First, Governor Terry Branstad’s (R) administration announced it will appeal a state district court ruling that said a child born to a lesbian couple married in that state has the right to have the names of both her parents on her birth certificate.

According to an Iowa Department of Public Health (IDPH) spokeswoman quoted by the Des Moines Register, the state filed the appeal “because it specifically addresses a situation in which a child is born to married lesbian mothers who conceive through the use of an anonymous sperm donor, but does not address the birth of children to married gays and lesbians who conceive in alternate ways.” (My own report on the background of the case, before the district court ruling, is at Keen News Service.) Lambda Legal contends that the earlier ruling, plus the fact that same-sex couples can legally marry in the state, is sufficient to cover all situations.

And yesterday, Lambda Legal filed suit against the Iowa Department of Public Health on behalf of Jenny and Jessica Buntemeyer, a married Iowa couple seeking an accurate death certificate for their stillborn baby, Brayden. The couple completed the death certificate form, putting their names in the spaces for parents, and indicating that they were married. When they received the death certificate, IDPH had erased Jenny’s name.

As Camilla Taylor, National Marriage Project Director for Lambda Legal, said:

A different-sex married couple grieving a similar loss would receive a two-parent death certificate with no questions asked.  Death certificates and other vital records like birth certificates document legal parentage, and not biology. To white out a mother’s name from her stillborn baby’s death certificate is cruel to a family that is already devastated.

Winning marriage rights is wonderful. The progress we’ve seen in California and Washington State this week is heartening. But even after marriage rights, we will still have a long way to go before equality.

[Update: Lambda Legal has launched a petition on Change.org for people to urge the Iowa Department of Public Health to issue the Buntemeyers an accurate death certificate for their baby.]

While analysis is still forthcoming by legal pundits and scholars, here’s what we can say right now:

1. Same-sex couples still cannot marry in California. The decision has been stayed so that the defendants have time to appeal, as they are likely to do, to a larger en banc panel of the 9th Circuit and/or the U.S. Supreme Court.
2. The ruling is narrow, and applies only to California. It would not affect the right of same-sex couples to marry in other states.

Nevertheless, this is a significant win. Here’s what Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, had to say:

It is a unique and honored position to be an eyewitness to history. The Ninth Circuit’s ruling finding that Proposition 8 violates the Constitution of this nation marks the first time a federal appellate court has held that a law excluding same-sex couples from the right to marry runs counter to our highest ideals of equality and fairness. With today’s ruling we are a giant step closer to the day when the promise of our Constitution squares with the lived reality of LGBT people.

On a related note, I did a piece recently for Keen News Service on a new study about children of LGBT parents and their views on marriage equality. Not surprisingly, all of the youths in the study were in favor of it—but some qualified their answers in ways that are worth noting, and others indicated, as Madison does below, just how marriage inequality has affected them personally. Vital perspectives to have.

• A broad coalition of civil rights, labor, progressive, faith, student, health, legal, women’s, and LGBT organizations, led by Freedom to Marry and HRC, announced support of the federal Respect for Marriage Act that would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
• U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Shaun Donovan announced new regulations to ensure that HUD’s core housing programs are open to all eligible persons, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.
• A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that a U.S. District Court judge was in error when he decided that videotapes of the Proposition 8 trial (regarding California’s ban on marriage for same-sex couples) were part of the trial record and should be released.
• Marriage equality advocates in Maine announced plans for a Citizens Initiative that would place a question on the November 2012 ballot asking voters to approve marriage for same-sex couples.
• A marriage equality bill passed a New Jersey Assembly committee, and looks set to move through the full Assembly and Senate in the coming weeks. Governor Chris Christie (R) has said he will veto the bill.
• The effort to pass a ballot measure in North Carolina that would prohibit marriage of same-sex couples under the state constitution may have gotten more difficult. Now that Governor Beverly Perdue (D) has said she will not run for reelection, more Democrats are expected to go to the polls this May, when the ballot measure will appear. That may give marriage equality supporters a better chance of defeating the measure.
• A marriage equality bill passed the Washington State Senate, and looks likely to pass the House next week. Governor Chris Gregoire (D) has said she will sign it, but opponents have said they will attempt to put the measure before voters on the November 2012 ballot.

