Equality Fairfax

It seems the Miller-Jenkins case has been going on for years. Every time Jenkins has won a seemingly final victory, Miller has filed yet another case seeking to have the decision overturned. In a case that has wandered from Vermont to Virginia to the federal courts, one would think that eventually this case would be resolved. But, apparently, one would be wrong.

Miller’s continued defiance of the court reportedly has put her custody of the child at risk. Yet, I can’t help wondering exactly how much slack the courts will continue to give her. The cynical part of me can’t help wondering if the same amount of slack would be given to an openly gay parent. Perhaps, but it also isn’t hard to believe that that the patience of the court would have been exhausted long before this.

As one who has never met either Miller or Jenkins, I hesitate to make judgements of either woman. I only know what I see and hear in the media and, as a whole, the media seems far more interested in controversy than facts. It would be easy to sympathize with Janet Jenkins and take her side simply in solidarity. But, the truth is, you can reach the conclusion that it is far past time for this case to be settled and out of the media. The courts have ruled on this multiple times and, with one exception (that of a Virginia lower court) has concluded that Jenkins must be granted part time custody. The longer this carries on, the more it simply looks like personal vendetta or an attempt to avoid any recognition of her past relationship.

The one who probably suffers the most here is the child. Most of her life and certainly all of her memory, her status has been in question. I can’t imagine what that’s like. She has a parent she barely knows because one parent won’t permit visitation. My own parents split up when I was very young and not under the best terms, yet both had the dignity not to use me as a weapon in their own personal battles. Too many divorced parents try to get their children to choose sides or try to poison the child against the other parent. I don’t know if that has happened here, but I have seen what it is like for other children to endure that. It can create psychological wounds that last a lifetime.

Let’s hope that this case can stop being a model of how to badly end a relationship and let all sides get on with their lives.

This is the final part of a four part conversation with Eva Freund. In this part, Eva discusses her family and her religion. We thank Eva for taking the time to sit down and relate some of her personal history.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 17:57 — 15.4MB)

This event is presented by GALLA Doorways for Women and Families. Please join them as they watch the film, “My Girlfriend Did It” and discuss how same-sex domestic violence is responded to in our community. Refreshments will be provided.

The event is being held at George Mason University in Arlington, in Hazel Hall, room 121.

For more information, contact Candice Lopez at clopez@doorwaysVA.org or text questions to 703-740-6948.

With your help, on April 17th 2006, our nation will see hundreds of LGBT families filling the White House lawn, rolling easter eggs side by side with our fellow citizens. There is no more powerful way to change the national discussion around our families and our rights than to introduce ourselves to our neighbors on a grand scale. Join us in making history, having fun and showing off our amazing families to the country!

For more information and to register, visit the Family Pride website.

This bill, introduced by Senator Hanger, would prohibit both parents of a same-sex couple being listed on a birth certificate following an adoption in another jurisdiction. The full text of the bill is:

Prohibits both parties of a same-sex couple from being listed on a Virginia birth certificate following the adoption of a child in another jurisdiction.

This bill is in reaction to a Virginia Supreme Court decision last summer finding that out of state gay and lesbian couples have a right to request and obtain a birth certificate listing both parents’ names in those states.

Delegate Marshall has introduced a bill that would prohibit any couple, married or not, from using anonymous sperm or egg donation. Here is the full text of the bill:

Prohibits the use of unrelated anonymous donor oocyte or sperm in the performance of intervening medical technology that completely or partially replaces sexual intercourse as a means of conception and requires, notwithstanding any traditional practice, agreement, regulation, or law to the contrary, the identity of any unrelated oocyte or sperm donor to be noted in the health record of any woman patient whenever any healthcare practitioner licensed by a health regulatory board uses any unrelated donor gametes in the performance of or while assisting in the performance of such intervening medical technology, such as artificial insemination by donor, cryopreservation of gametes and embryos, in vitro fertilization, embryo transfer, gamete intrafallopian tube transfer, and low tubal ovum transfer.

This is an unnecessary intrusion into the family by the state and would hurt any Virginia family that might seek the help of a fertility clinic.

Delegate Marshall has introduced HB187, a bill that would prohibit medical professionals from assisting unmarried women in becoming pregnant. The actual text of the bill is:

No individual licensed by a health regulatory board shall assist with or perform any intervening medical technology, whether in vivo or in vitro, for or on an unmarried woman that completely or partially replaces sexual intercourse as the means of conception, including, but not limited to, artificial insemination by donor, cryopreservation of gametes and embryos, invitro fertilization, embryo transfer, gamete intrafallopian tube transfer, and low tubal ovum transfer.

This bill would prevent any unmarried woman, gay or straight, from starting a family unless she wanted to enlist the aid of a man. This is a clear intrusion of government into our lives.

Many same-sex couples want the right to legally marry because they are in love, or because they just met the love of their lives or, more likely, have spent the last 10, 20 or 50 years with that person and want to honor their relationship in the greatest way our society has to offer, by making a public commitment to stand together in good times and bad, through all the joys and challenges family life brings.

Many others want the right to marry because they are parents and know that marriage offers children a vital safety net, guaranteeing them protections that unmarried parents never could.

And still other people both gay and straight are fighting for the right of same-sex couples to marry because they recognize that it is simply not fair to deny some families the protections all other families are eligible to receive.

Currently in the United States, same-sex couples in long-term, committed relationships pay higher taxes and are denied basic protections and rights granted to married couples. Among them:

• ** Hospital visitation. Married couples have the automatic right to visit each other in the hospital and make medical decisions. Same-sex couples can be denied the right to visit a sick or injured loved one in the hospital.
• * Social Security benefits. Married people receive Social Security payments upon the death of a spouse. Despite paying payroll taxes, gay and lesbian workers receive no Social Security survivor benefits resulting in an average annual income loss of $5,528 upon the death of a partner.
• * Health insurance. Many public and private employers provide medical coverage to the spouses of their employees, but most employers do not provide coverage to the life partners of gay and lesbian employees. Gay employees who do receive health coverage for their partners must pay federal income taxes on the value of the insurance.
• * Estate taxes. A married person automatically inherits all the property of his or her deceased spouse without paying estate taxes. A gay or lesbian taxpayer is forced to pay estate taxes on property inherited from a deceased partner.
• * Retirement savings. While a married person can roll a deceased spouse s 401(k) funds into an IRA without paying taxes, a gay or lesbian American who inherits a 401(k) can end up paying up to 70 percent of it in taxes and penalties.
• * Family leave. Married workers are legally entitled to unpaid leave from their jobs to care for an ill spouse. Gay and lesbian workers are not entitled to family leave to care for their partners.
• * Immigration rights. Bi-national families are commonly broken up or forced to leave the country to stay together. The reason: U.S. immigration law does not permit American citizens to petition for their same-sex partners to immigrate.
• * Nursing homes. Married couples have a legal right to live together in nursing homes. Because they are not legal spouses, elderly gay or lesbian couples do not have the right to spend their last days living together in nursing homes.
• ** Home protection. Laws protect married seniors from being forced to sell their homes to pay high nursing home bills; gay and lesbian seniors have no such protection.
• * Pensions. After the death of a worker, most pension plans pay survivor benefits only to a legal spouse of the participant. Gay and lesbian partners are excluded from such pension benefits.

* Marriage benefits that cannot be secured through legal arrangements.
** In Virginia, HB751 may negatively impact legal arrangements. If challenged, seek legal assistance immediately and contact Equality Virginia at 804-643-4816.