National

As at February 2002, there were no federal regulations on sperm donation, but virtually all of the country's sperm banks, roughly 100 in all, followed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendation that all tissue and organ donations from men who've had sex with another man during the previous five years be banned to prevent the inadvertent transmission of HIV [R1.1].

Immigration

On 13 April 2012, the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued a Policy Memorandum revising the treatment of gender designations for transgender people on their immigration documents – no longer requiring any specific surgery, but instead allowing a doctor to certify the individual's gender [D1.23, [R1.22].

On 23 February 2012, the Obama administration was reported to be standing firm against calls to put a blanket hold on deciding green card petitions from married, binational gay couples. Instead, those petitions in all likelihood will continue to be rejected [R1.21].

On 30 November 2011, Immigration Judge Terry Bain granted a Joint Motion to Administratively Close Removal Proceedings against Argentinean born lesbian, Monica Alcota, because "good cause has been established." It is the first time the government has asked an immigration court to close removal proceedings against the gay or lesbian spouse of an American citizen since the formation of an inter-agency prosecutorial discretion working group began its work on November 17 with the goal of finding and closing all "low-priority" deportation cases [R1.20].

On 28 September 2011, US district Judge Stephen V Wilson granted a motion to dismiss the complaint of Handi Lui, a citizen of Indonesia who in 2009 married his American spouse, Michael Ernest Roberts, in Massachusetts. Lui had argued that US Citizenship and Immigration Services violated the Immigration and Nationality Act's provisions barring sex discrimination when it denied the couple's marriage-based petition for permanent residency. Furthermore, Lui argued, immigration officials' interpretation of the Defense of Marriage Act in denying the green card petition was unconstitutional [C1.19], [R1.18].

On 24 August 2011, the Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, ruling on an appeal of the denial of petition for review, criticized the Board of Immigration decision as “flawed,” and ordered the case sent back to the agency so that it could reconsider based on the correct legal standard as instructed by the court [R1.17].

On 18 August 2011, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano indicated a resolve to focus immigration deportation on pressing and immediate cases as opposed to those with a low-priority status such as cases involving families, including same-sex couples where one partner is facing deportation [D1.16], [R1.15].

On 04 August 11, a Presidential Proclamation suspended entry as immigrants and nonimmigrants any alien who planned, ordered, assisted, aided and abetted, committed or otherwise participated in, including through command responsibility, widespread or systematic violence against any civilian population based in whole or in part on race; color; descent; sex; disability; membership in an indigenous group; language; religion; political opinion; national origin; ethnicity; membership in a particular social group; birth; or sexual orientation or gender identity, or who attempted or conspired to do so [D1.14], [R1.13].

On 09 June 2011, Jane H Minichiello, the chief counsel at the Newark office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, an arm of the Homeland Security Department, canceled the deportation of Venezuelan man Henry Velandia in New Jersey who is married to an American man Josh Vandiver [R1.12]. See also [R3.10-3.11], [C3.12].

On 05 May 2011, US Attorney General Eric Holder vacated a deportation ruling against a gay man, suggesting that his relationship with a New Jersey man might qualify him to be considered as a "spouse" under immigration laws [R1.11]

Effective 09 February 2011, the State Department cabled personnel worldwide informing US citizen employees about a new major exception to the bar on immigration benefits for same-sex couples: if they're posted to the States, their foreign same-sex partners can get a special visa to live and work here legally [R1.10].

In November 2010, Attorney General Eric Holder refused to reverse the immigration ruling that initially separated married couple Genesio Oliveira and Tim Coco and Oliveira faced deportation [R1.9].

Previously:

In June 2010, federal immigration officials granted permission for Brazilian Genesio Oliveira to stay in the United States for one year on humanitarian grounds, which will allow him to try again for legal residency. In 2005, Oliveira and Tim Coco were married in Massachusetts [R1.8].

In February 2009, the Uniting American Families Bill was introduced and, if passed the Bill would allow gay and lesbian Americans and permanent residents to sponsor their foreign-born partners for legal residency in the United States [R1.7].

In September 2008, Congressional support for the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) increased to 18 Senators. The bill currently has 116 cosponsors in the House of Representatives [R1.6].

In May 2007, Senator Leahy (D-VT) and Congressman Nadler (D-NY) introduced the UAFA into the U.S. Congress. Under the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act, a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident may sponsor their spouse for immigration to the U.S. However, same-sex partnerships are not recognized for federal immigration purposes. Consequently, U.S. citizens in same-sex relationships cannot sponsor their partners for immigration benefits [R1.5].

Previously:

The Permanent Partners Immigration Bill, was sponsored by Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y. The Bill if enacted would have allowed a US same-sex partners to sponsor a non-US resident partner after proving a committed relationship through affidavits and other methods [R1.4].

On 13 February 2003, the bill was reintroduced to Congress [R1.3].

In July 2003, a companion Bill was introduced to the Senate [R1.2].

See also: Immigration Equality – "The Border Protection, Anti-terrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act (H.R. 4437) of 2005", frequently asked questions guide [R1.1].

Asylum, Refugees

In October 2011, the US Department of Homeland Security granted asylum to a gay man who feared persecution because of his sexual orientation if he had been forced to return to his native Mauritania [R2.8].

On 24 August 2011, the US Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit ruling on an appeal of the denial of petition for review, criticized the BIA decision as “flawed,” and ordered the case sent back to the agency so that it could reconsider based on the correct legal standard as instructed by the court [C2.7], [R2.6].

On 15 August 2011, the US Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit ruled the applicant in Ninoska Lopez-Amador v. Eric H. Holder (Nos. 10-2376/3491) was not entitled to asylum or withholding of removal based on her sexual orientation or political views. Evidence not sufficient to show that she had suffered official persecution or had a reasonable fear of likely persecution on this ground if removed back to Venezuela [R2.5].

In June 2010, the US Department of Homeland Security granted asylum to the man in the midst of widespread persecution of gay men in Uzbekistan [R2.4].

In February 2010, the US Department of Homeland Security granted asylum to a gay Brazilian man who feared persecution because of his sexual orientation [R2.3].

Since the early 1990s, a person's sexual orientation has been grounds for seeking asylum in the United States, although frequently special circumstances are required to win an asylum bid.

"Sexual orientation" has been added to the list of provisions enshrined in the 1951 UN Convention that entitles a person to apply for refugee status [R2.2].

HIV-positive status may also a ground for applying for asylum in limited circumstances [R2.1], [R3.6].

Courts & Tribunals

Federal courts have allowed asylum for a variety of political and social reasons, including a woman's fear of genital mutilation in her African homeland [R3.1].

On 08 March 2012, in a Texan first, Judge Richard Walton administratively closed the deportation case against gay Costa Rican David González, a visa overstayer who married Mario Ramírez in California in 2008, who would not now be deported because he's married to a US citizen [R3.18].

On 01 February 2012, the Board of Immigration Appeals recognized for immigration benefits a marriage between a male US citizen petitioner and a female transgender noncitizen spouse because: (1) the state of marriage had a procedure in place to recognize the postoperative gender; (2) the state of residence had a procedure in place to recognize the postoperative gender; (3) State law recognized the marriage as valid; and (4) the marriage qualified for immigration benefits under the INA [R3.17].

On 14 July 2011, the U.S. Board of Immigration Appeals found that learning that one is HIV-positive is "a changed circumstance materially" affecting asylum eligibility, and granted a man's asylum application [R3.16].

On 24 June 2011, Immigration Judge Lisa Dornell reopens case sua sponte (of her own accord), cancelling a removal order in Rodrigo Martinez's immigration case, "in the interest of justice" [R3.15].

On 13 June 2011, Judge Alberto Riefkohl in the Newark Immigration Court granted of the Motion by the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement Chief Counsel, Jane Minichiello, to administratively close the Henry Velandia deportation proceedings that had been first initiated in 2009 [C3.14], [R3.13].

On 10 June 2011, The US Department of Homeland Security filed a motion to administratively close proceeding for the deportation of Henry Velandia [C3.14], [R3.13].

