Skip Header to Content
GLAD Logo Skip Primary Navigation to Content

News

GLAD awarded $1 Million gift from MacKenzie Scott’s Yield Giving open call 

We are thrilled to announce that GLAD is the recipient of a $1 million grant from Yield Giving, the philanthropic fund established by MacKenzie Scott.  

Over 6,000 organizations from across the U.S. applied as part of this year’s open call from Yield Giving – GLAD was one of 361 grantees. Several of our partners in the LGTBQ+ and legal advocacy movements are on the grantee list, including the ACLU of Alabama, Immigration Equality, OutFront Minnesota, Lawyers for Civil Rights, and Gender Justice. Congratulations to all grantees! 

This gift demonstrates an understanding within the broader community of this pivotal moment in the movement for LGBTQ+ rights and equality, as well as confidence in the ability of GLAD to address it through litigation, public policy advocacy, and public education.  

The grant is particularly meaningful as we undertake the search for GLAD’s new Executive Director, who will guide our next phase in the enduring fight for justice for the LGBTQ+ community and people with HIV.

GLAD is searching for our next Executive Director

GLAD is searching for our next leader!

Will you join GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) at this consequential time in history to protect and advance the rights of LGBTQ+ and HIV+ people across the country? GLAD has launched a nationwide search for our next Executive Director. We invite you to read on and learn more about the position here.

GLAD's Mary Bonauto speaking at the podium surrounded by Goodridge plaintiffs at the 2023 Spirit of Justice Award Dinner

After the successful nine-year tenure of our previous leader, GLAD is excited to hire our next Executive Director. As a key public-facing representative of GLAD’s mission, values, and advocacy, the next Executive Director will lead a powerhouse team of 35+ staff and interns, including a legal team comprised of some of the nation’s most highly regarded LGBTQ+ and human rights litigators. The next Executive Director will join this historic group of leaders and pioneers in defending our hard-won victories, spearheading bold new initiatives, and continuing our relentless pursuit of LGBTQ+ equality at a critical juncture for the movement.

Reporting to a dedicated, collaborative Board of Directors, you will oversee all functions of a $5M+ organization. You will not only be an inspiring fundraiser and manager, but you will also be the top storyteller for one of America’s most effective LGBTQ+ legal advocacy organizations. As we state in our strategic plan Justice for All:

These are extraordinary times, but we cannot shy away from the challenges before us. GLAD is charting a bold new path to pursue the promise of freedom, equality, and justice for all.

GLAD’s Justice for All Strategic Plan

A Steadfast Commitment to Racial Justice and Inclusion

GLAD's Director of Family Advocacy Polly Crozier, Carmen Paulino, Ashton Mota, Governor Healey, and Lt. Governor Driscoll at the Massachusetts State House

GLAD is focused on ensuring that our legal strategies in pursuit of LGBTQ+ equality acknowledge intersecting oppressions, honor interlocking social movements, and advance racial equity.

GLAD challenges discriminatory systems, policies, and practices; engages in intentional, sustained partnerships with LGBTQ+ communities of color; and works to build and maintain coalitions with allied social justice movements. We pay equal attention to our organizational culture, practices, and staff and board composition to ensure that they reflect these values. An equal opportunity employer, GLAD strongly encourages applications from people of color, people with disabilities, women, and LGBTQ+ applicants.

Voices of GLAD

Before you apply to this critical role, we invite you to learn more about what we are looking for in our next Executive Director directly from three members of our community:

A Message From Our Board President Shane Dunn (he/him)

YouTube video

A Message From Our Development Director Carole Allen-Scannell (she/her)

YouTube video

A Message From Board Member Dallas Ducar (she/her)

YouTube video

How You Can Express Interest

GLAD is working closely with Koya Partners, a premier executive search firm dedicated to working with mission-driven organizations, to lead this nationwide search. You can find the formal position profile and process for expressing interest in the role on Koya’s website.

GLAD staff and interns smiling at the Boston Harbor dock

Timeline

We hope to announce our next Executive Director in Summer 2024.

Spread the Word

To help GLAD spread the word about this exciting opportunity to expand our reach and identify candidates from all backgrounds, we invite you to email your networks and post on social media.

Blog

By Polly Crozier, Director of Family Advocacy

The ideological effort to roll back the clock on autonomy and equal rights for LGBTQ+ people and all women hit another milestone recently when the Alabama Supreme Court issued an alarming decision saying that frozen embryos are children, shutting down access to IVF in the state and sending shockwaves across the country. The resulting legislative “fix” in Alabama was no fix and further undermined hopeful parents and their efforts to build their families.

It was a staggeringly clear example of increasing efforts to control our lives and our most personal decisions: to cut off access to fertility healthcare, ban contraception, outlaw abortion in any form without exception, end access to critical healthcare for transgender people, preclude the formation of LGBTQ+ families, and even ban no-fault divorce and take the freedom to marry away from same-sex couples.

But as the outcry against that Alabama ruling shows, people across the country are saying no to that agenda of fear and control.

At GLAD, we are fighting alongside our partners and allies every day to protect our hard-won rights and push back against these attacks, so we can all live how we deserve to – freely, authentically, and joyfully.

In the past week alone, GLAD has:

  • Advocated in state houses for crucial shield bills to protect access to reproductive and transgender healthcare in Maine and Rhode Island, while we continue our federal legal challenges to bans on essential healthcare for transgender people in Alabama and Florida. These important bills would build on GLAD’s work to pass shield laws in Massachusetts (2022) and Vermont (2023).
  • Championed equitable coverage for fertility healthcare before multiple Connecticut legislative committees, so that Connecticut law reflects the standard of care ensuring LGBTQ+ people and single people on private insurance and Medicaid have access to the healthcare they need to build their families. GLAD was invited to appear with U.S. Senator Blumenthal to advocate not only for the Connecticut legislation but also for the federal Access to Family Building Act that seeks a national right to fertility healthcare.
  • Continued our work to update parentage laws in all states so that children of LGBTQ+ parents and children born through assisted reproduction are secure. We appeared in support of the Michigan Family Protection Act, which would repeal Michigan’s criminal ban on surrogacy and ensure protections for children born through assisted reproduction and surrogacy, in the state senate, and hope to see that bill, and a similar bill in Massachusetts, signed into law this session. As we see legislative and court actions put our families at risk, we must pass robust parentage bills like these to protect children and parents.
  • As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit heard arguments Monday in Braidwood v. Becerra, a case about whether health insurers will have to continue to cover highly effective preventatives like HIV PrEP without copays or deductibles, our friend-of-the-court brief warned that upholding the lower court’s ruling would result in tens of thousands of preventable new HIV cases. GLAD continues to advocate for legislation to remove barriers to PrEP and address the racial disparities in access, including making PrEP available through pharmacies and without insurance prior authorization requirements which create unnecessary delays.

The agenda of fear and control won’t win.

With your support today and in the days to come, together we can protect our access to essential healthcare, our right to build our families, and our freedom to make important, personal decisions about our own lives.

