O-blog-dee-o-blog-da

 By Melanie Nathan, 12/26/2013

“City employees who are married to same-sex spouses are doing the same work as coworkers who are married to different-sex spouses—at the end of the day this case is about equal pay for equal work.These employees, some who have worked for the City for manyyears, acted in good faith when notified the City was extending health coverage benefits to their legal spouses,” said Kenneth Upton, Senior Counsel in Lambda Legal’s South Central Regional Office in Dallas.

They enrolled for spousal benefits, including health insurance, paid the premiums, scheduled doctor visits and underwent treatments that will require ongoing care. Now, suddenly, the rug is pulled out from under them.”

Houston Mayor Annise Parker on November 20, 2013 announced that all lawfully-married city employees, including those who married same-sex partners in jurisdictions where such marriages are legal, would be eligible to enroll for spousal benefits, including health insurance coverage, under the City’s employee benefits health plan. The three plaintiffs named in Lambda Legal’s lawsuit enrolled their spouses as soon as they received notification of the policy change. Shortly thereafter, however, two Houston taxpayers sued the Mayor and the City in Family Law Court claiming the benefits were illegal and, without giving the Mayor or the City notice, secured a temporary restraining order (TRO) blocking extension of the benefits. The Cityis defending against the challenge to the Mayor’s decision to ensure equal employee benefits for all workers.

“The notice from the City was like a punch in the stomach,” said Noel Freeman, lead plaintiff in the lawsuit, administrative coordinator with the City of Houston Public Works & Engineering Office and a nine-year employee of the City. “Brad and I were so excited when we learned we could enroll him on my plan that we signed him up within an hour of finding out. And now, just a month later, they tell us they’re going to have to take it away, that once again I will be paid less than my married heterosexual colleagues for the same work. How is this fair?”

In addition to Noel and Brad, who were married in Washington, DC, on Aug. 1, 2010, and have been together for more than 11 years, the other plaintiffs in the lawsuit are: Yadira Estrada, a City of Houston police officer who married her partner of seven and a half years, Jennifer Flores, in Maine this past June and signed up for spousal benefits about a week after the Mayor’s announcement; and Ron Reeser, a systems administrator for the City and eight-year city employee who married his husband, Vince Olivier, in Canada in 2008 after they had been together for three years.

“By refusing to recognize the legal marriage of same-sex couples for the purpose of providing employment benefits, the City deprives some Houston families of a critical safety net and financial security,” Upton added. “By stripping legally married gay and lesbian city employees of spousal benefits, including health insurance coverage, the City not only inflicts severe hardship, but sends a signal that their families are less worthy than those of their coworkers. This the Constitutional does not allow.”

Read the brief: http://lambdalegal.org/in-court/legal-docs/freeman_tx_20131226_plaintiffs-original-complaint

Learn more about the case, Freeman et. al. v. Parker and City of Houston: http://lambdalegal.org/in-court/cases/freeman-et-al-v-parker-and-city-of-houston

For the Love of the Buck the Anti-Gay Duck Guy is Reinstated by A&E

Written by melnathan on December 27th, 2013

Phil Robertson, the patriarch of A&E’s Duck Dynasty clan, who was suspended from his hit reality series on Dec. 18 following his odious comments about gay people, won’t be put on hiatus after all. The network and the Robertson family announced Friday that Phil will still be part of the series — and since he didn’t miss any filming, his temporary suspension will have no effect on the upcoming fifth season.

An A&E statement to The Hollywood Reporter

As a global media content company, A+E Networks’ core values are centered around creativity, inclusion and mutual respect. We believe it is a privilege for our brands to be invited into people’s homes, and we operate with a strong sense of integrity and deep commitment to these principles. That is why we reacted so quickly and strongly to a recent interview with Phil Robertson. While Phil’s comments made in the interview reflect his personal views based on his own beliefs and his own personal journey, he and his family have publicly stated they regret the “coarse language” he used and the misinterpretation of his core beliefs based only on the article. He also made it clear he would “never incite or encourage hate.” We at A+E Networks expressed our disappointment with his statements in the article and reiterate that they are not views we hold.