On 06 May 2011, Judge Alberto J. Riefkohl of immigration court in Newark suspended the deportation of a Venezuelan man who is married to an American man [R3.12], responding to an unusual signal this week from the Obama administration that it is exploring legal avenues for recognizing same-sex marriages in immigration cases, see: [R1.11].

On 22 March 2011, in New York Immigration Court, a US Immigrations and Customs Enforcement attorney indicated that the government was willing to adjourn the deportation proceedings against Monica Alcota while Cristina Ojeda proceeds with a green card petition on behalf of her noncitizen spouse and pending their marriage-based immigration case [R3.11].

On 27 September 2010, the 11th Circuit US Court of Appeals ordered to US Board of Immigration Appeals to review the plea of a gay Serbian man who said he was discriminated against when he originally applying for asylum [C3.10], [R3.9].

In October 2008, a Guatemalan man who sought asylum in the United States was denied his appeal by a panel of the San Francisco-based ninth circuit court of appeals because, the judges said, he had lied under oath [R3.8].

In August 2008, a Jamaican woman avoided deportation back to her home country after a judge ruled that her sexual orientation could lead to violence against her in Jamaica [R3.7].

In June 2008, the Immigration Court granted asylum to a gay man from Uzbekistan, who escaped persecution and came to the United States in 2001 on a student visa where he had been studying in the US for over four years before he fell out of student status [R3.6].

In February 2006, a 36-year-old Guyanese man got the OK to stay in the U.S. after a judge agreed that he might be physically attacked in Guyana for being HIV positive and gay and perhaps even die for lack of treatment [R3.5].

In December 2005, a federal appeals court disagreed with a gay Zimbabwe man's argument that he needed protection from persecution in his native country, upholding a lower court's denial of asylum [R3.4].

On 18 May 2005, the Board of Immigration Appeals In re Jose Mauricio LOVO-Lara recognized the grant of immigration benefits to a marriage involving a post-operative transsexual provided: (1) State law recognizes the change in gender, (2) State law recognizes the marriage as valid and (3) the marriage qualifies for immigration benefits under the INA [C3.3], [R3.2].

In August 2000, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a gay Mexican transvestite be granted asylum in the United States, saying he was a member of a particular "social group'' persecuted in his homeland [R3.1].

The ruling appears to expand the grounds for applying for political asylum in the US to gay men who face persecution in their home countries because they manifest female sexual identities. The decision also marked the first time that a federal court has ruled that sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic in an asylum case.

The unanimous decision from the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals broke new ground in asylum law, expanding the class of people who can be granted asylum on the basis of sexual persecution.

The appeals court has jurisdiction over cases in California and eight other western states.

In July 2000, the US 9th Circuit has ruled that an Armenian who said he was given an ultimatum to become a Communist or leave Armenia deserved another bid for asylum [R3.1].

Courts & Tribunals

On 06 June 2008, the Virginia supreme court ruled that a federal law aimed at preventing parents from crossing state lines to evade a custody ruling requires Virginia to enforce a Vermont court order awarding child visitation rights to a mother's lesbian former partner [R1.2].

On 01 February 1999, a federal judge's decision kept the government from enforcing the Child Online Protection Act, a law aimed at protecting children from Internet pornography [R1.1].

Federal

On 16 May 2012, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee passed the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act with a bipartisan voice vote. It must be approved by the full Senate and the House before enactment [R1.24].

On 09 March 2012, the Office of Personnel Management directed Blue Cross Shield health insurance company to cover Amy C. Cunninghis, the same-sex spouse of a federal employee Karen Golinski [D1.24/23], [R1.22].

On 18 November 2011, the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act was introduced to the Senate which if passed into law, would extend the same benefits to same-sex partners that spouses of federal employees now receive. To qualify, partners would have to file an affidavit that they are in a committed domestic partnership and have a common residence, unless work (such as assignments abroad) prevents them from living together [R1.21].

On 12 March 2011, the Equal Access to COBRA Act was re-introduced in the House [R1.20]. See also [R1.10].

On 03 March 2011, same-sex domestic partners would be added to the list of annuitants who are eligible to receive a survivor annuity under the federal employees' retirement program, under proposed regulations from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) [R1.19].

On 17 November 2010, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced new guidance to support enforcement of rules that protect hospital patients' right to choose their own visitors during a hospital stay, including a visitor who is a same-sex domestic partner [D1.18], R1.17].

On 14 September 2010, Office of Personnel Management director John Berry reportedly said Federal employees can take off up to 24 hours a year to care for same-sex partners as part of a benefits package extended last year by President Barack Obama that does not include full health care coverage for partners [R1.16].

On 02 June 2010, President Obama signed a memorandum giving federal workers' same-sex partners additional benefits including child-care services and subsidies; more flexibility to use family leave to attend to the needs of domestic partners and their children; relocation benefits; giving domestic partners the same status as "family members" when federal appointments are made; and access to credit union and other memberships when those are provided to federal workers [R1.15].

See LTC website for eligibility information [R1.14] and Declaration of Domestic Partnership form [R1.13].

On 01 June 2010, the Office of Personnel Management announced same-sex partners of federal workers may begin to apply for long-term health care insurance in July [R1.12].

On 15 April 2010, The White House released a statement by President Obama instructing the Health and Human Services secretary to draft rules requiring hospitals that receive Medicare and Medicaid payments to grant all patients the right to designate people who can visit and consult with them at crucial moments [R1.11].

On 25 March 2010, Senator Barbara Boxer (Democrat California) introduced the Equal Access to COBRA Act (Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act) which would if passed, allow many domestic partners the same access married spouses currently have to COBRA health coverage if their partner loses a job [R1.10]. See also [R1.19].

In January 2010, new State Department rules implemented President Obama's June order, opening up resources for helping domestic partners of foreign service officers moving abroad (assistance in obtaining foreign visas as well as access to employment opportunities and embassy medical units) and assistance in emergency evacuation should it become necessary [R1.9].

On 16 December 2009, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs passed a bill that will provide benefits to same-sex partners of federal workers [R1.8].

In December 2009, the Office of Personnel Management concluded that it did not have the legal authority to provide benefits to the spouse of Karen Golinski, a staff attorney who works at the U.S. court of appeals for the ninth circuit in San Francisco despite ninth circuit chief judge Alex Kozinski saying that violated the court's guarantee of equal employment opportunity and that same-sex spouses were entitled to benefits under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan [R1.7].

On 18 November 2009, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Wednesday voted 23–12 to pass the Domestic Partner Benefits and Obligations Act, which would extend benefits to same-sex partners of federal government workers. The bill is now likely to move to a full House floor vote [R1.6].

In June 2009, President Barack Obama signed a 'presidential memorandum' equalising benefits for federal workers. Health benefits will not be included due to legal obstacles posed by DOMA and those serving in the US military are unlikely to be able to participate, being constrained by the DADT policy [R1.5].

In May 2009, gay partners of US diplomats stationed overseas were set to receive equal benefits in plans unveiled by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton [R1.4].

On 20 May 2009, the Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act of 2009 was introduced in Congress to give the domestic partners of federal employees the same benefits, and require of them the same obligations, as the spouses of federal employees [R1.3].

In September 2008, the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act, which would provide equal benefits for same-sex domestic partners of federal civilian employees, was being considered by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs [R1.2].

On 24 June 2002, President Bush signed legislation that allows death benefits for public safety officers killed Sept. 11 to go to a beneficiary other than an immediate family member [R1.1].

Up to now, the federal $250,000 death benefit was paid only to spouses, children and parents of fallen officers [R1.1].

This is believed to be the first time a federal benefit would be available to a survivor in a gay partnership [R1.1].

Courts & Tribunals

On 22 February 2012, US District Court Judge Jeffrey S White ruled DOMA in Karen Golinski v. The US Office of Personnel Management that DOMA violates her right to equal protection of the law under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution by, without substantial justification or rational basis, refusing to recognize her lawful marriage to prevent provision of health insurance coverage to her spouse [R2.8]. Three GOP congressional leaders are appealing a federal judge's ruling.