News you may have missed:

Boston Review: GLAD Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights Jennifer Levi and NCLR Legal Director Shannon Minter in conversation about the decades-long fight for transgender rights

MassLive: Highlighting LGBTQ+ leaders in Massachusetts, including GLAD Director of Family Advocacy Polly Crozier and GLAD Board Member and CEO of TransHealth Dallas Ducar

Blog

Meet Interim Executive Director Richard Burns

Lifelong LGBTQ+ Activist and GLAD Interim Executive Director Richard Burns Cites the Need for Vigilance in the Battle for Full LGBTQ+ Equality and Liberation 

Richard, a cis white man with short gray and auburn hair, stands at a podium wearing a navy blue suit
The American LGBTQ Museum Groundbreaking Ceremony © Leandro Justen

As GLAD prepares to begin a robust national search for the leader who will steer the organization’s next chapter, the board is pleased to bring on lifelong LGBTQ+ activist Richard Burns as Interim Executive Director. Richard began his tenure on October 10. 

“Leadership transitions are important milestones in any organization at any time,” says GLAD Board President Shane Dunn. “When the rights of LGBTQ+ people, and especially transgender people, are so virulently under attack across the country, and threats to our democracy are creating new barriers to our mission of realizing LGBTQ+, racial, HIV, and gender justice, we recognize an even greater responsibility to be thorough and thoughtful in this process.”  

“We must have a commitment to vigilance, always. The battle for LGBTQ+ equality and liberation will go on for generations. We have to have heart. We have to have grit. We have to have resilience and hope.” 

Richard Burns

“With significant leadership experience, including multiple tenures as an interim Executive Director, and a deep commitment to GLAD’s goals as an anti-racist, intergenerational legal advocacy organization, Richard will be able to support GLAD’s ongoing critical work with minimal disruption, allowing us the time to develop a careful search process and a diverse, talented, and passionate candidate pool for GLAD’s next permanent Executive Director,” Dunn adds

Richard’s passion for justice and commitment to advancing equality has led him from Boston to New York and across the country as an advocate and organizational leader. He served more than twenty years as Executive Director of the New York City Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Community Center beginning at the height of the AIDS crisis, and later developed and led the LGBT Leadership Initiative previously housed at the Arcus Foundation.  

In recent years, he has effectively steered several social and racial justice-focused organizations through transition periods as an interim ED, including the Drug Policy Alliance, the North Star Fund, the Funding Exchange, Funders for LGBTQ Issues, the Stonewall Community Foundation, Lambda Legal, and, most recently the Johnson Family Foundation.  

But “Boston formed me,” Richard says, speaking of his roots in the LGBTQ+ legal advocacy movement and, specifically, with GLAD.

In addition to co-founding the Massachusetts LGBTQ+ Bar Association and the Boston Lesbian & Gay Policy Alliance in 1982, he was president of GLAD’s founding board from 1978-1986 and has maintained his commitment to the organization for 45 years.  

He talks of GLAD’s radical founding by John Ward at a time when movements for LGBTQ+, racial, and gender justice were converging, and new organizations began to spring up together to advance liberation for all people. On his first day of law school at Northeastern in 1980, Richard met the late Urvashi Vaid – long-time LGBTQ+ activist and a former GLAD Spirit of Justice honoree – who would become a lifelong friend, a GLAD colleague as an early legal intern, and an inspiration in conceptualizing revolutionary, inclusive queer liberation. Richard is chair of the founding Board of the American LGBTQ+ Museum, an in-development project co-founded by Urvashi, among others, to preserve, research, and share LGBTQ+ history and culture. 

Kevin Cathcart, Richard Burns & Urvashi Vaid in front of Spiritus in Provincetown, late 1990’s

In the late 1970s, Richard was managing editor of the Boston-based national feminist, progressive LGBTQ+ newsweekly Gay Community News (GCN), which both chronicled and shaped intersectional queer activism at the time. GCN had an active early prison pen pal program, and Richard was a plaintiff in a successful lawsuit when the U.S. Bureau of Prisons declared GCN and another publication, the Task Force’s It’s Time, obscene and tried to block distribution to incarcerated individuals.  

Richard also has the rare distinction of involvement with all three of our major LGBTQ+ legal organizations. In addition to his founding role with GLAD, Richard clerked at the National Center for Lesbian Rights while in law school and served on the board of Lambda Legal beginning in 1980.

In preparing to take on the Interim Director role at GLAD at this pivotal moment, Richard is clear that we must take lessons both from the early days of LGBTQ+ and AIDS activism and draw on the wisdom of today’s justice fighters – working with, and learning from, all movements for liberation.   

“We all bring all of our identities with us everywhere. In order to build a just society, we’ve got to take into account all of our collective identities. We can’t leave anyone behind,” Richard says.  

Recognizing that the far right has all of us in its sights–our movements for reproductive justice, racial equity, LGBTQ+ liberation, and beyond – he adds:

“We must have a commitment to vigilance, always. The battle for LGBTQ+ equality and liberation will go on for generations. We have to have heart. We have to have grit. We have to have resilience and hope.” 

Opportunities to Meet GLAD’s Interim Executive Director: 

Wednesday, October 25: Defining Gay Community News 

Richard Burns will moderate a panel celebrating the 50th anniversary of Gay Community News on Wednesday, October 25, 6 p.m., at the Massachusetts Historical Society. Visit the History Project for details. 

Thursday, November 9: Spirit of Justice 

Richard will speak at our annual Spirit of Justice Award Dinner. Visit www.GLAD.org/SOJ to join us. 

This story was originally published in the Fall 2023 GLAD Briefs Newsletter. Read more.

Blog

A case currently before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals could lead to tens of thousands of new and preventable HIV cases.

photo of white prescription bottle and several blue pills on an aqua background

HIV PrEP (Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis) is an extraordinary medical breakthrough that reduces the risk of HIV transmission by close to one hundred percent. Under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), insurers are required to cover PrEP and other critical preventive care services without charging copays or deductibles, referred to as cost sharing. Last spring, however, a federal district judge in Texas issued a ruling in Braidwood v. Becerra blocking that requirement.

GLAD, with law firm Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky, and Popeo, P.C., filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the appeal of the Braidwood ruling at the Fifth Circuit on behalf of HIV Medicine Association (HMA) and the National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors (NASTAD).

HMA and NASTAD represent thousands of healthcare providers, public officials responsible for stopping the epidemic from every state, and policy experts with expertise in the treatment and prevention of HIV and the demographics and dynamics of the epidemic.

In their brief the organizations issue a dire warning: reinstating cost sharing for PrEP will significantly decrease utilization of PrEP, cause tens of thousands of new and preventable HIV cases, with billions of dollars in associated healthcare costs, and reverse the progress our nation has made towards curbing, and ultimately ending, the HIV epidemic.

“As an organization representing thousands of physicians and other health care professionals working on the frontlines of the HIV epidemic in communities across the country, we are deeply concerned about the harmful and far-reaching impacts this decision will have if allowed to stand,” said Michelle Cespedes, MD, MS, Chair, HIVMA. 

