[event] Queers of Color Coffee (11/7 @ 6PM at Amer's)

From Bayrex,

Hi all,

As a gay Puertorrican currently living as a law student in Michigan, I can attest to the fact that intersectionality can be a bitch. Our sensible and brilliant Outleaders agree, and thus we've decided to organize a modest - yet divine - get-together for all queers of color!*

WHAT: An event where Queers of Color can come together and discuss the struggles and richness of living the law as a less-than-easily-reducible individual.

WHEN: Monday, November 7 @ 6:00 PM

WHERE: Amer's (or, "Amer's Delicatessen") on 611 Church St. (link to map)

WHY: I'll be there, and someone else will be paying for coffee. So, why NOT?

Seriously, this will be a great opportunity to discuss issues that are often oversimplified and overlooked in law school: identity, diversity, and a sense of truly belonging. Plus, who doesn't miss a nice coffee-shop post-structuralist debate?

Have a great week, and see you next Monday!

Bayrex

(*The "qpOC," get it? President Mackenzie Allen's biggest fan came up with that
one...)

[event] 1L Career Panel (11/3 @ 12:20 in 118HH)

1Ls: What Kind Of Lawyer Do You Want To Be?

Come take advantage of in-house networking!

This Thursday, Career Services, veteran Outlaws, and friends have generously donated their time to talk to YOU about how to get a meaningful gig during your 1L summer.

Don't stay in the dark about this process.


Thursday, Nov. 3rd
12:20 - 1:20, Rm. 118 (Note: Room changed from 138)
(Food will be served)

[event] 2nd General Meeting (11/2 @ 6:30pm in 218HH)

Dear Outlaws,

On Wednesday, November 2 at 6:30 pm in 218 HH we will have a General Membership Meeting.

Food WILL BE SERVED.

Hot Topics include, but are not limited to:

• Paul will chat about his amazing work at GMHC funded by the Perry Watkins fellowship.
  
• We will be discussing what our response should be to Fred Phelps' visit to UM to protest the Laramie Project, if any.
  
• We need to elect a 1L, 2L, and 3L Mr. Wolverine contender.

See you there!

[news] Alaska is Cold Like Michigan

Thanks to Google News, my favorite hobby is reading the headlines for a story from 32,320,921 different sources. All of these headlines about the Alaska Supreme Court's recent same-sex benefits ruling seem to be starting from a different base line. None of them mention that a UMLS alum wrote the opinion.


Fox News
Alaskan Judge Protects Benefits for Same-Sex Couples (link)

ABC News
Alaska High Court Backs Partner Benefits (link)

American Chronicle
Alaska State Supreme Court Enforces Equal Benefits for Same Sex (link)

Anchorage Daily News
High court ends ban on benefits (link)

KTUU, Alaska
Governor "outraged" by court's ruling on same sex benefits (link)

Washington Times
Same-sex benefits OK'd in Alaska (link)

[news] Unintended Consequences: Texas Bans All Marriage

In honor of clever arguments, I'm going to begin collecting CLEVER ARGUMENTS against state and local bans on same-sex marriage. I begin with a doozey from Texas.

The Statute:

H.J.R. No. 6

A JOINT RESOLUTION proposing a constitutional amendment providing that marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman.

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

Sec. 32. (a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.

(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.

The Cleverness:
Opponents to the amendment point out that (b) does not ban same-sex marriage, but actually creates an identity class of which marriage is a member--and then bans the whole class. Literalists would have to concede that a mix-couple marriage is "identical or similar to marriage," and therefore invalid. (link to article)

Clever Rating:
3/5.

Why it won't convince anybody:
Because no court in Texas is going to allow a poorly crafted statute to dissolve all marriages--even if, logically, that's what the statute claims to be doing. Even a strict literalist would dodge around this and say that (a)'s claim that "marriage ... shall consist" presupposes that marriages still exist after the statute is enacted. You interpret to fit your needs: that's what this legal game is all about.

[opinion] Judge Janice Law is Probably Wrong

A quick biography of a woman I knew nothing about ten minutes ago: Judge Janice Law was born in Flint, Michigan (yes, just like Michael Moore). She attended the University of Michigan (and then presumably completed law school at Nova (in Ft. Lauderdale). She is currently a visiting judge at county courts in Houston, Texas, in the same building where I did my summer internship (though I don't recall ever having seen her). It is reported that she, for a while, wore surgical gloves in court to avoid touching papers which criminal defendants had touched (link to article). She now presides bare-handed.