In July 2011, Chief Judge Anne Aiken of the US District Court for the District of Oregon ruled the denial of health care benefits to the same-sex partner of Margaret Fonberg, a US District of Oregon court employee constitutes unlawful sex discrimination [R2.7].

On 01 July 2011, the Department of Justice Department filed a brief in the matter of Karen Golinski v. The US Office of Personnel Management in opposition to motions to dismiss the claim for spousal health benefits [C2.6], [R2.5]. See also [R1.7].

On 18 January 2011, U.S. district judge Claudia Wilken ruled that three California gay couples may proceed with a lawsuit against the federal government over their exclusion from the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS), a long-term health care benefits program [R2.4].

On 18 November 2009, Judge Stephen Reinhardt in the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the government had violated married Federal Public Defender Brad Levenson's constitutional rights and the court's own non-discrimination rules and ordered that his partner Tony Sears be added to Levenson's healthcare plan [R2.3].

On 07 May 2004, the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund announced that it would compensate the lesbian partner of a woman who was onboard an American Airlines flight that crashed into the World Trade Center on 11 September 2001 [R2.2].

In November 2003, the lesbian partner of a woman killed in the 11 September 2001, terrorist attack on the Pentagon was awarded more than $500,000 from a federal fund created to compensate victims of the attack [R2.1].

The master of a federal fund established by the Department of Justice after the terrorist attacks concluded that Neff, who is in her mid-fifties, was entitled to compensation. She had been with her partner for 18 years.

National

On 12 April 2012, President Obama was reported to have decided not to sign an executive order that would ban discrimination against LGBT employees by employers with federal contracts, whilst remaining supportive of legislation languishing in Congress [R1.14].

On 28 January 2012, Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Shaun Donovan announced a new Equal Access to Housing Rule that says clearly and unequivocally that LGBT individuals and couples have the right to live where they choose [D1.13], [R1.12].

The new rule will be officially published this coming week and will take effect 30 days later. The Rule prohibits owners and operators of federally-funded or federally-insured housing, as well as lenders offering federally-insured mortgages, from discriminating based on gender identity or sexual orientation. The rule also clarifies the definition of "family" to ensure that LGBT families are included in all HUD programs.

In January 2012, a report showed that children in LBGT families of color face higher levels of discrimination and stigma [D1.11], [R1.10].

On 22 September 2011, Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) introduced the Housing Opportunities Made Equal (HOME) Act in the Senate and House to amend both the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in housing and credit [R1.9].

On 24 January 2011, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) publicised a proposed new regulation for 60-day public comment, barring "owners and operators of HUD-assisted housing or housing whose financing is insured by HUD from inquiring about the sexual orientation or gender identity of an applicant for, or occupant of, the dwelling, whether renter- or owner-occupied." Under the regulation, private lenders who want to use HUD's mortgage insurance program, which currently backs one third of all new mortgage applications, will be barred from making "inquiries regarding sexual orientation and gender identity" [R1.8].

On 08 December 2010, Congressmen Jerrold Nadler (Dem NY), John Conyers (Dem MI) and Edolphus Towns (Dem NY) introduced the Housing Opportunities Made Equal Act to amend the Fair Housing Act and extend federal civil rights protections in housing issues to gay and transgender people [R1.7].

In January 2010, in a move that expanded protected classes under the purview of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Obama administration updated the federal jobs website to include language prohibiting employment discrimination based on gender identity. The policy change would protect federal employees and applicants for federal job on USAJobs.gov [R1.6].

The Federal Employee Non-Discrimination Act would if passed protect all LGBT workers across the country and is currently pending in both the House and Senate [R1.6].

Previously:

As at September 1999, there was no federal law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, although in 1998, President Clinton issued an executive order prohibiting such discrimination in the federal civilian workforce [R1.5].

Although Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits workplace sex discrimination, federal courts of appeal have repeatedly held that Congress did not intend that the term "sex" include sexual orientation [R1.4].

As at 2008, twelve states and the District of Columbia and, for the first time, more than 100 cities and counties now prohibit employment discrimination based on both gender identity and sexual orientation. Eight additional states and 80 cities and counties prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation alone [R1.4].

In 2005, the Bush administration quietly rewrote the rules for allowing gays and lesbians to receive national security clearances [R1.3].

The Administration said security clearances cannot be denied "solely on the basis of the sexual orientation of the individual." But it removed language saying sexual orientation "may not be used as a basis for or a disqualifying factor in determining a person's eligibility for a security clearance."

As at April 2002, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) which sought to add sexual orientation to categories such as ace, religion, gender, national origin, age and disability already covered by employment rights protection, has never reached a vote in the House, where the Republican leadership opposes the proposal [R1.2].

The bill exempts from its coverage churches, religious organizations, religious schools, the armed services, and businesses with less than 15 employees [R2.1], "bona fide private membership" clubs (other than labour organizations) [R1.2].

On 24 April 2002, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions voted to send the ENDA bill to the full Senate for a vote later this year. It is expected that the bill will be scheduled for a vote sometime before the middle of October [R1.2].

In 1996, in the Senate, the legislation lost by one vote [R1.1].

Courts & Tribunals

In July 2011, Chief Judge Anne Aiken of the US District Court for the District of Oregon ruled the denial of health care benefits to the same-sex partner of Margaret Fonberg, a US District of Oregon court employee constitutes unlawful sex discrimination [R2.7].

On 01 March 2011, The US Court of Appeals 7th Circuit ruled that anti-gay shirts cannot be prohibited in schools that allow support for gay rights, saying "A school that permits advocacy of the rights of homosexual students cannot be allowed to stifle criticism of homosexuality. People in our society do not have a legal right to prevent criticism of their beliefs or their way of life" [R2.6].

In April 2010, the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of a lower court's ruling that the Boy Scouts of America be barred from leasing city-owned land because of the organization's religious ties [R2.5].

In February 2006, U.S. district judge Terrence McVerry said that whilst the alleged harassment was "reprehensible," he could not argue that the complainant was the subject of discrimination based on gender but rather sexual orientation, which is not covered by federal statute. The case is on appeal [R2.4].

In September 2002, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled 7–4 in Rene v. MGM Grand [C2.3] that discrimination, even if motivated by sexual orientation bias, constituted gender stereotyping and is therefore illegal under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act [R2.3].

Five judges in the majority said that regardless of motivating factors a person was protected by the anti-harassment guidelines set forward in Title VII; two said the particular case fell under the purview of gender stereotyping, which was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in the landmark 1989 case Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins [C2.3], [R2.3].

In 2001, the US Court of Appeals in San Francisco reportedly ruled that federal law prohibited discrimination against transgendered people [R2.2].

In June 2000, the US Supreme Court ruled 5–4 that the Boy Scouts of America were free to ban homosexuals from serving as troop leaders. The ruling reversed a New Jersey Supreme Court decision [R2.1].

Churches

In April 2010, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America reportedly voted without dissent to abolish all antigay policies, effective immediately and allowing people in same-sex relationships to serve as rostered leaders [R3.1].

Federal

On 13 April 2012, the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued a Policy Memorandum revising the treatment of gender designations for transgender people on their immigration documents – no longer requiring any specific surgery, but instead allowing a doctor to certify the individual's gender [D1.9], [R1.8].

On 11 November 2011, the Internal Revenue Service announced that it had abandoned its long-held position that gender reassignment treatment is cosmetic (not eligible for deduction as a medical expense) rather than a medical treatment. The announcement responded to the U.S. Tax Court's ruling in O'Donnabhain v. Commissioner, 134 T.C. 34 (2010) [R1.7].

On 15 September 2011, the Social Security Administration W-2 News Issue 2011-01 notified that effective 24 September SSA will no longer issue "gender no-match" letters to employers, which alert them when the gender marker on an employee's W-2 does not match his or her Social Security records [R1.6].

On 31 May 2011, the Bureau of Prisons issued a memorandum clarifying the evaluation and treatment of inmates with Gender Identity Disorder requiring that they receive ongoing treatment based on a current individualized assessment and evaluation [D1.5], [R1.4]. The policy change resulted from the case of Vanessa Adams v. Federal Bureau of Prisons et. al. [R2.4].

