Major Strides for Marriage Equality

Last week, President Obama determined that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a law enacted in 1996 that bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages, is unconstitutional. Although Obama opposes same-sex marriage, the president has directed the Justice Department to stop defending the law in court.  His explanation is given in a statement by the Attorney General:

Given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny. The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional.

Section 3 of DOMA defines marriage as “only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”

While determined unconstitutional by the president, the act will still be enforced unless and until Congress repeals it or if a court delivers a “definitive verdict against the law’s constitutionality.” This may come sooner rather than later based on a report by the Huffington Post that Democrat Rep. Jerry Nadler and “quite a few co-sponsors” are planning to introduce the Respect for Marriage Act, which would repeal DOMA.

In addition to President Obama’s shifting views, on Thursday, the Maryland State Senate voted in favor of the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act, which grants same-sex couples in the state legal marriage recognition, while protecting the rights of religious institutions to handle marriage how they see fit.  The bill is expected to make its way to the House Committee this week.

Meanwhile, about 5,000 miles away in Hawaii, Governor Neil Abercrombie signed a bill legalizing civil unions.  The law, effective January 1, 2012, allows couples, regardless of gender, to form civil unions which provide all the legal rights of marriage.  While civil unions, says Alan Spector, of Equality Hawaii, are not marriage,

They at least provide — on a state level — the concrete, tangible, legal rights and responsibilities of marriage. We still don’t have the social significance and the social meaning of marriage … but getting us to civil unions — psychologically and legally — is such a major barrier to cross.

While we’re thrilled with the strides are being made on behalf of gay rights, we’re disheartened that the issue of marriage equality is still met with strong resistance from politicians and lawmakers across the country.  To read the entire statement about the unconstitutionality of DOMA given by the Attorney General, click here.  To show your support for the President’s decision to determine DOMA unconstitutional, click here.

New Law Gives More Alabamans Protection from Intimate Partner Violence

Under a new law, Alabama can now protect domestic violence victims who have been in a dating relationship for at least six months. Previously, “there must have been a connection by marriage, a child being involved in the relationship, a common-law marriage, or the abuse include a former household member in order to file a protection order.” The new law also recognizes arson, criminal trespassing, and criminal coercion as abuse and allows people as young as 18 to file for protection.

Under this new law, significantly more people can be protected from their abusers. Thirty-five percent of domestic violence victims are victims of dating abuse who previously lacked sufficient protections under Alabama law. Carolyn Crump, Executive Director of Kelly’s Rainbow, a non-profit shelter in Alabama, praises the law for allowing 18-year-olds to file for protection: “we get a lot of people in here that are 18, but they didn’t qualify to get a protection order, and their parents would have to come in for them.”

However, while the new law certainly has improved Alabama regulations on who can file for protection from their abuser, there is still a lot of work to be done. As The Curvature stated, the law still “leaves far too many victims of abuse out in the cold.” The new law still excludes minors under the age of 18 and those who have been in a dating relationship less than six months from receiving protection from domestic violence.

Other states have also addressed the issue of domestic violence recently. The Connecticut legislature passed several anti-domestic violence laws, including prevention programs and better funding for shelters. Recently proposed bills in Maryland would have decreased the standard of evidence for receiving a protective order from “clear and convincing evidence” to a “preponderance of evidence,” the standard in every other civil matter. Unfortunately, the Maryland legislature did not pass the bills.

Domestic violence continues to be an issue across the country. While it is encouraging that state legislatures have been addressing this issue recently, there is still more work to be done.  For information about how well your state deals with issues of domestic violence, particularly with regard to dating violence, check out Break the Cycle’s 2010 State Report Cards (PDF).  FYI: Pennsylvania received a grade of “D.”

NARAL Exposes Crisis Pregnancy Centers

NARAL Pro-Choice California has written a report exposing the tactics of so-called “Crisis Pregnancy Centers” (CPCs) in their state. Pairs of volunteers recently went undercover into fourteen CPCs and made phone calls to eighteen others. The full report of their findings will be released next month.

The study found CPCs use names that sound like reputable clinics to persuade women into thinking they are going into an organization that will provide them all of their options. Many CPCs are decorated with pictures of aborted fetuses and religious propaganda to discourage women from ending their pregnancy.

NARAL found CPCs push their anti-choice agenda by spreading false information to patients. Condoms are effective ninety-eight per cent of the time when used correctly. However, “sixty percent of CPCs investigated said that condoms are ‘ineffective in reducing pregnancy and the transmission of certain STDs.”  The American Psychological Association found that “a woman who chooses abortion is at no greater risk for mental-health problems than if she chooses to carry an unintended pregnancy to term.” However, a CPC brochure read that having an abortion “‘can be far worse’” than continuing an unwanted pregnancy.

This most recent exposé on CPCs is yet more evidence that these federally-funded organizations not only mislead women in crisis, but blatantly lie to them. NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia’s investigation [PDF] of state-funded CPCs revealed that the majority are not medically licensed and that they spread false and misleading information about abortion. In 2006, Rep. Harvey Waxman’s (D-CA) office investigated CPCs that received federal funding and had similar findings. We have also written about additional research into these centers.

CPCs are often funded by taxpayers on the state and national level, and some recent legislation ensures that CPCs be honest about what they are and what services they provide. Montgomery County, Maryland, enacted a law that requires CPCs “without licensed medical professionals on staff to post a disclaimer that states they do ‘not have a licensed medical professional on staff’ and that the ‘Montgomery County Health Officer encourages women who are or may be pregnant to consult with a licensed health care provider.’” The law also requires that CPCs that do not refer women to abortion or birth control services say so on posted notices. The Austin, Texas, City Council unanimously passed a similar law. CPCs have shown resistance to these kinds of legislation. In Maryland, a CPC claimed that in being forced to post the truth about their organization their right to free speech is infringed upon.

These CPCs pose as comprehensive health centers designed to help women who are facing unplanned pregnancies, yet they withhold information and lie about the effects of services they oppose – abortion and contraception. Legislation similar to that in Maryland and Texas may prove valuable in ensuring that women are aware of the limitations of CPCs, and might be replicated elsewhere.