I'll probably never read Judge Law's new book Sex Appealed: Was the U.S. Supreme Court Fooled? (link to amazon). I have, however, read a few articles (link to article) on conservative and religious news sites that talk about it, and--since I predict the book could turn into a talking point for pundits--I'd like to beat them to the one point that drove me insane. Namely, this:

What [Judge Law] the journalist-turned-prosecutor-turned-judge-turned-journalist found, after interviewing most of the key players [in the Lawrence case], including those in the Texas homosexual subculture that produced the case, is that the Supreme Court, possibly for the first time in history, ruled on a case "with virtually no factual underpinnings."

What? That's not even historically accurate. Facial challenges to statutes can be achieved without any facts at all--you can seek declaratory and injunctive relief if you can show that you're in the class of persons sought to be regulated by the statute.

Judge Law seems to be alleging that Lawrence was a conniving trick by homosexual fiends to force the Supreme Court to deal with the issue. The article continues:

When the Supreme Court decided to hear the challenge to Texas anti-sodomy laws in 2002, the only facts for the high court to review were Deputy Joseph Richard Quinn's 69-word, handwritten, probable cause affidavits – written within hours of the arrests of the three principals in the case Sept. 17, 1998.

There had been no trial. There had been no stipulations to facts by the state or the defendants. The defendants simply pleaded no contest at every phase of the proceedings. It was quite simply the misdemeanor dream case homosexual activists in Texas and nationwide had been dreaming about. Or had they done more than dream about it? Had they schemed about it, too?

The article concludes:

If the Lawrence case were known to be a setup during the five years following the arrests, then the defendants would not have a right-to-privacy claim, and the U.S. Supreme Court probably would never hear the case.

Now, I'm just a law student. I don't know much, and I pretend to know a lot less than I do, but I still don't think this is right. Either she's saying there was no standing, or she's saying that the Lawrence decision somehow depended on the fact that Lawrence and Geddes were involuntarily caught in the act.

As to standing, there's no issue: if you break a law and get caught, you have standing. It doesn't matter why you broke the law or why you got caught. There's no clearer case or controversy than being in jail.

So, she's got to be saying that the Supreme Court would have ruled differently if they had known it was a staged test case. I think she's misrepresenting the idea of "right to privacy," though. I think she's saying, "Inviting the cops into your home waives your right to privacy," because she thinks privacy means "the ability to do something in secret."

I don't think that's what privacy means at all. I think it means "the ability to do some things without the government interfering." And if that's true, inviting the cops into your home to watch you have intercourse would not waive your right to "privacy" at all, just as inviting the cops to the drug store to watch you buy contraceptives would not have waived your right to privacy in Griswold v. Connecticut.

What I really think Judge Law, or at least this article, wanted to say was that homosexuals are sneaky and conniving and will stop at nothing to force their agenda upon the entire world--even resorting to staging faux controversies in order to bring the perfect case before the court.

Some of the most famous civil rights stories in history were staged: Miss Rosa Parks was a secretary for the NAACP; the lunch counter sit-ins of the 1960s weren't held because somebody wanted a sandwich. These scenes were crafted to avoid any judicial wiggling, to hit the issue right on the head and avoid rulings on other grounds.

I don't know if Lawrence was a test case or not, but I do know that it was nearly perfect. That's not sinister, that's good lawyering.

[Event] Same-Sex Relationships within Jewish Text

Save the Date: Same-Sex Relationships within Jewish Text
Wednesday, November 2nd - 7pm at Temple Beth Emeth.

Jonathan & David, Ruth & Naomi- what have scholars said and what can be seen in the Hebrew scripture regarding these relationships?

All are invited to join us for enlightening exploration of these relationships.
This text study will be followed by a dessert reception.

Sponsored by Twice Blessed, a new TBE group committed to meeting the unique needs of the Jewish Gay, Lesbian, Bi-sexual, and Transgender community.

[news] Do You Bite Your Thumb at Scalia, Kansas?