On 09 June 2010, the State Department announced passport rules that removed a strict requirement that applicants must undergo gender-reassignment surgery before qualifying for a gender change on their passport [R1.3].

In August 2009, the Transportation Security Administration was phasing in new flight requirements requiring that all passengers declare their full name, age, and gender to book travel [R1.2].

In 2007, the US Congress introduced a transgender-inclusive version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), proposed federal legislation that would prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity [R1.1].

Courts & Tribunals

On 20 April 2012, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled in Mia Macy v. Eric Holder that a refusal to hire or to otherwise discriminate on the basis of gender identity is by definition sex discrimination under federal law [C2.8], [R2.7].

On 30 September 2011, the Vanessa Adams v. Federal Bureau of Prisons et. al. case was settled with a change in Bureau of Prisons policy enabling ongoing GID treatment based on current individualized assessment and evaluation [D1.5], [R2.6], [C2.5].

On 02 February 2010, the US Tax Court ruled in O'Donnabhain v. Commissioner, 134 T.C. 34 (2010), that O'Donnabhain should be allowed to deduct the costs of her treatment for gender-identity disorder, including sex-reassignment surgery and hormone treatments [R2.4].

In September 2008, US District Court Judge James Robertson ruled that the Library of Congress unlawfully discriminated against a transgender woman whose job offer was revoked when her plans to transition from male to female were revealed [R2.3].

The 1989 U.S. Supreme Court decision Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins ruled a person cannot be discriminated against for not conforming to the gender stereotype behavior expected by another person or social norms [R2.2].

In 2001, reportedly the US Court of Appeals in San Francisco recently ruled that federal law prohibited discrimination against transgendered people [R2.1].

National

United States Code, Title 18 Crimes & Criminal Procedure, Part I Crimes, Chapter 13 Civil Rights [L1.1]

Sec. 249. Hate crime acts

(a) In General–

(1) [...]

(2) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, GENDER, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, OR DISABILITY-

(A) IN GENERAL- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B) or paragraph (3), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of any person -

(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and

(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--

(I) death results from the offense; or

(II) the offense includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

(B) CIRCUMSTANCES DESCRIBED- For purposes of subparagraph (A), the circumstances described in this subparagraph are that--

(i) the conduct described in subparagraph (A) occurs during the course of, or as the result of, the travel of the defendant or the victim--

(I) across a State line or national border; or

(II) using a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce;

(ii) the defendant uses a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A);

(iii) in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A), the defendant employs a firearm, dangerous weapon, explosive or incendiary device, or other weapon that has traveled in interstate or foreign commerce; or

(iv) the conduct described in subparagraph (A)--

(I) interferes with commercial or other economic activity in which the victim is engaged at the time of the conduct; or

(II) otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce.

On 28 October 2009, President Obama signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act (S. 909, H.R. 1913) into law [R1.9].

The Act authorizes the Justice Department to investigate and prosecute violent attacks in which the perpetrator has targeted a victim because of the his or her actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability [R1.9].

On 22 October 2009, the Senate voted 68 to 29 to pass a Defense Department funding bill that includes a measure extending hate-crimes protections to people targeted on the basis of their gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability. The National Defense Authorization Act now goes to President Barack Obama's desk for his signature [R1.8].

Previously:

In June 2009, the US Senate leadership settled on passing hate-crimes legislation as an amendment to another bill rather than voting on it as a stand-alone piece of legislation [R1.7].

On 29 April 2009, the US House of Representatives passed the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act which would expand federal hate crime laws to include crimes where the victims were targeted on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, gender, and disability. The Senate version of the bill was expected to be introduced soon by Senator Edward Kennedy [R1.6].

In September 2005, the US House of Representatives unexpectedly backed a measure [the Children's Safety Act] to expand federal hate crime protection to gay people, a measure that House conservatives had blocked for years [R1.5].

The hate crimes amendment would expand existing federal hate crime program to add sexual orientation, gender, gender identity and disability to federal hate crime laws. It would give grants to the states to help prosecute such crimes.

On 11 June 2002, the Senate voted 54–43 derailing efforts to win a speedy vote on the legislation (S 625) and send it to the House, which has rejected it twice in recent years. While it takes only a simple majority to pass a bill, motions to end debate require 60 votes. Backers of the bill fell six votes short. Current federal law allows only race, color, religion or national origin to be the basis of a federal hate-crime case, and the covered offenses are limited to crimes committed against a person engaged in one of six federally protected activities, such as voting or going to school [R1.4].

LLEEA (S 625) would apply to violent crimes motivated by a victim's real or perceived gender or sexual orientation, as well as their race, color, religion, national origin, or disability [R1.3].

In July 2001, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to make hate attacks on gays a federal crime and to provide money to help local law enforcement agencies prosecute such offenses [R1.2].

On 14 September 2000 the House of Representatives endorsed for the first time a measure to make attacks on gays a federal hate crime, a move that was one of President Clinton's legislative priorities [R1.1].

But the 232–to–192 vote was entirely symbolic because it did not force lawmakers to adopt the measure, which passed the Senate as an amendment to a military bill in June, with broad bipartisan support.

Rather, the measure, which drew the support of 41 Republicans, was a Democratic effort to force Republicans, as Election Day nears, to take a recorded stand on expanding the hate crimes definition to include attacks on gays and to pressure Republicans into accepting the measure.

National

Under federal law, employer-provided health benefits for domestic partners are counted as taxable income if the partner is not considered a dependent. On top of that, the employees cannot use pretax dollars to pay for their premiums ­ unlike their opposite-sex married counterparts [R1.8].

See: The New York Times chart showing the growing number of companies covering the extra costs that same-sex couples pay for domestic partner benefits – and companies thinking about it at .

On 07 September 2011, the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) announced new guidance to support enforcement of rules that protect hospital patients' right to choose their own visitors during a hospital stay, including a visitor who is a same-sex domestic partner [R1.7].

On 19 November 2010, the Department of Health & Human Services published Final Rule CMS-3228-F making Changes to the Hospital and Critical Access Hospital Conditions of Participation to Ensure Visitation Rights for All Patients [D1.6].

On 10 June 2011, the Department of Health & Human Services issued guidance [R1.5] under which States have the option to allow healthy partners in a same-sex relationship to keep their homes while their partners are receiving support for long-term care under Medicaid, such as care in a nursing home [R1.4].

In April 2011, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced it will permit states to extend Medicaid long-term care protections long available to spouses of nursing home residents to same-sex domestic partners as well [R1.3].

On 18 January 2011, federal regulations that prohibit all hospitals participating in Medicaid and Medicare programs from discriminating against visitors based on sexual orientation and gender identity took effect [R1.2].

On 17 November 2010, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services issued a new hospital visitation rule (effective in approximately 60 days) that allows patients to designate their own visitors during a hospital stay, including their same-sex partners. No documentation will be required to prove any particular kind of relationship. [R1.1].

National

On 04 January 2010, the 22-year old ban on HIV-positive people entering the US and long-term foreign residents from obtaining resident status, purely on the basis of having HIV officially ended [R1.10].

On 30 October 2009, President Barack Obama announced that the ban on HIV-positive people entering the country would be lifted with the publishing of a final rule on 02 November 2009 [R1.9].

Previously:

In September 2008, Members of Congress and others wrote calling on President Bush and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to make the necessary regulatory change to completely lift the ban on HIV-positive travelers; in the meanwhile, the HIV travel ban continues to be enforced [R1.8].

In September 2008, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced that it would issue regulations under which a short-term traveler must meet twelve stringent criteria that impose unnecessary burdens on HIV-positive travelers and continue to stigmatize those living with HIV [R1.7].

On 30 July 2008, President Bush signed legislation that repeals the law barring HIV-positive visitors and immigrants and triples U.S. funding to fight AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis around the world [R1.6].

On 16 July 2008, the Senate voted to repeal the law that bars people with HIV/AIDS from entering the United States. The proposed repeal must now go through the conference process and receive the President's signature [R1.5].