The brief analyzes the consequences of a recent epidemiological analysis conducted by experts at Harvard and Yale predicting, under the most cautious and conservative estimates, that blocking the ACA’s no cost sharing provision for PrEP will result in an additional 2,057 HIV infections in the first year alone.

Playing out the study’s straightforward assessment of additional first-year HIV diagnoses,  an additional predicted 1,892 secondary infections bring that number to 3,949 people with HIV in just the first year, which will cost the healthcare system a staggering $1.66 billion.

Extending that conservative model just five years into the future predicts approximately an additional 20,000 people with HIV and costs to the United States healthcare system of over $8 billion as a result of the reimposition of barriers to accessing PrEP.

The brief also provides the Court of Appeals with important historical and current-day information about the tremendous toll the HIV epidemic has had on millions of lives, as well as the role discrimination and stigma have played in preventing Americans from accessing highly effective prevention and treatment. While the ruling from the Texas court broadly enjoined the cost-sharing mandate for all recommended preventive services, the case began as a challenge specifically to the requirement to cover PrEP without copays or deductibles.

“The Braidwood decision is rooted in stigma and bigotry towards the LGBTQ+ community and people vulnerable to HIV,” said Dr. Stephen Lee, NASTAD Executive Director. “It will cause incalculable harm to our efforts to end the HIV epidemic.” 

Urging the Court of Appeals to understand the devastating consequences for HIV prevention if the District Court’s decision stands, the brief also describes the sobering and unacceptable racial/ethnic and geographic disparities in both the epidemic’s impact and access to PrEP. The most recent CDC estimates from 2021 are that only 11% of Black people and 20% of Hispanic/Latino people who could benefit from PrEP were prescribed it, as opposed to 78% of White people.

“Copays and deductibles deter people from accessing healthcare,” said Ben Klein, Senior Director of Litigation and HIV Law at GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders. “PrEP is nearly 100% effective at preventing transmission of HIV, but it is already underutilized, particularly among Black and Latino communities. Allowing the lower court’s ruling in Braidwood v. Becerra to stand will exacerbate racial health disparities, needlessly increase HIV diagnoses, and cost American lives.”

As we await a ruling from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, GLAD is advocating for other approaches to protect and expand access to PrEP. State legislatures have the power to not only codify the ACA’s no cost-sharing requirement under state law, but to go further by ensuring all forms of PrEP, including long-acting injectables, are available to all who can benefit from them. Barriers like co-pays, deductibles, and insurance pre-authorization requirements mean delays in access to PrEP that can lead to avoidable HIV infections with serious health consequences and even death.  

PrEP offers us a powerful path to finally end the HIV epidemic. We only need the will, and good health policy, to embrace it.

This story was originally published in the Fall 2023 GLAD Briefs Newsletter. Read more.

Learn more about GLAD’s work to expand access to PrEP.

Blog

The Dignity and Equality of All Individuals

Celebrating 20 Years Since Goodridge v. DPH Brought the Freedom to Marry to Massachusetts, and Eventually the Nation 

An excerpt of this article appears in the November/December 2023 issue of Boston Spirit.  

Twenty years ago, on November 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court broke the historic barrier on LGBTQ+ people marrying in its landmark Goodridge v. Department of Public Health decision – making Massachusetts the first state to rule that the freedom to marry, or not, must be equally applicable to LGBTQ+ people. This ruling required opening the door to legal marriages in six months’ time.  

In the words of Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall’s majority opinion, “The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all Individuals. It forbids the creation of second-class citizens.” This celebration of the commitment, intimacy, family, and mutuality in marriage continues to be quoted in wedding celebrations in Massachusetts and worldwide. 

GLAD filed Goodridge in April 2001 on behalf of 7 couples seeking something both simple and profound: constitutional respect for their personal commitment by ending the exclusion on joining in legal marriage and marriage’s protections, rights, and responsibilities.  

With tremendous gratitude and in recognition of their momentous impact on our community, state, and nation, we were thrilled to celebrate the Goodridge plaintiffs as the 2023 Spirit of Justice Award Honorees at GLAD’s Spirit of Justice Dinner. 

We honored Gloria Bailey-Davies, Linda Bailey-Davies, Edward Balmelli, Maureen Brodoff, Gary Chalmers, Rob Compton, Hillary Goodridge, Julie Goodridge, Michael Horgan, Richard Linnell, Gina Nortonsmith, Heidi Nortonsmith, Ellen Wade, and David Wilson.  

Spirit of Justice Award Dinner graphic - blue with justice statue on right. Thurs Nov 9. Join the can't miss event for supporters of LGBTQ+ equality

Each of them authentically gave of themselves and created connections and bridges of understanding with the wider community even while in a crucible of media and political attention and conflict. They advanced equal rights for all of us in Massachusetts and that beacon of hope spread far and wide. With other marriage plaintiffs, including in challenges in Hawaii and Vermont before Goodridge, and cases across the country after, the Goodridge plaintiffs’ full and complete victory paved the way for more. 

Several people, the Goodridge plaintiffs, standing together in front of GLAD banner
Goodridge plaintiffs at the 2013 Spirit of Justice Award Dinner with Honoree Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall and Mary Bonauto

The reality of people’s marriages in Massachusetts set the stage for dismantling the federal Defense of Marriage Act – first in GLAD’s 2009 challenge in federal court and 2012 unanimous victory at the First Circuit Court of Appeals, and then carried through by other plaintiffs at the Supreme Court in 2013. Community members and organizations, including GLAD, worked together in legislatures and courts across the U.S. In 2013, GLAD was asked to join the team representing plaintiffs in Michigan, in the case that would lead to the Supreme Court Obergefell ruling for marriage equality nationwide in 2015. 

Looking back now, it can be tempting to think this was all inevitable. But that is far from true. 

It took relentless hard work, commitment, and courage from the 14 plaintiffs, attorneys, amici and their attorneys, and so many others. The Goodridge plaintiffs withstood a trial court loss – expected but still disappointing – and redoubled their efforts to connect with people about why marriage was important to them. 

Victory was sweet. The Supreme Judicial Court’s (SJC) beautiful and momentous ruling on November 18, 2003, was a triumph. Even so, it wasn’t the end. The reactions were swift – both the eruption of joy and celebration and also the backlash. 

At the same time, the legislature, meeting in a constitutional convention, debated whether to constitutionally ban marriage for same-sex couples or to defend the court’s ruling.

“I stand with the SJC” stickers were everywhere, along with throngs of supporters and opponents inside and outside the State House.

Amidst all of this, couples acted on the simple desire to protect their, in some cases, decades-long love and commitment, and planned wedding celebrations.  

Finally, May 17, 2004, dawned with early morning talk shows and LGBTQ+ people and allies supporting couples seeking to marry in cities and towns across the Commonwealth.

“The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all Individuals. It forbids the creation of second-class citizens.”

Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall

The joy was palpable as Massachusetts, with the eyes of the nation on us, inaugurated the first legally-recognized marriages of same-sex couples in the country. 