Around the world:

• Same-sex couples in Australia can now apply for a “Certificate of No Impediment,” a document required before they can marry in  several other countries that allow same-sex couples to wed.
• PinkNews.co.uk has an interesting piece on the gay community in Bangladesh, where same-sex intercourse is punishable by life in prison.
• Transgender advocates are concerned that a recent regulation in Canada could have an impact on transgender people’s ability to use air travel. The regulation states:  ” An air carrier shall not transport a passenger if … the passenger does not appear to be of the gender indicated on the identification he or she presents.”
•  Scotland could see a draft bill for marriage equality by mid-2013, and have it pass as law by the end of that year.

According to the AP (via NPR), the Komen grants to Planned Parenthood “totaled roughly $680,000 last year and $580,000 the year before, going to at least 19 of its affiliates for breast-cancer screening and other breast-health services.” That money paid for nearly 170,000 of the 4 million breast exams Planned Parenthood performed over the past five years.

There are many strong and thoughtful responses appearing in response to the news. Colorlines has a good piece on the implications of the Komen decision on low-income women, immigrant women, and women of color. And Dr. Susan Love, a leading breast cancer researcher and advocate (and lesbian mom), noted, “Investigation does not mean guilt. What happened to innocent until proven guilty?” and suggested, “Let’s redirect all the money that will be spent on investigating Planned Parenthood into funding studies looking to find the cause and prevent the disease once and for all.”

I don’t write a lot about being pro-choice here. A little focus is a good thing, and writing about LGBT equality keeps me busy enough. I was a pro-choice feminist before I was an out lesbian, however, and those roots go deep. Not to mention that my father and several other relatives have died of cancer. I’m appalled by the defunding of an organization that helps hundreds of thousands of women—including many low-income women—get screened for cancer each year, especially when the money is but a drop in Komen’s deep, pink, bucket.

Not that many, many other health care funding decisions aren’t driven by politics. (See the history of HIV/AIDS funding for an object lesson.) But that doesn’t mean we should let such decisions go unremarked or unchecked.

It’s good to see private funders are stepping up to help Planned Parenthood. Their defunding by Komen might in the long run be a good thing, in that it may help them attract even more money and raise awareness of the wide range of health care services they provide. Let’s hope.

A new report out today dives into detail on the extra economic hardships that children of LGBT parents may face because of discrimination against their families. The report, “Strengthening Economic Security for Children Living in LGBT Families,” is a companion to the “All Children Matter” report that came out last October and detailed the demographics of and legal issues faced by LGBT families (about which more here). It was co-authored by the Movement Advancement Project, the Family Equality Council, and the Center for American Progress, in partnership with the National Association of Social Workers.

Some of the extra economic burdens include:

• Lack of legal protections. Because same-sex couples cannot marry, children in LGBT families often have legal ties to only one parent. Althouh legal documents can help create some protections, they are costly and usually inadequate.
• Higher taxes. LGBT families cannot file joint federal tax returns and are often denied child-related tax deductions and credits. As a result, many LGBT families pay higher taxes.
• Reduced access to health benefits. Because employers are not required to extend coverage to children without legal ties to their parents, LGBT families may be forced to buy coverage privately for their children or go without.
• Lack of access to safety net programs. Programs designed to support families during difficult economic times often treat LGBT families inconsistently or exclude them completely. As a result, children fall through the safety net when they most need help, including when a parent dies or becomes disabled.

The report recommends addressing these issues by: 

• Strengthening the legal ties of the entire family by legalizing and federally recognizing same-sex marriage.
• Allowing joint adoption by LGBT parents, and recognizing LGBT parents through other avenues such as second-parent adoption and de facto parenting that allow children to gain full legal ties to their parents.
• Revising the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) tax code to provide equitable treatment for LGBT families.
• Equal access to health insurance.
• Modernizing archaic wrongful death and intestacy statutes.

