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 erase 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.

The first couple, Julie Garnier and Charlene Evans, are in an article on the efforts of schools in Washington, D.C., to teach about all types of families, including ones with two moms or two dads. It’s particularly notable because the article isn’t “about” black lesbians per se; Garnier and Evans are just the couple they’ve chosen to focus on. Nice to see that white isn’t always the default, especially when recent demographic work by UCLA’s Williams Institute and others shows that a high percentage of lesbian and gay people, including parents, are in fact people of color.

The second, Jane Ladson and Pat Body, are raising Body’s great-granddaughter, and appear in an article on the struggles of some black women to help their extended families during the economic recession. The article does focus on black families—but this time, it is the fact that Ladson and Body are lesbians that is the “incidental” part of the story. The writers could have chosen an opposite-sex couple just as easily, but didn’t.

It’s great to see these intersecting images of acceptance.

(Thanks to reader Jackie for nudging me to write about these stories in a separate post, rather than waiting for my next roundup.)

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.

It’s been far too long since I’ve redesigned the site, but I’ve been tweaking and geeking a bit, and I think things are mostly in order now.

I’ll still be dusting things off for a couple of days, so please bear with me—but I think most everything should be in working order. If not, please leave a comment and I’ll get to it as soon as I finish supervising the elves who are folding the laundry.

• 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.

Dr. Susan Love

Since the blogosphere has been abuzz with news about breast cancer organization Susan G. Komen for the Cure pulling funds from Planned Parenthood, I thought I’d post the slightly revised version of an interview I did several years ago with Dr. Susan Love for the now-defunct 365gay.com. Her Dr. Susan Love Research Foundation is taking an innovative approach to breast cancer research, building an “Army of Women” (and some men) to participate in studies and surveys related to the disease. She’s committed to including LGBT people in her Army, as evidenced by a recent call for lesbian and bisexual volunteers for the “Variations in Health Needs of Breast Cancer Survivors Study.” You may also remember Dr. Love from her guest appearance on Season 3 of The L Word (or from her inclusion in my annual “Most Powerful Lesbian Moms in America” list).

This piece first appeared in October 2009.

Dr. Susan Love Recruits an LGBT Army Against Breast Cancer

“Breast cancer doesn’t have to go on to another generation,” said the renowned breast cancer advocate and surgeon Dr. Susan Love. “We can be the generation that stops it.” Love is recruiting a one-million strong “Army of Women” (and some men) to do just that. Love, an out lesbian, is also committed to making the LGBT community an integral part of the effort. 

She and her Dr. Susan Love Research Foundation launched the pioneering initiative in 2008 with funding from the Avon Foundation. Now, 311,000 people have signed up [360,000 as of October 2011], agreeing to receive e-mail updates from the Army of Women about breast cancer studies looking for volunteers. Some studies might involve only a simple questionnaire. Others could require blood, urine, or milk samples. Some could involve clinical trials, although most will not. If a person fits the criteria and wants to take part in a particular study, she clicks a link to respond. There is no obligation to participate in any of them.

One thing that makes Love’s Army unique is the large number of healthy women taking part. Eighty percent of members have not had breast cancer and are not at high risk, Love says. Most previous studies of breast cancer, however, have been on women with cancer or on animals. Love believes that only by involving real women, with and without cancer, will we be able to determine how real women develop the disease. Currently, she said, “the risk factors that we look at only predict about 20 percent of breast cancer, which means we just don’t know what causes it.”

She thinks many are ready for a different approach, explaining, “The fact that in less than a year we have 311,000 signed up . . . shows me that there’s an enormous appetite out there for people to be involved in finding the solution.”

She added, “This October, everything is pink everywhere, and people are walking and running and buying products, but the question is, where’s the money going, and how is it changing things? . . . I think it’s really time for us to put our bodies on the line and say we’ll be part of answering these questions.”

As of October 2009, more than 11,000 Army volunteers have participated in 14 studies by approved independent scientists [50,000 volunteers in 52 studies as of October 2011]. “The [researchers] that have used it have been thrilled,” Love reported. “We’ve closed many studies in 24 hours that usually take them five or six years to recruit for. That means we get answers faster. That means you can do the research cheaper.”

It also makes it easier for researchers to study small subgroups of the population, including parts of the LGBT community. Looking at breast cancer in lesbians is one obvious avenue for research, but Love also wants to investigate the almost entirely unexplored area of breast cancer in transgender people. “I think there’s a wealth of information in studying that community,” she asserted. “That’s a community where you’ve taken different types of hormones that do affect breast cancer [in non-transgender women] at different times in life, and nobody’s really studied what does that do to the breast tissue [of transgender people]. Are they at risk? Aren’t they at risk? We have no idea.”

Love wants to study the risks for both male-to-female transgender individuals as well as female-to-male individuals who have not had their breast tissue removed. Additionally, she would like to find funding to study the breast tissue of those who have had it removed after taking testosterone for some time.

Love also wants to determine the risk factors for breast cancer in non-transgender men, which occurs about 2000 times a year in the U.S. She is working with the John W. Nick Foundation, which promotes male breast cancer awareness, to actively recruit men to the Army. “Nobody’s really been able to track male breast cancer before, because it’s not that common,” she said. “By doing it through the Internet, we can probably have the biggest cohort of male breast cancer survivors without too much trouble.”