And still, there was work to do. There were multiple more constitutional convention sessions and lawsuits about required procedures. Most importantly, the people of the Commonwealth were engaged with their elected officials, neighbors, and family members.

Finally, the legislature conclusively rejected the last proposed constitutional amendment in June 2007 with over ¾ of the vote of the House and Senate. The Commonwealth had taken a cue from the Goodridge plaintiffs in finding common ground and our common humanity. 

It was official – marriage equality was now here to stay in Massachusetts. 

The legal victory and the incredible defense mounted by everyday people in Massachusetts to protect it created momentum for equality, but national progress was still infuriatingly slow.

Politicians seeking to create fear and win power seized on our community’s fight for basic dignity and human rights – something we are seeing again today. State laws were changed to ban marriage and cut off any legal protections for a couple’s relationship. Hostile politicians drove a wave of constitutional amendments across the country.

It wasn’t until 2008 that GLAD secured the next lasting court victory, at the Connecticut Supreme Court in Kerrigan and Mock v. Dept. of Public Health. We will be celebrating 15 years of marriage in Connecticut on November 12, just before the 20th anniversary of Goodridge

After Connecticut, we began to see more state court, legislative, and ballot victories for the freedom to marry. 

Crucial legislative victories for marriage equality in the New England States of Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire proved that we could make change in the democratic process and not only the courts. We had to go back to the ballot in Maine in 2012, which then became the first state to win marriage by popular vote of the people. And in early 2013, our campaign in New England concluded with Rhode Island’s marriage enactment.  

Slowly but increasingly perceptibly, more and more of the public were coming to engage the possibility of, and then embracing, the dignity and equality of LGBTQ+ individuals and our relationships.  

The journey from a state constitutional law case in Massachusetts to the national marriage victory in Obergefell v. Hodges at the Supreme Court in 2015 results from the changed minds, hard work, courage, resilience, and persistence of so many across society and law. As queer historian George Chauncey has put it though, there would be no Obergefell without Goodridge, and we happily celebrate the 14 trailblazing plaintiffs who led the way.   

Cementing Dignity and Equality in Federal Law  

President BIden signing the RMA surrounded by legislators, outside of the White House
Signing ceremony at the White House

In June 2022, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas called for reconsideration of Obergefell – and other key cases protecting individual freedoms – in his concurrence in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health ruling that overturned 50 years of precedent on abortion rights. It was neither the first nor the last time we’ve seen direct threats to marriage equality, but it spurred action years in the making to require state and federal recognition of people’s marriages and forbid discrimination based on the sex, race, or ethnicity of the spouses. With bipartisan support, President Biden signed the federal “Respect for Marriage Act” in December 2022 to provide LGBTQ+ families and others across the country with the assurance that their marriages will continue to be respected by our state and federal governments. 

“It takes the efforts of many to bend the arc of history toward justice… Even now there are so many places where people in our community are under attack. The work will continue, but look how far we’ve come.”

Goodridge plaintiff Heidi Nortonsmith

We are alert to efforts to chip away at civil marriage equality and the equal status of LGBTQ+ people more broadly. This includes creating speech and religious objections to the basic rules of equal treatment, as in this summer’s narrow but alarming Supreme Court 303 Creative ruling and others. We also see it in the widespread state legislative threats to LGBTQ+ people’s making any claims to basic human or legal respect, whether in schools, healthcare settings, the public marketplace, and other areas of daily life. Our community is working overtime to defend and protect one another and affirm what we know is true and right in these extremely challenging times.    

While this fight is hard, we know we can fight through losses and gaps in public understanding, as we have with marriage, with laws criminalizing intimacy, with our community’s response to the HIV epidemic, and with two decades of advances in the rights of transgender people, who are now facing devastating backlash. It is never easy or immediate, but when we work together from a place of love and commitment for the long term, we win.   

“It takes the efforts of many to bend the arc of history toward justice,”Goodridge plaintiff Heidi Nortonsmith said at the White House signing ceremony for the Respect for Marriage Act. “Even now there are so many places where people in our community are under attack. The work will continue, but look how far we’ve come. The law that President Biden signs today will make people safer, more secure, and less alone. From our family to all of you, thank you for fighting for our equal humanity and dignity. For our right to love and be loved. And for our marriage.”  

Unfinished Business: Ensuring Protections for Our Families

Selfie of MA parent with child smiling
MA parent Kam and her son

Today Massachusetts is proud of its leadership on marriage equality, and rightly so. But twenty years after the landmark Goodridge ruling, the state has unfinished business to ensure LGBTQ+ families – including our children – are fully protected by connecting them legally with their parents. Massachusetts’ statutes on establishing parentage – the legal relationship between a child and their parents – remain decades out of date. As a result, children born to LGBTQ+ families and other children born with the aid of assisted reproduction are left vulnerable, without the security of the law recognizing their relationship to their parents. We need the legislature to act this year to pass the Massachusetts Parentage Act to provide a statutory roadmap that equally protects all families. 

This story was originally published in the Fall 2023 GLAD Briefs Newsletter. Read more.

News

GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders Announces Interim Executive Director Richard Burns as Janson Wu Prepares to Begin New Role with the Trevor Project

The board of GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) is pleased to announce Richard Burns will join the organization as Interim Executive Director, as current Executive Director Janson Wu steps down October 6 to take a position as Senior Director of State Advocacy and Government Affairs with The Trevor Project. 

“Throughout his nine-year tenure as Executive Director, Janson Wu has provided GLAD with steady and strategic leadership while overseeing substantial legal victories for the LGBTQ+ community, including GLAD’s historic Obergefell national marriage victory and the successful effort to hold back Trump’s transgender military ban,” said GLAD Board President Shane Dunn. “We are excited for the important work Janson will do for the community in this new role with the Trevor Project.”

Richard Burns is a seasoned organizational leader and nonprofit management consultant with strong roots in the LGBTQ+ legal advocacy movement. He will begin his tenure as GLAD’s Interim Executive Director on October 10.

“The board and I are thrilled to have found in Richard Burns an interim leader who not only has exceptional organizational management expertise but also extensive knowledge of the LGBTQ+ legal movement and a deep connection to GLAD,” said Dunn.

Burns served as president of GLAD’s founding board from 1978-1986, then helmed the New York City Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Community Center as Executive Director for over twenty years, including through the height of the AIDS crisis. He also served as chief operating officer of the Arcus Foundation, and developed and led the LGBT Leadership Institute there from 2013 to 2019.

Richard Burns, GLAD’s incoming Interim Executive Director. Photo by Leandro Justen.

In recent years Burns has effectively steered several LGBTQ+, social, and racial justice-focused organizations through transition periods as Interim Executive Director, including the Drug Policy Alliance, the North Star Fund, the Funding Exchange, Funders for LGBTQ Issues, the Stonewall Community Foundation, Lambda Legal, and, most recently, the Johnson Family Foundation. He is currently Board Chair of the American LGBTQ+ Museum, an in-development project to preserve, research, and share LGBTQ+ history and culture.