In December 2006, US President George W Bush announced an easing of the long-standing rule barring HIV-positive people from travelling to the United States [R1.4]

In February 2006, the Chicago Gay Games, scheduled for July 15-22, 2006 received Designated Event Status ("DES") from the U.S. government for purposes of granting HIV waivers [R1.3].

In April 2004, the federal Department of Veterans Affairs policy prohibiting organ transplants for those infected with HIV was being challenged by an HIV-positive Illinois veteran who needed a liver transplant. An Iowa City, Iowa, veterans hospital took steps to consider the man for the operation [R1.2].

In 2003, the law in the US provided that HIV-positive persons were effectively inadmissible to the US [R1.1].

Courts & Tribunals

On 28 March 2012, the US Supreme Court ruled 5–3 that the Privacy Act exposes the government to damage claims only for pecuniary losses borne by the plaintiff, not mental or emotional distress as claimed [C2.2], [R2.1].

National

In November 2009, a study found that some wealthy gay couples will pay an average of $3.3 million more in federal estate taxes this year upon the death of a spouse than their married heterosexual counterparts [R1.1].

National

On 24 June 2002, President Bush signed legislation that allows death benefits for public safety officers killed Sept. 11 to go to a beneficiary other than an immediate family member [R1.1].

Up to now, the federal $250,000 death benefit was paid only to spouses, children and parents of fallen officers.

This is believed to be the first time a federal benefit would be available to a survivor in a gay partnership

Federal

On 09 May 2012, in an interview with ABC News, President Obama said, “I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.” With that one statement, he made it clear that he believes that it’s wrong to prevent couples who are in loving, committed relationships from getting married [R1.9].

On 10 November 2011, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed the Respect for Marriage Act to repeal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in a 10–8 party-line vote. The Bill next goes to the full Senate, though prospects for final passage are bleak and even bleaker in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. [R1.8].

The Respect for Marriage Act to repeal the Defence of Marriage Act in its entirety would, if passed, also require that in order to provide "certainty", marriages that are valid in the state where the couple got married will be recognized in other states for the "purposes of any federal law in which marital status is a factor" [R1.7].

On 16 March 2011, the Respect for Marriage Act was expected to be reintroduced by representatives Jerrold Nadler, John Conyers, and the four openly gay House members: Barney Frank, Tammy Baldwin, Jared Polis, and David Cicilline. The legislation already had 105 original cosponsors in the House [R1.6].

On 15 June 2009, the Department of State notified GLAD of the amended policy for issuance of passports effective February 2008, providing that "[a] name change will be recognized for purposes of issuing a passport if the name change occurs [by] [o]peration of state law", that includes same-sex persons lawfully married [C1.5], [R1.5].

In March 2008, an American AIDS activist has been denied a new passport by the US State Department on the grounds that his hyphenated surname with his married gay partner is illegal [R1.4].

In September 2004, the House emphatically rejected a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage [R1.3].

In 2002, the proposed federal Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligation Act would allow unmarried persons to sign a certificate affirming they are in a committed, intimate relationship with a domestic partner which, if passed would then provide certain benefits [R1.2].

In 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), was signed into law by President Clinton

The law defines marriage as "the union of a man and a woman as husband and wife" [R1.1] and in effect says that no state can be required to recognize a gay marriage performed in another state where such unions might be legal.

It is argued by some legal experts that DOMA violates the full faith and credit clause in the Constitution that requires each state to honor the laws of other states.

See: 3. Courts & Tribunals [R2.2].

Courts & Tribunals

As at 27 March 2012, the Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA) has been found unconstitutional by federal courts in California and Massachusetts. Challenges are under way in Connecticut, New York, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania. Rulings from Louisiana and Texas seem to support DOMA. And in some immigration cases judges have sided with DOMA, while at other times they've ruled against it [R2.17].

On 27 October 2011, the Service Members Defense Network filed suit in the federal court in Boston challenging the Defense of Marriage Act as well as provisions in federal code that define "spouse" to the exclusion of married gay couples [C2.16], [R2.15].

On 26 July 2011, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman filed papers in US federal court in Manhattan saying the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, violates same-sex couples' right to equal protection under the US Constitution [R2.14].

On 06 July 2011, the Justice Department filed a Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss bringing the case of In Re Balas and Morales to an end and leaving in place an order signed by 20 bankruptcy judges in the Central District declaring DOMA unconstitutional and allowing a married gay couple to file bankruptcy jointly [C2.13], [R2.12].

On 27 June 2011, the Justice Department filed an appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit against the US Bankruptcy Court ruling In Re Balas and Morales that found the federal ban on gay marriage unconstitutional [R2.11].

On 13 June 2011, Judge Thomas B. Donovan of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California concluded that the 1996 law barring federal recognition of same-sex marriage is unconstitutional as DOMA violates the equal protection rights of the Debtors as recognized under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment [C2.10], [R2.9].

On 31 May 2011, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Michael S. McManus (E.D. Cal.), citing a May 4 decision by Bankruptcy Judge Cecelia G. Morris in In re Somers, 2011 WL 1709839, rejected a motion by the US Bankruptcy Trustee to dismiss a petitioned filed jointly by same-sex partners who were married in California in 2008 because of late filing. Further, the criteria for dismissing a bankruptcy petition as specified in the statute had not been met. He observed that as a practical matter it made no sense to dismiss the petition, since the assets and debts were joint and a dismissal would require filing of separate petitions, then a motion to consolidate [R2.8].

On 24 February 2011, Assistant attorney general Tony West notified the clerk of the First Circuit that the department will no longer defend Section 3 of DOMA in Gill v. Office of Personnel Management and Massachusetts v. Health and Human Services [R2.7].

On 23 February 2011, the Attorney General notified the Speaker of the House of Representatives and issued a statement to the effect that the Department of Justice would not defend the DOMA statute in the cases of Pedersen and Windsor as Section 3 of the Act would not meet a "more heightened standard of scrutiny" [R2.6], [R2.5].

In November 2010, two new cases Pedersen et al. v. Office of Personnel Management filed in the Federal Districts of Connecticut and Windsor v. USA filed in New York, challenge the constitutionality of the Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA) [R2.4].

In March 2009, the constitutionality of the Defence of Marriage Act (DOMO) was challenged in the Federal District Court in Boston in the case of Gill et a.l v. Office of Personnel Management et al.

See more under: LAWS - MASSACHUSETTS - MARRIAGE

On 17 November 2009, U.S. ninth circuit court of appeals judge Stephen Reinhardt awarded compensation to Brad Levenson and Tony Sears, a gay couple in Los Angeles, after a February ruling that they were wrongly denied spousal health benefits by the federal government [R2.3].

On 22 December 2005, the judicial appeals tribunal of the Cherokee Nation ruled that the marriage of a lesbian Cherokee couple cannot be invalidated by a tribal council [R2.2].

On 16 June 2005, in the federal court in California US District Judge Gary Taylor ruled that a federal law recognizing only unions between a man and a woman as valid does not violate the U.S. Constitution [R2.1].

The judge declined to rule on whether a state ban on same-sex marriage violates the civil rights of a gay Southern California couple while a separate legal challenge to California's law works its way through the state courts.

Federal

On 05 March 2012, transgender veterans are able to change the gender marker on their medical records by simply providing a physician’s letter confirming gender reassignment, according to a clarification of a Veterans Health Administration policy [R1.36].

On 23 February 2012, Attorney General Eric Holder wrote to House Speaker John Boehner notifying that the Administration would no longer defend legislation in court banning same-sex couples from receiving military and veterans benefits [D1.35], [R1.34].

On 15 December 2011, the Senate passed the 2012 Defense spending bill on a 86–13 vote, minus the orginally-passed repeal of the prohibition against sodomy and bestiality in the military. The House passed the bill on 14 December 2011 on a 238–136 vote [R1.33].

Previously:

On 12 December 2011, the conference committee examining the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 dropped antigay provisions, including an amendment that would have barred military chaplains from performing same-sex weddings in their official capacities. Article 125 was not repealed in the conference report despite the Senate including repeal in its version of the bill [R1.32].

