose Marriages Are Not Recognized by N.C.
April 9, 2014
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: 212-549-2666, media@aclu.org
GREENSBORO, N.C. – The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of North Carolina Legal Foundation and the law firms of Sullivan & Cromwell LLP and Ellis & Winters LLP filed a new case in federal court today on behalf of three married, same-sex couples seeking state recognition of their marriages. Because of the serious medical condition of one member of each couple, they are asking the court to take swift action.
The ACLU also sought immediate relief on behalf of one of the couples in the existing Fisher-Borne et al. v. Smith case who have a young child who is being denied critical medical care because North Carolina neither recognizes his mothers’ marriage nor allows both mothers to adopt their child and establish a legal relationship.
"Nothing should delay loving and committed couples from having the security and recognition that comes with marriage," said Jennifer Rudinger, executive director of the ACLU of North Carolina. "For many couples – especially those who have children or one partner who is elderly or ill – the need for marriage recognition is an urgent, daily reality. Without the legal security that only marriage affords, these families are left vulnerable. If they could marry or have their marriages recognized in North Carolina, the law would protect their families in countless ways."
North Carolina’s ban on marriage for same-sex couples prevents the plaintiffs from securing hundreds of protections provided in both state and federal law to married couples. If one spouse were to die before the state recognizes their marriage, the surviving spouse will be forever denied not only these protections but the dignity that respect from the state affords, such as having their relationship acknowledged forever on a death certificate.
The couples in the new case are
- Ellen “Lennie” Gerber and Pearl Berlin of High Point, who have been together for 47 years and were legally married in Maine last year. Berlin is 89 years old and in fragile condition. She has been hospitalized three times over the past two years, most recently for having suffered a fall where she hit her head, incurred internal bleeding, and broke three ribs.
- Lyn McCoy and Jane Blackburn of Greensboro, who have been together for 22 years and were legally married in the District of Columbia in 2011. Blackburn was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2012, and although she is undergoing chemotherapy and other treatments, the cancer has spread to a Stage IV diagnosis.
- Esmeralda Mejia and Christina Ginter-Mejia of Hickory, who have been together 19 years, have a 7-year old son, and were legally married in Maryland in 2013. Mejia is a decorated retired Army major who served for 13 years, including in Kuwait during Desert Storm, and received a Bronze Star, among other accolades, for her service. She left the Army after being diagnosed with cervical cancer. Four years later, in 1996, 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. Esmeralda sees doctors regularly, but Christina has been denied family medical leave by her job because their marriage is not recognized in North Carolina. Because Christina is also their son’s sole legal parent, he is not able to receive the family benefits that flow from Esmerelda’s military service, and if Esmerelda were to die before North Carolina recognizes her marriage, he will never be able to receive them.
In 2012, the ACLU filed a federal lawsuit in Greensboro on behalf of six families headed by same-sex couples that challenged the state’s ban on second parent adoption, where one partner in an unmarried gay or straight couple adopts the other partner’s adoptive or biological child. In 2013, the ACLU added an additional claim to that lawsuit that directly challenges North Carolina’s ban on marriage for same-sex couples.
Today, two plaintiffs in the 2012 case, on behalf of themselves and their child, also filed a request for a preliminary injunction. These plaintiffs, Shana Carignan and Megan Parker, were legally married in Massachusetts but their marriage is not recognized in North Carolina. Their 6-year-old son Jax has severe cerebral palsy. Because North Carolina refuses to recognize the legal marriage of Jax’s parents and because North Carolina law refuses to allow both of Jax’s parents to have a legal parent-son relationship, Jax is not receiving the quality of care he could which would dramatically improve his life. Because North Carolina recognizes only Parker as Jax’s mother, Carignan is unable to put Jax on her health insurance.
"Every day that goes by is another day that Jax is not receiving critical medical care," said Carignan. "Our doctors tell us that the care Jax receives now will determine his overall health for the rest of his life. Although Jax receives Medicaid, he would receive significantly better care if I could put him on my private health insurance plan. It is devastating to know that if the law only recognized what our family already knows – that our son has two parents who love and care for him equally and want to share legal responsibility for his well-being – our son might have very different opportunities in his life."
Since the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could no longer refuse to recognize marriages of same-sex couples in the ACLU case United States v. Windsor, eight state bans on marriage for same-sex couples have been held by courts to be unfair and unjustifiable under the U.S. Constitution.
"We and our clients are hopeful that the district court in North Carolina will soon join the growing chorus of decisions striking down these discriminatory bans as unconstitutional." said Elizabeth Gill, staff attorney for the ACLU LGBT Project.
Client stories are available at:
aclu.org/lgbt-rights/gerber-and-berlin-v-cooper-plaintiff-profiles
LGBTQ Rights
Gerber and Berlin v. Cooper - Freedom to Marry in North Carolina
LGBTQ Rights
Gerber and Berlin v. Cooper - Freedom to Marry in North Carolina
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.