“Richard brings a clear passion for GLAD’s mission to defend and advance freedom for all LGBTQ+ people as well as the experience to steer an organization steadily through transition,” said GLAD Board Vice President Mario Nimock. “His stewardship will allow the organization to continue its critical work uninterrupted while we conduct a thorough search for GLAD’s next exceptional leader.” 

GLAD’s current litigation and legislative docket includes challenging dangerous state laws banning access to established medical care for transgender adolescents; fighting politically motivated attacks on public schools and ensuring LGBTQ+ students can receive an equal education; advancing legal security for LGBTQ+ families and their children through updated state parentage laws; defending the rights of transgender workers including in equal access to healthcare coverage; protecting and expanding access to PrEP to address racial disparities in access and to end the HIV epidemic; and robustly defending the freedom to marry.

The organization’s strategic agenda, announced last year, includes expanding the organization’s legal team in order to address escalating nationwide anti-LGBTQ+ attacks, advance equality for LGBTQ+ people across all areas of life, and sustain an antiracist and intergenerational LGBTQ+ justice organization and movement for the long term. 

“GLAD has been a fierce advocate for freedom and the rights of LGBTQ+ people for more than 45 years. Now, when LGBTQ+ people, and especially transgender people, are so virulently under attack, and our country’s potential to realize a true pluralistic, multiracial democracy is under threat, GLAD is needed more than ever,” said Richard Burns. “I’m grateful for the opportunity to reconnect with an organization that has meant so much to me, and to support GLAD’s incredible team of advocates at this critical moment.” 

GLAD’s board of directors is planning a robust search for a talented, diverse, national candidate pool to find the organization’s next permanent Executive Director.

News

Statement on 11th Circuit Ruling Reversing Injunction on Alabama Transgender Healthcare Ban

Today, a three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision reversing a federal district court ruling blocking enforcement of Alabama’s law banning medical care for transgender adolescents. The district court opinion, which was issued last spring, held that Alabama’s law likely violated the federal Equal Protection Clause and parents’ fundamental right to make medical decisions for their children. Thus far, every single federal district court to hear a similar challenge has ruled similarly, holding that these state bans discriminate against transgender minors and burden their parents’ constitutionally protected rights. The 11th Circuit panel disagreed, holding that Alabama’s law does not discriminate based on sex or transgender status and is therefore subject only to the lowest level of constitutional review.  

The Alabama families challenging the law in Boe v. Marshall are represented by the National Center for Lesbian Rights, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, The Southern Poverty Law Center, and Human Rights Campaign, who issued the following statement:

“This is a deeply disappointing decision that is difficult to reconcile with the 11th Circuit’s prior rulings and with the Supreme Court’s clear guidance that discrimination because a person is transgender is sex discrimination. Our clients are devastated by this decision, which leaves them vulnerable to what the district court—after hearing several days of testimony from parents, doctors, and experts–found to be irreparable harm as a result of losing the medical care they have been receiving and that has enabled them to thrive. 

While this is a setback, we are confident that it is only a temporary one. Every federal district court that has heard the evidence presented in these cases has come to the same conclusion: these medical treatments are safe, effective, and lifesaving for some youth, and there is no legitimate reason to ban them. We believe that at the end of the day, our nation’s courts will protect these vulnerable youth and block these harmful laws, which serve no purpose other than to prevent parents from obtaining the medical care their children need. Parents, not the government, are best situated to make these medical decisions for their children. These laws are a shocking example of government overreach and a jarring intrusion into private family decisions. This case is far from over, and we will continue to aggressively seek legal protection for these families.”   

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), and the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) are joined in the litigation by co-counsel King & Spalding LLP and Lightfoot, Franklin & White LLC.

Learn more about the case.

News

New Filing in “Banned Concepts” Lawsuit Asks Court to Declare Law Unconstitutional

According to recent depositions, no state agency can say who is responsible for enforcing certain portions of the law, yet complaints made under the law have been elevated to school superintendents 

Educators describe the law’s harmful impact on their classrooms ahead of school year with it in effect

The broad coalition of educators, advocacy groups, and law firms challenging the state’s ‘banned concepts’ law this week filed new court briefs asking for an official decision in the case to declare the law unconstitutional.

Through depositions with government actors (including the Commissioner of Education, Frank Edelblut) and documents obtained in the case that have been made public for the first time, the brief highlights how the law is actively discouraging public school teachers from teaching and talking about race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, and gender identity inside and outside the classroom. The current case before the court consolidates two lawsuits, one filed by the American Federation of Teachers, and another filed by educators Andres Mejia and Christina Kim Philibotte and National Education Association – New Hampshire. This consolidated case alleges that the law is unconstitutionally vague under the Fourteenth Amendment and violates the First Amendment. 

“It is clear that no one has a full grasp on what is or is not permissible under this law due to how vague it is–which in turn, negatively impacts teachers and students every day in the classroom,” said Gilles Bissonnette, legal director of the ACLU of New Hampshire. “This law is an attack on educators who are simply doing their job. Through its vagueness, the ‘banned concepts’ law erases the current legacy of discrimination and lived experiences of Black and Brown people, women and girls, LGBTQ+ people, and people with disabilities. What results is the creation of a culture of fear and apprehension where teachers self-censor, thereby limiting students’ education and teachers’ ability to comfortably and effectively teach.”

GLAD Attorney Chris Erchull, Morgan Nighan from Nixon Peabody, Gilles Bissonnette from ACLU New Hampshire, and plaintiffs Andres Mejia and Tina Kim Philibotte stand talking outside the court house.
GLAD Attorney Chris Erchull, Morgan Nighan from Nixon Peabody, Gilles Bissonnette from ACLU New Hampshire, and plaintiffs challenging New Hampshire’s “banned concepts” law, Andres Mejia and Tina Kim Philibotte

In addition to educators self-censoring due to the lack of clarification from state agencies, the brief also explains how members of the public–following the lead of several state officials’ public statements–have adopted an expansive interpretation of the law. Because a violation of the law constitutes a violation of the New Hampshire Department of Education’s (DOE) Educator Code of Conduct, the public has sent numerous complaints to the DOE about school districts promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion principles and having students read certain books discussing race and gender. Some of the complaints include those against specific books, such as Good Kind of Trouble, written by Lisa Moore Ramée, a woman of color, about a 12-year-old girl of color in a predominantly white school, or films, including one titled, “White Like Me: Race, Racism & White Privilege in America,” or other school materials. 

These complaints led the DOE to engage in varying degrees of inquiries or “initial reviews.” According to the brief, “this environment is even more challenging for educators because the DOE—including the Commissioner himself in his supervisory role—plays an active and attentive role in responding to any concerns made by purportedly aggrieved parents and community members, oftentimes elevating these concerns to school districts before there has been an investigation or assessment of whether a potential violation occurred under the Code of Conduct, or even before a formal complaint has been filed.”

Additionally, in depositions of DOE Commissioner Frank Edelblut, DOE attorney Diana Fenton, who oversees investigations of alleged violations of the Educator Code of Conduct, DOE Educator Code of Conduct investigator Richard Farrell, Executive Director of the Human Rights Commission (HRC) Ahni Malachi, and HRC Assistant Director Sarah Burke Cohen, none could explain the meaning of the law or how portions of it would be enforced.