On 30 November 2011, the Senate amended 93–7 S.1867 "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012" by adding Sec. 527, providing that "A military chaplain who, as a matter of conscience or moral principle, does not wish to perform a marriage may not be required to do so." The House of Representatives version would flatly prohibit chaplains from performing any same sex-marriage [R1.31].

The Bill also includes a provision repealing Article 125, the provision against sodomy (see below). The Bill has yet to be reconciled with the House Bill and must be signed by the President before becoming law.

On 28 October 2011, the Department of Defense identified 14 benefits for members to designate whomever they wish as beneficiaries [R1.30]:

• Service Members Group Life Insurance beneficiary;
• Post Vietnam-era Veterans Assistance Program beneficiary;
• All-volunteer Force Educational Assistance Program – Active Duty Death Benefit beneficiary;
• Death Gratuity beneficiary;
• Final Settlement of Accounts;
• Wounded Warrior Designated Caregiver;
• Thrift Savings Plan beneficiary;
• Survivor Benefit for retirees;
• Casualty Notification;
• Escorts for Dependents of Deceased or Missing;
• Designation of Persons Having Interest in Status of a Missing Member;
• Veterans' Group Life Insurance beneficiary;
• Person Eligible to Receive Effects of Deceased Persons; and
• Travel and Transportation Allowance: attendance at Yellow Ribbon Reintegration events.

See also: 2. Courts & Tribunals [R2.37] below.

On 28 July 2011, the SLDN released a legal guide to help gay military members, veterans and their families tackle living in a post-DADT world and emphasised that coming out won't be safe until the full repeal, which is 60-days after President Barack Obama's repeal certification. DADT was fully repealed 20 September 2011 [D1.29], [R1.28].

On 22 July 2011, President Obama formally certified that the American military was ready for the repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Enactment of the repeal came into effect, on 20 September 2011, " … when service members will no longer be forced to hide who they are in order to serve …" [R1.27].

Advocates of DADT repeal ultimately bargained away the requirement that the Pentagon implement a new nondiscrimination policy after lifting the ban against open-service. The provision – which would specifically prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation – was part of Murphy's initial amendment but was later removed to improve the chances of passage. See [D1.29] for guidance in the event of discrimination or harassment.

Previously:

On 23 December 2010, President Obama signed the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 [R1.26] however Don't Ask, Don't Tell still remained in force until the provisions in the Act are completed, which was expected to take some time.

On 18 December 2010, the Senate passed the Bill to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell in a 65–31 vote. The legislation says the president and his top military advisers must certify that lifting the ban won't hurt troops' fighting ability. After that, there's a 60–day waiting period for the military [R1.25].

US Code. Title 10 – Armed Forces. Subtitle A – General Military Law
Section 925, Article 125. Sodomy [L1.24].

(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.

(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

See also: 2. Courts & Tribunals below.

ATTENTION SERVICE MEMBERS: Under Article 31 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, you have the right to remain silent and to consult with a defense attorney if you are investigated. Say nothing. Sign nothing. Get legal help.

Service members may contact Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) directly for confidential, free legal counseling by calling (202) 328-FAIR (3247) or by email, to: legal@sldn.org.

On 30 September 2011, the Pentagon announced that US military chaplains will be allowed to officiate at same-sex weddings at any private ceremony on or off a military installation as long as the ceremony is not barred by state and local laws and does not go against the chaplain's religious tenets [R1.23].

On 10 May 2011, Rear Admiral M L Tidd, the chief Navy chaplain, abruptly suspended a memorandum he issued last month that would have eventually opened the door to same sex weddings or civil unions on Navy bases in states where it is legal [R1.22].

On 13 April 2011, the Office of Navy Chaplains reportedly became more accepting of same-sex "marriage." Citing "additional legal review," the Navy says it "has concluded that … if the base is located in a state where same-sex marriage is legal, then the base facilities may be used to celebrate the marriage … This is a change to previous training that stated same-sex marriages are not authorized on federal property" [R1.21], [R1.20].

On 15 December 2010, the House voted (250–175 on HR 2965 Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010) to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, shifting the debate to the Senate [R1.19].

On 11 December 2010, Senators Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) introduced a bipartisan stand alone bill (S. 4022) co-sponsored by Susan Collins (R-ME), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Mark Udall (D-CO), to end the ban on gay and lesbian troops serving openly in the military [R1.18]. It was read twice and referred to the Senate Armed Services Committee [R1.17].

On 09 December 2010, the Senate voted 57 – 40 in the procedural vote to block the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which contains the repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'. 60 votes were needed to move forward. However, some senators have said they will introduce a separate Bill to repeal DADT. It is expected to be co-sponsored by Senators Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) [R1.16].

On 28 November 2010, the 10-month Pentagon Study concluded that gay troops could serve openly without hurting the military's ability to fight [R1.15].

On 21 September 2010, the Senate voted 56–43 to prevent debate of the National Defense Authorization Act, to which the "don't ask, don't tell" repeal measure was attached [R1.14].

On 10 September 2010, White House spokesman Shin Inouye said that the Department of Justice was reviewing the decision by a federal judge ruling "don't ask, don't tell" unconstitutional (see 2. Courts & Tribunals below), but he added that President Barack Obama continues to be focused on completing legislative repeal of the policy the fall [R1.13].

On 10 September 2010, the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) reissued a national DO NOT COME OUT warning to active duty, guard, and reserve service members after a federal court ruled DADT unconstitutional [R1.12].

On 08 July 2010, the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network warned gays in the military not to answer a Pentagon survey seeking opinions on repeal of the policy that bans homosexuals from serving openly as they could be accidentally exposed by answering the survey and that the Defense Department had not agreed to grant immunity should that happen [R1.11].

On 27 May 2010, the Senate Armed Services Committee and the full House approved measures to repeal the 1993 law that allows gay people to serve in the armed services only if they hide their sexual orientation [R1.10].

On 25 March 2010, US defence secretary Robert Gates announced that effective immediately anonymous complaints about soldiers' sexuality will no longer be regarded and discharges of those outed by third parties will be curbed, easing the law on firing gay soldiers [R1.9].

In January 2010, a new study estimated 66,000 gay, lesbian, and bisexual service members were currently serving in the U.S. military [R1.8].

In October 2009, the final 2009 issue of Joint Forces Quarterly contains an in-depth article by Colonel Om Prakash entitled "The Efficacy of Don't Ask, Don't Tell." It lays out a devastating assessment of DADT. Beginning with the origins of and early arguments for the policy in the Clinton administration, Prakash goes on to demonstrate that the empirical evidence in support of DADT has never surfaced [R1.7].

In May 2009, the Pentagon said there were no plans to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the directive that bans gays from serving openly in the military [R1.6].

In July 2008, a study sponsored by the Michael D. Palm Center at the University of California at Santa Barbara, concluded that Congress should repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" law because the presence of gays in the military is unlikely to undermine the ability to fight and win [R1.5].

In November 2007, twenty-eight former US military chiefs have collectively called for a repeal of the controversial "don't ask, don't tell" policy [R1.4] .

In May 2003, an article published in the summer issue of "Parameters," a publication of the U.S. Army, concluded that the military's gay ban is "based on prejudice, not on military necessity" [R1.3].

In May 2001, the Cox Commision charged with reviewing the UCMJ recommended that the Article be repealed and replaced with a statute governing sexual abuse similar to laws adopted by many states and in Title 18 of the United States Code [R1.2] .

The commission's recommendations have been forwarded to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who has ordered a comprehensive review of Pentagon personnel policies.

The report will also be shared with the Chairman and Ranking Members of the Senate and House Committees on Armed Services and to the Code Committee on Military Justice.

In October 1999, President Clinton signed an executive order amending the US military criminal code to add stiffer penalties for hate crimes [R1.1].

Courts & Tribunals

On 12 April 2012, US District Judge Richard Stearns denied the request from plaintiffs in the case of Major Shannon L McLaughlin & Others v. Leon E Panetta & Others for an April 20 deadline for attorneys representing the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group to intervene [R2.41].