But Duck Dynasty is not a show about one man’s views. It resonates with a large audience because it is a show about family … a family that America has come to love. As you might have seen in many episodes, they come together to reflect and pray for unity, tolerance and forgiveness. These are three values that we at A+E Networks also feel strongly about.

So after discussions with the Robertson family, as well as consulting with numerous advocacy groups, A&E has decided to resume filming Duck Dynasty later this spring with the entire Robertson family.

We will also use this moment to launch a national public service campaign (PSA) promoting unity, tolerance and acceptance among all people, a message that supports our core values as a company and the values found in Duck Dynasty. These PSAs will air across our entire portfolio.

In addition, an A&E source says the family and the network are going to work together to promote tolerance.

Robertson’s comments in GQ magazine, which included the 67-year-old likening homosexuality to “bestiality,” prompted an almost immediate announcement from A&E.

My Comment:  It is not clear  from the Statement as to why A&E has in effect reversed its decision. Can it be the almighty buck, I mean duck.  It is clear that A&E is not willing to stand on its principle and so it has found language to worm its way out, while all of us are clear, this is more about the grand old ducky dollar and less about principle.   I for one applaud forgiveness, however Mr. Duck guy has yet to apologize to the gay community and so the post-disaster spin and current flowery rhetoric as expressed by A&E and SOME members of their family is meaningless and has not taught anyone anything.  The so called promotion of tolerance sickens me. Who the hell needs tolerance from those incapable of acceptance.

States forge ahead with SCOTUS ruling to allow same-sex marriages

Written by melnathan on December 26th, 2013

Photo: GAY U.S.A. The Movie http://www.gayusathemovie.com

Brady McCombs and Mark Sherman of the Associated Press, and writing for The Seattle Times, have provided a composite analysis of how the States have now reinforced the SCOTUS rulings, forging the way to allow same-sex marriages. They have noted that advocates on both sides of the gay-marriage debate predicted that the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June that overturned part of a federal ban on gay marriage would create a pathway for states to act. Stating categorically, “They were right.”

The Article goes on to note:

“In the six months since the decision, the number of states allowing gay marriage has jumped from 12 to 18, a trend that started before the high-court ruling that’s been reinforced since. Judges in New Mexico, Ohio and, most surprisingly, conservative, Mormon-heavy Utah all ruled in favor of same-sex marriage in just the past week. Both Utah’s case and another in Nevada will next be heard by federal appeals courts, putting them on the path toward the high court. Ohio’s case, which recognized same-sex death certificates, also will likely be appealed.

The series of court decisions has many asking: When will the Supreme Court step in and settle the issue for good?

It may not be that simple.

The cases on the path to the Supreme Court now differ little from a case that justices refused to hear in June, at the same time they made their landmark ruling on the federal law denying tax, health and other benefits to legally married same-sex couples.

That case, from California, hinged on a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

If the justices had acted, it would have struck down gay-marriage prohibitions across the country.

Instead, the justices passed, relying instead on a technical legal argument to resolve the California case and clear the way for same-sex marriage in the state, which resumed at the end of June.

That convinces some legal scholars that the high court won’t take up the issue again so soon. In a way, they’ve already passed the buck to the states, some say, including language in their Defense of Marriage Act ruling saying it relegates same-sex marriages to second-class status, and “humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples.”

That language makes it clear state bans are ripe for challenge, said Andrew Koppelman, a professor of law and political science at Northwestern University. Language from both Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion and Justice Antonin Scalia’s biting dissent has appeared prominently in subsequent court challenges and rulings, including in Utah and Ohio. A federal judge in Ohio ordered officials to recognize gay marriages on death certificates.

“The Supreme Court has given them ammunition to go there if that’s where they want to go,” Koppelman said.

READ MORE.

*************** MORE**************