Andres Mejia and Christina Kim Philibotte, both New Hampshire educators specializing in diversity, equity, and inclusion, are among the plaintiffs in the case represented by GLAD and ACLU-NH, and argue that this vague law unconstitutionally chills educator’s voices and prevents students from having an open and complete dialogue about the perspectives of historically marginalized communities.

Christina Kim Philibotte and Andres Mejia, two New Hampshire school administrators who are plaintiffs in the case, said, “As a result of the uncertainty around the current law, instructional choices have been chilled in order to avoid enforcement consequences. As educators, we are devoted to nurturing an equitable and inclusive school environment where all students feel seen and heard. Students must see themselves in the books they read and in the classroom discussions they have to ensure that they feel valued and to ensure that their full humanity is recognized. This law hinders these efforts at creating more inclusive educational experiences. These experiences are essential to making students feel seen and validated in a secure space, and thus making them more comfortable speaking and sharing their experiences on complex topics.”

Under the American Federation of Teachers’ (AFT) First Amendment claim, the brief states that there is no dispute that the law is “being broadly applied to the private, extracurricular speech of educators—including interactions ‘in a school hallway, schoolyard, lunchroom, or library, not to mention during extracurricular activities that take place on or off school grounds.’” One DOE investigator confirmed at deposition that these impacted activities even extend to programs occurring at off-site private facilities, such as hockey rinks, that are part of the schools’ activities.

American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten said, “For New Hampshire’s education commissioner, the fear is the point. The facts in this case are so clear, and so undisputed, that the court can issue a summary judgment and make a ruling based on the law. Think about the teachers trying to follow competing state guidelines mandating the teaching of accurate and honest history who find themselves walking on eggshells. Think about those afraid to teach about the origins of slavery, or Jim Crow, or Reconstruction for fear of falling foul of this deliberately vague statute. Instead of impairing teaching and learning by creating confusion and chaos, N.H. policymakers should be passing laws that give students the resources and support they need to recover and thrive.”

AFT-New Hampshire President Deb Howes said, “This vague and confusing law is so clearly unconstitutional that we hope a judge will grant summary judgment and rule that New Hampshire teachers should be able to teach honestly about history, gender, race or identity. The divisive concepts law was sold as a solution to a problem that never actually existed. It has forced teachers to look over their shoulders and wonder if a lesson or conversation may cross some undefined line and jeopardize their career. We need to put an end to silencing inquiry and discussion in our public schools and get back to active learning, so our students are able to become engaged citizens in the real world.”

In January 2023, the federal court ruled that the case would continue, making it the fourth case across the country challenging a “banned concepts” law that reached a similar finding. Laws banning similar concepts in other contexts in Florida were preliminarily enjoined on vagueness grounds in two cases, here and here, which followed another federal judge deeming impermissibly vague former President Trump’s “divisive concepts” Executive Order.

In that January 2023 ruling, the Court concluded that the law does “not give teachers fair notice of what they can and cannot teach,” adding, “[g]iven the severe consequences that teachers face if they are found to have taught or advocated a banned concept, plaintiffs have pleaded a plausible claim that the amendments are unconstitutionally vague.”

“The truth matters,” said Megan Tuttle, NEA-New Hampshire president. “Purposefully vague laws like this one are aimed directly at stopping educators from teaching the truth. Our students deserve an education that will help them better understand the lives, cultures, and experiences of different people. But when the politicians who are writing the laws don’t value the experiences of people who are different than them, we get laws like this one. Parents and teachers want to give kids the best education they can without politicians limiting what history they can learn or what books they can read. We hope the court agrees this law is unconstitutionally vague and strikes it down.”

Chris Erchull, Attorney at GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, said, “New Hampshire’s public school teachers work hard every day to ensure students can develop the knowledge and critical thinking skills they need to be successful and contribute to their communities. Teachers can’t do that effectively when they are subject to this vague law, with no guidance, that forces them to limit class discussions and avoid certain important topics altogether. LGBTQ+, BIPOC, and students with disabilities are being especially harmed, but the chilling effect of this law is doing a severe disservice to all students, when their teachers can’t ensure they gain a full, rich understanding of history and the people and world around them.”

Learn more about the case.

Know Your Family Rights, Massachusetts!

Family | Relationships | Massachusetts

What role did GLAD play in the fight for marriage equality?

GLAD led the fight for marriage equality in the United States. In the beginning, many states, instead of offering marriage to same-sex couples, provided the exact same state rights, protections, and responsibilities of marriage but called them civil unions or registered domestic partnerships.

GLAD’s fight for marriage equality began in Vermont with its lawsuit, Baker v. Vermont. GLAD won the case, but the Vermont Supreme Court allowed the legislature to decide how to implement the decision. Instead of offering marriage to same-sex couples, the Vermont legislature created civil unions. GLAD then won marriage rights for same-sex couples for the first time in the United States in 2004 in its lawsuit, Goodridge v. Department of Public Health

This was followed by:

  • Maine approved domestic partnerships in 2004, which provided some of the protections of marriage
  • civil unions in Connecticut in 2005
  • GLAD’s lawsuit, Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health, won marriage rights for Connecticut same-sex couples in 2008 
  • civil unions in New Hampshire in 2008
  • Vermont provides marriage for same-sex couples in 2009
  • Vermont no longer allows civil unions but does not convert its civil unions into marriage in 2009
  • marriage in New Hampshire in 2010
  • Connecticut converts all its civil unions into marriage in 2010
  • conversion of New Hampshire civil unions to marriage in 2011
  • civil unions in Rhode Island in 2011
  • marriage in Maine in 2012
  • marriage in Rhode Island in 2013
  • civil unions in Rhode Island ended in 2013, but existing civil unions were not converted into marriage

At the federal level, Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996. DOMA was a preemptive attack on same-sex couples stating that if same-sex couples were ever allowed to marry, the federal government would not recognize those marriages. On June 26, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court decision in United States v. Windsor stated the DOMA was unconstitutional, and same-sex married couples were able to get federal benefits for the first time.

Finally, in Obergefell v. Hodges, on June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court made marriage equality a reality nationwide when it held that the U.S. Constitution guarantees same-sex couples the right to marry. GLAD’s own Mary Bonauto represented the plaintiffs at oral arguments. Post Obergefell, all 50 states are required to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and all states must respect the marriages of same-sex couples performed in other jurisdictions.

Can same-sex couples marry in Massachusetts?

Yes. In an historic decision, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled on November 18, 2003, that same-sex couples have the right to civil marriage in Massachusetts. The holding in GLAD’s case, Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, was the first of its kind in this country by a state high court. Marriages began to take place in Massachusetts on May 17, 2004. For information about how to get married in Massachusetts, see: Getting Married in Massachusetts | Mass.gov.

Will other states and the federal government respect my marriage?

Yes. The Obergefell v. Hodges decision guarantees that all states and the federal government must treat same-sex married couples identically to different-sex married couples. That means that all the protections, rights, and obligations that states and the federal government provide to different-sex married couples must also be provided to same-sex married couples. 