On 21 November 2011, the Service Members Defence Network filed a motion for summary judgment in the case McLaughlin v. U.S., the legal challenge on behalf of current and former service members seeking equal recognition, benefits and family support for equal sacrifice and service in the US Armed Forces [R2.40].

On 09 November 2011, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denied a sought for re-hearing, ending the legal challenge against an earlier ruling vacating District Court Judge Virginia Phillips' finding that the DADT law, barring gays and lesbians from serving openly in the armed forces, was unconstitutional [R2.39].

On 27 October 2011, the Service Members Defense Network filed suit in the federal court in Boston challenging the Defense of Marriage Act as well as provisions in federal code that define "spouse" to the exclusion of married gay couples [C2.38], [R2.37].

On 29 September 2011, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal vacated District Court Judge Virginia Phillips' ruling that the DADT law was unconstitutional. Those now-void legal rulings and factual findings have no precedential, preclusive, or binding effect and there remains no law or ruling prohibiting future discrimination of this sort in the armed forces [C2.36], [R2.35].

On 01 September 2011, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena heard oral arguments in the Log Cabin Republicans' challenge to the constitutionality of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" [R2.34].

On 15 July 2011, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled to temporarily reinstate “don't ask, don't tell,” though it continued, for now, to block the government from “investigating, penalizing, or discharging anyone from the military pursuant to the … policy” [C2.33], [R2.32].

On 11 July 2011, a 9th US Circuit Court clerk ordered the Justice Department to instruct the court on whether it intends to defend the policy's constitutionality "within such time as to … enable Congress to take action to intervene in timely fashion in this proceeding" and respond to the order within 10 days [C2.31], [R2.30].

On 06 July 2011, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals blocked further enforcement of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" by the U.S. military, more than six months after Congress repealed the policy [C2.29], [R2.28].

On 28 January 2011, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco rejected the government's request to suspend a lawsuit challenging the military's ban on openly gay servicemembers and issued an order requiring the Department of Justice to file papers by Feb. 25 arguing why the court should overturn a Southern California trial judge who declared the "don't ask, don't tell" policy unconstitutional [R2.27].

On 29 December 2010, in a filing to the U.S. court of appeals for the ninth circuit, the Justice Department sought to suspend its appeal in the Log Cabin Republicans' longstanding federal lawsuit against the policy. The Log Cabin Republicans executive director R. Clarke Cooper called the motion a stall tactic that would delay the government's opening brief in the appeal due January 24 [R2.26].

On 22 December 2010, the Log Cabin Republicans confirmed that the Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America and Robert M Gates, Secretary of Defense case would not be withdrawn until the certifications from the military chiefs that the policy will no longer be enforced are given [R2.25].

On 23 November 2010, the Department of Justice filed an appeal US District Judge Ronald Leighton's 24 September ruling that Air Force major Margaret Witt, who was discharged in 2006 under "don't ask, don't tell" must be reinstated [R2.24].

On 12 November 2010, the Supreme Court Court denied the application of the Log Cabin Republicans to vacate the stay entered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on 01 November 2010 [R2..23].

On 05 November 2010, the Log Cabin Republicans applied to the US Supreme Court to vacate the 2–1 decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals keeping "don't ask, don't tell" in place until it considers the government's appeal of the judge's decision declaring the policy unconstitutional and allow the trial judge's order barring enforcement of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays in the military to go back into effect [C2..22], [R2..22].

On 01 November 2010, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the military to continue to enforce "don't ask, don't tell" while the government appeals a recent federal court decision striking down the policy as unconstitutional, ruling "the lack of an orderly transition in policy" could produce "immediate harm" and "precipitous injury" [R2.21].

On 20 October 2010, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, issued a one-page order late in the day allowing the Pentagon to continue enforcing the "don't ask, don't tell" [R2.20].

On 20 October 2010, the Department of Justice filed and Emergency Motion seeking an administrative stay of the District Court's order pending resolution of the government's appeal [R2.19].

On 19 October 2010, U.S. district judge Virginia A. Phillips denied a request by the Justice Department to stay her ruling against any further enforcement of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy [R2.18].

On 18 October 2010, U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips tentatively refused to let the Pentagon reinstate its ban on openly gay men and women in the US military while the government appeals her decision declaring the "don't ask, don't tell" policy unconstitutional [R2.17].

On 14 October 2010, the Department of Justice requested a stay of a federal judge's order barring further enforcement of "don't ask, don't tell" and also appealed US district judge Virginia A. Phillips's decision striking down DADT as unconstitutional to a federal appeals court [R2.16].

On 12 October 2010, United States District Judge Virginia A Phillips issued a worldwide injunction stopping enforcement of the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy, ending the military's 17-year-old ban on openly gay troops. The US Department of Justice attorneys have 60 days to appeal [C2.15], [R2.15].

On 24 September 2010, US District Judge Ronald Leighton ruled that flight nurse Major Margaret Witt discharged from the Air Force for being gay should be given her job back as soon as possible [R2.14]. See also: [R2.6] and R2.5] below

On 09 September 2010, U.S. District Judge Virginia A Phillips declared the U.S. military's ban on openly gay service members unconstitutional, saying the "don't ask, don't tell" policy violates the 1st Amendment and due process rights of lesbians and gay men. The judge said she would issue an injunction barring the government from enforcing the policy. However, the Justice Department (DOJ) will have an opportunity to appeal that decision [R2.13]. On 23 September 2010, the DOJ argued that a permanent injunction against enforcing the 17-year-old law would be untenable [R2.12].

In September 2010, a woman who was discharged from the US Air Force for being gay will be the subject of a federal trial in which the burden will be on her former employers to prove that her sexuality was in any way harmful to morale among her unit (the "Witt standard" – See: [R2.6] and [R2.5] below) [R2.11].

On 24 August 2010, military judge Navy Captain Moira Modzelewski sentenced Staff Sgt. James McCoy to a year in confinement, gave him a reduction in rank, and ordered a bad conduct discharge. McCoy pleaded guilty to abusing 17 male subordinates by touching them sexually, making sexually offensive comments, and accusing them of being gay [R2.10].

In June 2009, at the request of the White House, the US Supreme Court declined to review the case of former Army captain James Pietrangelo concerning the military's ban on openly gay and lesbian service members [R2.9].

In April 2009, District Judge James Robinson awarded $491,190 (£330,653 to a former Army Special Forces commander who was rejected from a job because she was undergoing gender reassigment has won her case for sexual discrimination [R2.8].

In June 2008, a federal appeals court in Boston on Monday threw out the lawsuit Cook v. Gates, which challenged the constitutionality of "don't ask, don't tell," the military policy that prohibits lesbian, gay, and bisexual Americans from serving openly in the military and legal experts say the discrepancy of the two rulings will likely land the issue in the U.S. Supreme Court [R2.7].

In May 2008, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, ruled (in the case of Air Force Maj. Margaret Witt) that the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy violates the U.S. Constitution. The 9th Circuit's three-judge panel did not actually declare "Don't ask, don't tell" unconstitutional in its own right. Rather, the panel ruled that the policy would have to be applied on an individual basis. In other words, the military would need to demonstrate not merely that the presence of gay or lesbian people in the ranks was damaging to military morale, but that the presence of a particular gay or lesbian person was damaging to morale [R2.6].

The ruling Witt case stands in states covered by the 9th Circuit – Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington and in theory requires the military to demonstrate that the firing promotes cohesion or discipline in the unit – a much higher standard. The ruling is largely overlooked by the military but may force the military to pay punitive damages if challenged in the Federal Court [R2.5].

In August 2004, the U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals has overturned the guilty plea of a soldier who engaged in consensual oral sodomy, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down state sodomy laws United States v. Bullock [R2.4].

In August 2004, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces declined to strike down the armed forces' ban on private, consensual sodomy, known as Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice [R2.3].

In October 2003, in the wake of the US Supreme Court's Lawrence v. Texas decision overturning state sodomy laws, Counsel for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) has argued in the case of United States v. Marcum that the decision also invalidates the military's criminalization of private, consensual sodomy, known as Article 125 United States v. Marcum [R2.2].