The report also suggests a number of steps that governmental agencies, community-based organizations, advocates, and funders can take to assist LGBT families, including low-income families, those living in poverty, and those in crisis, such as:

• Expanding outreach to, and documenting the unmet needs of, low-income LGBT families, including LGBT families of color and LGBT families living in rural communities.
• Expanding training to organizations serving low-income LGBT families, including adoption agencies, child welfare and government agency workers, judges, and schools.
• Creating guidebooks to help LGBT families navigate the economic hurdles they face and, if needed, help them access safety net programs.

At a time when economic fairness is a big part of our national conversation, this is a timely and important report.

Immigration Equality is hoping to find binational couples, who are raising children, for a campaign highlighting the unique obstacles binational parents face while raising children and trying to remain together here in the United States.  We know, from recent research by the Williams Institute, that many binational couples are, indeed, raising children.  But the obstacles presented by current immigration laws are considerable for those same families. Mombian readers who are interested in sharing their stories about raising children while navigating discriminatory immigration laws can share their information here, and our legal and communications team will be in touch with them.

• Freedom to Marry has launched Mayors for the Freedom to Marry, a bipartisan coalition of over 80 mayors who have pledged to support marriage for same-sex couples.
• Indiana has begun to issue a license plate designed to raise awareness about LGBT youth issues—the first state to do so. Funds will go to the Indiana Youth Group. South Carolina also began to offer an LGBT-related plate, with funds going to the South Carolina Equality Foundation. (And just to make sure you click through to some of the sites I list here, you can check out the above links to find out the first state ever to issue an LGBT-related plate.)
• Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick (D) signed the Transgender Rights Bill.
• Omaha, Nebraska City Councilman Ben Gray (D) wants the Council to consider a measure to ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. But State Senator Beau McCoy (R) has introduced a bill that would ban cities and local governments from creating such protections, saying such power should be reserved to the state. Zack Ford at Think Progress points out that if McCoy was really interested in consistent policies, he’d also propose a statewide anti-discrimination bill covering sexual orientation or gender identity. But he hasn’t.
• The New Jersey Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing and a vote Tuesday, January 24 at 11:00 a.m. ET, on a bill to legalize marriage for same-sex couples.
• Microsoft has said it will join Nike and other companies in supporting a bill to legalize marriage for same-sex couples in Washington State. (Insert obligatory joke about hoping the bill doesn’t crash like Windows.)

Around the world:

• The Canadian Department of Justice caused a scare when it said a lesbian couple who married in Canada should not be granted a divorce because they were not residents of Canada at the time of their marriage, and therefore it was not legal. Several LGBT legal groups in the U.S. issued a statement saying they do not believe the ruling will invalidate other marriages.
• The Swedish government has said it will not change a 1970s law that requires transgender people to undergo sterilization before the state will recognise their gender identity.

He released a statement, saying, in part:

Marriage is more than just a collection of rights and protections—it is the commitment between two people who love each other and have pledged to support one another in life. Love for our partners and for our family gives life meaning, provides us comfort, and shapes our identity. By continuing to differentiate between types of loving relationships, we separate and isolate those within our communities. We must recognize that separate can never be equal and a domestic partnership can never be a marriage.

Growing up, I was taught that a family was not determined by the genders of the persons involved but by the love and commitment that they shared. I was taught that every person is to be treated with respect and dignity. These are the values that I have carried with me throughout my life. These are the values that my wife and I have passed on to our daughter. . . .

As the son of a gay man, I grew up with a strong value system nurtured by a father who provided me with a foundation to succeed and gave me unconditional love and support. This legislation will provide thousands of families like mine with the respect and dignity they deserve.

Lynn Sherr (Wellesley ’63) wrote about Bates in yesterday’s New York Times, where she also explains why many of Bates’ beliefs stand opposed to those of Romney. It’s a good read.

Despite the flippant title of this post, it may be ahistorical to call Bates and Coman lesbians in a modern sense, but at the very least, they seem to be spiritual lesbian foremothers. (Read my earlier post on Bates for a snippet of poetry she wrote upon Coman’s death. Theirs was no ordinary friendship.)

(And yes, I’m a Wellesley alumna, too. I couldn’t be prouder.)