Does Massachusetts respect civil unions and registered domestic partnerships from other states?

Yes. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has ruled that Massachusetts courts must give the same respect to civil unions and registered domestic partnerships as marriages, with rights and obligations functionally identical to marriage.

Can I obtain Social Security survivor benefits if my spouse dies?

Yes, because as stated above, same-sex married couples are entitled to all the benefits provided to different-sex married couples.

However, until the Obergefell v. Hodges decision on June 26, 2015, many same-sex couples lived in states where unconstitutional marriage laws prevented same-sex couples from getting married. So when their spouse passed away, they could not meet the Social Security survivor benefit condition of having been married for nine months.

To correct this unfairness, Lambda Legal filed two lawsuits, Ely v. Saul and Thornton v. Commissioner of Social Security, and was successful in obtaining a way for same-sex couples to file for Social Security survivor benefits who either never married (Ely v. Saul) or were finally able to marry but were married less than nine months when their spouse passed away (Thornton v. Commissioner of Social Security). 

These two rulings allow same-sex couples to apply because discriminatory state laws excluded them from marriage, and consequently were not eligible to apply for Social Security survivor benefits. However, the success of that application rests on providing enough documentation to prove to Social Security that they did not meet the nine-month requirement only because of the discriminatory state laws.

The following link gives more detailed information and has FAQs for each lawsuit, and lists some of the ways you might be able to provide the documentation needed to qualify for the survivor benefit: Information for Surviving Same-Sex Partners and Spouses Previously Excluded from Social Security Survivor’s Benefits Because of Unconstitutional State Marriage Laws | Lambda Legal

What happens if we need to end our marriage?

After Obergefell v. Hodges, same-sex spouses everywhere can dissolve their marriages on the same terms as different-sex spouses. Massachusetts explicitly applies its divorce statutes to same-sex couples.

However, spouses should note that when Massachusetts courts divide marital property and award alimony, one of the factors a judge considers is length of marriage. Unfortunately for spouses whose partnership pre-dates marriage equality, the length of the marriage may not accurately reflect the true length of the relationship, resulting in an unbalanced division of assets. With regards to alimony, Massachusetts courts may (but are not required to) consider a couple’s premarital cohabitation if there is evidence of economic partnership. If you are going through divorce proceedings in Massachusetts and believe your division of assets may be unfairly affected by the length of the marriage, contact GLAD Answers for referrals to attorneys in GLAD’s Lawyer Referral Service.

What steps can a couple take to legally safeguard their relationship in Massachusetts?

Various legal documents can protect a couple’s relationship, regardless of whether the couple has no formal legal relationship or is already in a marriage.

  1. Relationship Agreement or Contract: A couple has the option of drafting a written cohabitation agreement, outlining their respective rights with regards to property, finances, and other aspects of their relationship. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has held that ordinary rules of contract law generally enforce and respect these agreements. Although such agreements may concern the custody and support of children, a court will not uphold any agreement it finds to go against the child’s best interests. Finally, couples should note that if they eventually marry, a previous relationship agreement will likely no longer be valid, and any post-marital agreement will be enforceable only to the extent that it is fair and equitable to both parties.
  1. Power of Attorney: A couple can choose to grant each other the durable power of attorney, allowing one partner to make financial decisions on the other’s behalf in the event of incapacity or disability. The requirements are minimal: any competent person may appoint another person as their “attorney-in-fact.” If no such appointment is made, a family member will be empowered to make decisions for the incapacitated individual.

If one partner is incapacitated or disabled, the other partner may petition the court to be appointed as their guardian to make decisions on their behalf. Unless good cause dictates otherwise, a court should grant guardianship to whoever has durable power of attorney over the incapacitated person. Thus, couples are encouraged to grant each other durable power of attorney if they believe guardianship will one day be necessary. It is important to note that a court can reject an individual’s choice only for good cause—a court should not substitute its own judgment just because a family member objects to the appointment.

  1. Health Care Proxy: A couple can also choose to appoint each other as health care proxies, allowing them to make medical decisions on one another’s behalf in the event of an emergency. Absent a health care proxy appointment, medical care providers look to next-of-kin to make health care decisions for an incapacitated individual. Thus, if an unmarried couple wants to make decisions for one another, they need a healthcare proxy. Healthcare proxies can be revoked at any time, either by creating a new healthcare proxy or by a clear expression of revocation. People often give a copy of the health care proxy to their doctors, and sometimes to family members. You can find a sample Health Care Proxy form here: Massachusetts Medical Society: Health Care Proxy Information and Forms.
  1. Will: Without a will, a deceased unmarried person’s property passes to (1) their children; (2) their family; (3) if next-of-kin cannot be located, to the state. A will is essential if a person wishes to provide for others, such as their partner. Even if a person has few possessions, they can name in the will who will administer their estate. If a person has children, they can also nominate the future guardian of the child in a will.
  1. Funeral Planning Documents: A person’s body is given to their next-of-kin upon death. This can mean that a person’s own partner has no right to remove the body or make plans for a final resting place. But if a person leaves explicit written directions giving another person (such as their partner or a friend) control over the funeral and burial arrangements, they can avoid confusion. Some people include these instructions as part of a will, but since a will may not be found for days after death, it is preferable to give the instructions to the person you want to take care of matters, as well as to family members.
  1. Living Will: Within a health care proxy, the individual may insert language stating what the individual wishes about termination of life support, preferences for types of medical care, or limits on the agent’s authority.
  1. Temporary Agent or Guardianship: Parents, particularly those with life-threatening illnesses, may either appoint a temporary agent for a period not exceeding 60 days, or appoint a guardian whose appointment takes effect when the parent dies or cannot care for the child. Within 30 days after the appointment of a guardian, the guardian must petition the Probate and Family Court for confirmation of the appointment. The parent has the right to revoke the powers of the temporary agent or guardian at any point.

Does a person need an attorney to get these documents?

GLAD recommends working with an attorney on these documents.

Although forms are available, they may not be suited to your individual needs and wishes. Moreover, an attorney may be better able to help effectuate your goals, for example, by drafting a will in a way that is more likely to deter a will contest by unhappy family members, or an appointment of a health care agent with precise instructions. In addition, an attorney may help to navigate the legal uncertainties flowing from the areas of overlap between these documents. GLAD Answers can provide referrals to attorneys who are members of GLAD’s Lawyer Referral Service.

If an unmarried couple separates, what is the legal status of a relationship or partnership agreement/contract?

Upon separation, if the couple has a Relationship or Partnership Agreement/Contract, its terms will be invoked, and the couple’s assets will be divided as per the agreement. Without an agreement, unmarried couples may be forced to endure costly and protracted litigation over property and financial matters.

PLEASE NOTE: If you have changed your mind about who should be your “attorney-in-fact,” health care representative, beneficiary or executor under a will, funeral planner, conservator, or designee under a designation document, then those documents should be revoked—with notice to all persons who were given copies of those documents—and new documents should be prepared which reflect your present wishes.