By looking at these subgroups, Love says, we might be able to discover hints about the causes of breast cancer that get washed out when looking at the broader population. That could have benefits beyond the smaller groups alone.

Until causes and cures are found, however, breast cancer is still a threat. For LGBT people who are diagnosed, Love advises being out to our doctors. “If the doctor has a problem with that,” she said, “then you want to know and get another doctor, because it’s bad for your health to be worrying about what’s going to leak out or what they’re going to think while you’re trying to deal with something as serious as cancer.”

She also offers some general advice: “The important thing to know about breast cancer is it’s not just one disease. If you get diagnosed with breast cancer, it’s really critical to not rush into anything, to take a deep breath, to get all the information.” Tests can now show what type of cancer it is, which will determine the best treatment.

Love feels her Army could have an impact on overall health care reform in our country, too, by providing a model for the type of research that could be done with electronic medical records. She also notes that because of the influence of pharmaceutical companies, attacking breast cancer has largely centered around drugs and treatments, with new ones piling on old. “All of those treatments have significant side effects,” she said. “Changing the aim to finding the cause is a more public-health way to approach things.”

The benefits may not be in breast cancer alone. “If we have a million people giving us their information,” Love said, “then it would be a crime if we just looked at breast cancer. . . . But we’re starting out with that. That’s certainly my claim to fame, so I can recruit people on that, and then we’ll go from there.”

Queer people will play an important role, regardless, Love insisted. “The LBGT community has been in the forefront of most major health movements. I think we can do it again.”

Find out more about the Army of Women at armyofwomen.org.

I’ve often wondered about this myself, since I am a Jewish mom (albeit a non-observant one) who donated an egg to my shiksa wife in order to create our child. I like to think that might befuddle a few Talmudic scholars. In her article, Susan explores the strands of heritage and identity and comes up with a conclusion that I like a lot. I won’t spoil the punchline, but I will quote one of my favorite lines from her piece, “Occasionally, the responsibility and the sheer work involved in creating our own path forward feel overwhelming, but it’s necessary work if we want our children to make informed, responsible decisions about their lives, rather than simply deferring to unexamined authority.”

Wise words for all, whether related to Judaism or to any other religion or culture.

If that’s not enough, Susan is doing a giveaway in association with the article. Go visit Mama Non Grata for details. You could win a free copy of the whole issue of Lilith in which her article appears. (If you don’t win, never fear. You can still read her article online.)

Susan is also one of the editors of the fantastic collection of essays And Baby Makes More: Known Donors, Queer Parents, and Our Unexpected Families. Highly recommended. (Here’s my review of it, if you need more convincing.)

I am a member of the Amazon Associates program, and get a small referral fee from all purchases made at Amazon.com via links on this site. You are under no obligation to purchase through them.

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.

These families also represent greater geographic, racial/ethnic, and socioeconomic diversity than is often seen in the media. 

The findings, by demographer Dr. Gary Gates of the Williams Institute at UCLA, appear in “Family formation and raising children among same-sex couples,” published in the Winter 2011 National Council of Family Relations Report.

Gates has analyzed data from several population-based surveys, including Census 2000, the 2008 General Social Survey, and the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey.

Data from Census 2000 showed that 17 percent of same-sex couples were raising children. That rose to 19 percent in 2006, but fell to 16 percent in 2009.

Gates said the decline may be because fewer lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) people are becoming parents at a young age while in opposite-sex relationships. Declining social stigma means LGB people are coming out earlier and are thus less likely to have children with previous opposite-sex partners (although a good per still do). Gates wrote, “These declines may be outpacing increases in adoptive parenting and parenting using reproductive technologies.”

But the decline in percentages hides an increase in the total number of same-sex couples raising children, however, from 63,000 couples in Census 2000 to 110,000 couples in Census 2010. This increase may be partly because more couples are reporting themselves in Census data, Gates said.

The percentage of same-sex couples with children who have adopted some or all of their children also nearly doubled between 2000 and 2009, rising from 10 percent to 19 percent.

And despite what Gates called “a common contemporary media image of gay parenting: wealthy, urban, and White gay men raising an adopted child,” 20 percent of children raised by same-sex couples live in poverty, versus 9.4 percent of children being raised by opposite-sex married couples.

Additionally, African-Americans in same-sex couples are 2.4 times more likely to be parents than Whites are, Latinos and Latinas 1.7 times more likely, and American Indians/Alaska Natives 1.5 times more likely, Gates has found.

The socioeconomic and racial demographics are not new news (Gates has written about it before), but bear repeating.

Also worth remembering, as Gates reminds us in his latest paper, is that same-sex parents live in every part of the country. The highest percentage of same-sex couples with children live in the South—not what one might expect.

Gates noted that “many same-sex couples raising children live in states with legal environments that at best are not supportive and at worst are openly hostile toward LGB individuals and their families.”

What to do about that?  The “All Children Matter” report that came out last October (about which more here) has some good suggestions.

Gates also called on scholars and statistical agencies “to do a better job of collecting data about LGBT individuals and their families,” echoing an Institute of Medicine report from March 2011.