In July 2003, Lt. Col. Steve Loomis, a decorated Vietnam combat veteran filed suit with the U.S. Court of Federal Claims challenging the constitutionality of the military's antigay "don't ask, don't tell" policy, citing the precedent set by the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the Texas sodomy case [R2.1].

State

In March 2008, under a bill then being considered by the Massachusetts state senate military veterans discharged under the Pentagon's ban on openly gay and lesbian service members would receive benefits through the state [R3.1].

National

On 28 October 2011, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand introduced the Every Child Deserves a Family Act that would if it becomes law, eliminate state laws, policies and practices that exclude prospective adoptive and foster parents because of marital status, sexual orientation or gender identity [R1.7].

On 08 September 2011, GLAD released a revised version of the groundbreaking publication Protecting Families: Standards for LGBT Families. The standards are a set of 10 guidelines that aim to remind LGBT parents of the importance of legally protecting the families they create and to caution parents against wielding anti-LGBT laws against their partner should their relationship break up [R1.6], [D1.5].

On 09 January 2011, following an order of the Secretary of State, the move to swap the titles of "mother" and "father" for the more gender-neutral term "parent" on forms to apply for passports and reports of overseas births was changed to "mother or parent 1" and "father or parent 2" [R1.4].

From 03 January 2011, new citizenship forms for children of American parents born outside of the U.S. and passport applications will feature gender neutral areas using the title of "parent" instead of "mother" and "father", making it easier for gay and lesbian parents to obtain passports for their children [R1.3].

On 22 December 2010, the US Department of State announced the introduction of a redesigned Consular Report of Birth Abroad (CRBA) using the title of "parent" as opposed to "mother" and "father." These improvements were being made to provide a gender neutral description of a child's parents and in recognition of different types of families [R1.2].

In July 2010, US–Russia discussions on adoption policy decided US gay couples would not be allowed to adopt Russian children because Russia does not recognize same-sex relationships [R1.1].

Courts & Tribunals

In April 2008, a US appeals court reportedly ruled that a roommate-finding site cannot ask users to disclose their sexual orientation [R1.1].

Federal

In June 2008, the legal opinion prepared by Steven Engel, deputy assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel stated that —

"Although DOMA limits the definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse' for purposes of federal law, the Social Security Act does not condition eligibility for [benefits] on the existence of a marriage or on the federal rights of a spouse in the circumstances of this case; rather, eligibility turns upon the State's recognition of a parent-child relationship, and specifically, the right to inherit as a child under state law" [R1.2].

On 16 July 2007, the Department of Justice stated in a formal memorandum that the child of a lesbian couple living in Vermont was eligible to share in his nonbiological mother's Social Security benefits [R1.1].

Federal

On 27 December 2011, according to an analysis conducted for CNNMoney by tax specialists, same-sex spouses are paying as much as $6,000 a year in extra taxes because the federal government doesn't recognize gay marriage [R1.13].

As at 12 December 2011, whilst same-sex married couples are not considered spouses under federal law, they are permitted to use the adoption tax credit – at least until their unions are recognized. If you or your partner receive any notices from the I.R.S. requiring more information during this coming tax season, send your response to the I.R.S. within the time period allotted. Most taxpayers, after pushing back hard, have had the credit allowed [R1.12].

Under federal law, employer-provided health benefits for domestic partners are counted as taxable income if the partner is not considered a dependent. On top of that, the employees cannot use pretax dollars to pay for their premiums – unlike their opposite-sex married counterparts [R1.11], [R1.10].

On 02 November 2011, the Internal Revenue Service announced its intent to formally agree with an historic 2010 decision of the US Tax Court in O'Donnabhain v. Commissioner that overturned IRS policy disallowing tax deductions for medical care related to gender transition [D1.9], [R1.8]

See 2. Courts & Tribunals at [C2.1] [R2.1].

On 02 June 2011, a bipartisan group of House lawmakers introduced a bill that would have health-care benefits for domestic partners treated in the same way as those for a married couple for tax purposes [R1.8]. Some companies "gross up" reimbursements to cover the extra costs that same-sex couples pay [R1.7].

In March 2011, the Cambridge (MA) City Council was hoping to restructure municipal pay so that city employees in same-sex unions will earn the same after-tax salary as their married straight colleagues. However, untangling the knot of tax codes, state and federal laws, and union contracts that would result in lower after-tax pay for married gays and lesbian makes it a practical impossibility. At some point, simply recognizing marriage equality is going to become easier than managing the patchwork of laws that make taxes and benefits such an agonizing ordeal for gay and lesbian couples and their employers [R1.6].

For 2010 tax returns the IRS will recognize jointly owned community property income, the same way it does for different-sex married couples who file separate federal income tax returns for California, Nevada and Washington registered domestic partners and California same-sex spouses [R1.5], [R1.4], [R1.3].

In December 2009, the current Senate health care bill would not end the "gay tax" on domestic-partner benefits for same-sex couples whilst a House health care bill provision remedies the double standard, creating a tax exemption for any dependent – same-sex partners included [R1.2].

In April 2003, it was reported that even though the incomes of lesbian and gay couples are combined in their own household, the Internal Revenue Service doesn't recognize two people of the same sex as a legal couple, taxing them individually [R1.1].

In contrast, the tax bill of a husband and wife who earn similar incomes is higher than their combined tax bills would have been had they stayed single.

If one partner supports the other, the supporter can file a tax return as a single person and claim the other as a dependent. The criterion as laid out by the IRS is strict, but if you and your partner meet the stringent guidelines, it's possible [R1.1].

Courts & Tribunals

On 02 February 2010, the U.S. Tax Court in Boston ruled that a Massachusetts woman should be allowed to deduct the costs of her sex-change operation, finding that she " … suffered from severe GID (gender-identity disorder), that GID is a well-recognized and serious mental disorder, and that hormone therapy and sex reassignment surgery are considered appropriate and effective treatments for GID by psychiatrists and other mental health professionals who are knowledgeable concerning the condition" [C2.1], [R2.1].

National

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 only applies to employers who employ 15 or more employees for 20 or more weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, prohibiting sexual harassment in the workplace.

On 26 April 2012, the Senate passed legislation to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, or VAWA, by a 68–31 vote to strengthen domestic violence programs and extend their coverage to LGBT victims. The Bill has yet to pass the House [R1.3].

On 10 June 2010, the US justice department confirmed that federal laws giving protection against domestic violence also apply to gays and lesbians. A memo posted by the department said prosecutors should enforce criminal provisions in the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) in cases involving gay and lesbian relationships. These provisions include those related to domestic violence, stalking and protection order violations [R1.2].

In May 2010, Democratic senators Al Franken and Kirsten Gillibrand have introduced legislation known as the Student Non-Discrimination Act, aimed at combating anti-LGBT bullying in public schools. The bill currently has 21 additional co-sponsors in the senate [R1.1].

Courts & Tribunals

In March 2011, a federal jury awarded Kerry Woods, a former employee of Boh Bros. Construction Co., L.L.C., $451,000 to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The sexual harassment and retaliation for complaining about it violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [C2.7], [R2.6].

In February 2010, the US Department of Justice for the first time since 2000, was seeking to intervene in a gay harassment lawsuit against a New York school district that it says raises important civil rights issues, arguing that Title IX of the antidiscrimination law affecting schools that receive federal funding, covers sex discrimination based on gender stereotypes [R2.5].

On 08 April 2003, in a unanimous judgment the US Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that schools failing to protect gay students from harassment could be in violation of federal law and warned school administrators that they could be held personally responsible if they ignored pleas of help from students regarding sexual orientation harassment [R2.4].

On 24 September 2002, five judges in the 7-4 majority of the US Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that unwanted and offensive physical conduct "of a sexual nature" is a ground for any plaintiff, gay or straight, male or female, to sue for damages under Federal civil rights law [C2.3], [R2.2].

On 04 March 1998, same-sex sexual harassment was held in a unanimous decision written by Justice Scalia to be prohibited by Title VII [C2.1].