What is domestic partnership?

Although it is a term used in many contexts, “domestic partnership” most often means a status that recognizes an unmarried couple and their children as a family for certain limited purposes, most commonly employee benefits, like health insurance. Some employers still offer these benefits to unmarried couples, although many employers stopped offering these benefits once same-sex couples had the ability to marry.

What kinds of domestic partner benefits may private employers provide?

Private employers can provide many benefits to domestic partners, such as health insurance, family medical or bereavement leave, equal pension benefits, relocation expenses, or access to company facilities.

Even when employers provide these benefits, though, federal and state laws require different tax treatment of the benefits for domestic partners as compared to spouses. For example, an employee must pay federal and state income tax on the value of their partner’s health insurance benefits (unless the partner is a tax dependent), but a spouse does not. Partners do not qualify as spouses under federally-controlled Flexible Spending Accounts unless the partner is also a tax dependent.

As for pensions, under the Federal Pension Protection Act of 2006, employers may amend their 401(k) plans so that non-spouse beneficiaries may retain the asset as a retirement asset. If a plan is so amended, beneficiaries may “roll over” the 401(k) into an IRA depending upon the employee’s death. In contrast, previous law required the beneficiary to take and pay income taxes on the 401(k) as a lump sum.

However, other discriminatory aspects of federal law remain regarding pensions. A domestic partner has no right to sign off if their partner decides to name someone else as the beneficiary of a pension, although a spouse would have that right. In addition, a domestic partner has no right comparable to that of a spouse to sign off on their partner’s designation of another person for survivor benefits.

What standards should same-sex couples with children who are breaking up maintain?

Same-sex couples with children who are breaking up should:

  1. Support the rights of LGBTQ+ parents
  2. Honor existing relationships regardless of legal labels
  3. Honor the children’s existing parental relationships after the breakup
  4. Maintain continuity for the children
  5. Seek a voluntary resolution
  6. Remember that breaking up is hard to do
  7. Investigate allegations of abuse
  8. Not allow the absence of agreements or legal relationships to determine outcomes
  9. Treat litigation as a last resort
  10. Refuse to resort to homophobic/transphobic laws and sentiments to achieve a desired result

For more detailed information about these standards, visit Protecting Families: Standards for LGBTQ+ Families.

How does a court generally go about making custody determinations?

When a married couple divorces, the parties are encouraged to make their own agreement about custody and visitation. If they can’t reach an agreement, a Superior Court judge will make a custody and visitation determination based on the child’s best interests. A court considers all relevant factors, keeping in mind a child’s growth, development, well-being, and the continuity and stability of their environment.

In all contested cases, the judge will appoint a family relations officer to investigate in order to help the judge arrive at a decision. The investigation can touch on matters of “parentage and surroundings of any child, [the child’s] age, habits and history, inquiry into the home conditions, habits, and characters of his parents or guardians and evaluation of his mental or physical condition.”

Are there different kinds of custody?

Yes, four kinds:

  1. “Sole legal custody” means that only one parent has the right to make major life decisions for the child, including matters of education, medical care, and emotional, moral, and religious development.
  2. “Shared legal custody” means that both parents are involved in and make these decisions.
  3. “Sole physical custody” means that a child lives with and is supervised by only one parent, subject to reasonable visitation with the other parent, unless a court finds that visitation is not in the child’s best interests.
  4. “Shared physical custody” means that the child resides with both parents in a way that ensures frequent contact with both.

If I have a child from a former straight relationship, and I am now involved with a same-sex partner, can my ex use my sexual orientation against me in custody proceedings?

As stated above, Massachusetts courts base custody arrangements on the child’s best interests. Generally, a parent’s sexual orientation or marital status should not affect a child’s best interests.

Nevertheless, your former partner may try to argue that your sexual orientation is detrimental to your child. Many reasons can be cited, such as that the LGBTQ+ parent’s sexual orientation is causing other people to tease or ostracize the child, that the parent is a “bad role model,” or that the parent’s new partner is not “good” for the child. In the overwhelming majority of circumstances, these matters can be answered to the satisfaction of a judge in a way that does not penalize the gay parent or the child. Contact GLAD for further resources for dealing with such a situation.

Is it considered harm to the child if he or she is teased about having a gay or lesbian parent?

It shouldn’t be. One of the additional responsibilities of being a gay or lesbian parent is helping one’s children deal with this possibility or reality. Of course, others can tease children about everything from the size of their ears to their parents’ accent, to their lack of fashion sense. All parents need to help their children develop coping mechanisms and strategies when peer harassment arises.

As a legal matter, particularly instructive is a U.S. Supreme Court case, Palmore v. Sidoti, in which the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a Florida court’s change of custody from the mother to the father. The court switched custody because the white mother was involved with a Black man she later married. The Supreme Court acknowledged the reality of bias and prejudice and that others might tease the child. However, it refused to cater to those prejudices or give them the force of law by changing the previous custody arrangement. In a statement of constitutional principle applicable to all, the Court unanimously stated, “The Constitution cannot control prejudices, but neither can it tolerate them. Private biases may be outside the reach of the law, but the law cannot, directly or indirectly, give them effect.”

Does it matter if my ex knew or suspected I was LGBTQ+ before we separated?

It may make a difference for future modification of court orders for custody. People can seek to modify court orders for custody when a change in circumstances alters the child’s best interests. Your former spouse may not have known your sexual orientation or gender identity at the time of the court proceedings but learned of it later. In that case, they may argue that this is a change of circumstances and that the custody issues should be litigated anew.

Of course, if one spouse or former heterosexual partner knew of the other’s same-sex sexual orientation at the time of the court proceedings establishing custody, a modification petition on those grounds would be pointless.

Can a court keep my kids from visiting when my partner is present?

Visitation restrictions are inherently suspect. In Lawrence v. Texas, the U.S. Supreme Court did more than decriminalize sexual acts. It acknowledged the right of gay people to form and sustain loving personal relationships and lead their private lives free of government restrictions and legal condemnation. Since gay people may make “personal decisions relating to… family relationships [and] child rearing,” custody and visitation restrictions must be handled accordingly. Mere differences in moral values between a court and a parent, presumptions about a gay parent’s conduct, or “social condemnation” of their relationship should no longer be permissible factors, if they ever were.

Courts have the power to do this but should not do so unless it is clearly in the best interests of the child. Connecticut courts have rejected the notion that any particular lifestyle, in and of itself, will harm a child, and so will insist on specific proof.

Resources

History of Same-Sex Marriage in the United States: History of same-sex marriage in the United States – Wikipedia

Massachusetts Law About Wills and Estates: Massachusetts law about wills and estates | Mass.gov

Divorce: Divorce | Mass.gov

Child Custody and Parenting Time: Child Custody and Parenting Time | Mass.gov

Cases & Advocacy

To see related GLAD cases or advocacy in Massachusetts, visit GLAD’s MA Family & Relationships or Parenting Cases and Advocacy pages.

News & Press Releases

To see news and press releases about Family in Massachusetts, go to GLAD’s MA Family News page.

en_USEnglish