Kansas's Supreme Court ruled that the state's "Romeo and Juliet" law can't be limited only to opposite-sex couples. Justice Marla Luckert stuck to Lawrence, saying, "Moral disapproval of a group cannot be a legitimate state interest."

When the Romeo and Juliet statute applies, prison terms are shorter and other consequences, such as postrelease supervision periods and sex offender registration requirements, are less harsh than when general rape, sodomy, and lewd touching statutes apply. Because these disparities are based upon the homosexual nature of Limon's conduct, he argues the Romeo and Juliet statute creates a classification which violates the equal protection principles announced by the United States Supreme Court. Limon suggests we apply a strict level of scrutiny when reviewing his claim, but asserts that even if the rational basis test applies, under the guidance of Lawrence, the classification bears no rational relationship to legitimate State interests.

We agree that the United States Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence controls our analysis and, when considered in conjunction with several equal protection decisions of the United States Supreme Court, requires us to hold that the State does not have a rational basis for the statutory classification created in the Romeo and Juliet statute.

This opinion is interesting because it's an Equal Protection analysis (as opposed to the Due Process reasoning in Lawrence). Quoting Scalia's dissent from Lawrence, the Kansas court says, "If, as the [United States Supreme] Court asserts, the promotion of majoritarian sexual morality is not even a legitimate state interest," the statute cannot "survive rational-basis review." Much to Scalia's chagrin (I suspect), this court agrees.

(link to opinion)

(link to article)

[news] UMLS Alumnus Files Civil Rights Suit

Michael Silverman, the Founder and Executive Director of the Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund who spoke on the Career Services' job panel this past Tuesday, just filed a lawsuit on behalf of three women barred admission to a night club in New York City:

(link to article)

[News] NLGLA Supports UNITE HERE

From the NLGLA.

As many of you know, NLGLA leadership has been negotiating with the leadership of UNITE HERE, the union spearheading a recent secondary boycott of the Westin Horton Plaza Hotel in San Diego, where Lavender Law 2005 is being held. I am pleased to report that we have reached a final and successful resolution with UNITE HERE.

As one part of that resolution, NLGLA has issued a statement (below) in support UNITE HERE's goals. UNITE HERE understands that a confluence of factors (outlined in the statement) prohibit NLGLA from moving the conference without jeopardizing the future of both the conference and the association. However, NLGLA has worked with UNITE HERE to ensure that the Westin Horton Plaza and its parent company, Starwood Hotels and Resorts, are

aware that NLGLA is deeply dissatisfied that the union dispute has not been resolved in a timely manner. UNITE HERE's leadership has guaranteed us that our conference will proceed without incident.

We appreciate having had the benefit of input from UNITE HERE's leadership as to how NLGLA could be supportive of its efforts short of cancellation of Lavender Law 2005. We look forward to working together in the future to achieve our common goals, beginning with empowering our movement's legal professionals with a fantastic conference next week.

See you in San Diego.

- NLGLA

STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL LESBIAN AND GAY LAW ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT OF UNITE HERE BOYCOTT OF WESTIN HORTON PLAZA


The National Lesbian and Gay Law Association (NLGLA) wants attendees, speakers, and special guests at Lavender Law 2005 to be aware of NLGLA's actions in support of the goals of UNITE HERE's boycott of the Westin Horton Plaza hotel in San Diego.

UNITE HERE has called for a boycott of numerous non-union hotels across the country to aid the struggle for fair contracts for hotel workers in San Francisco. NLGLA learned of this boycott close to two years after contracting with the Westin Horton Plaza to host the Lavender LawT 2005 Conference and only a few short months prior to the conference.

The late notice of the boycott, size of NLGLA's budget, and penalties built into NLGLA's contract with the Westin Horton Plaza, created circumstances under which NLGLA was unable to move Lavender Law to an alternative location without jeopardizing the future of both the conference and the organization.

While the Westin Horton Plaza is not directly involved in a labor dispute and only subject to the boycott by virtue of its association with its parent company, Starwood Hotels and Resorts, NLGLA profoundly regrets being unable to move its conference in support of UNITE HERE's efforts to assist their union brothers and sisters in San Francisco. NLGLA appreciates having had the benefit of input from UNITE HERE's leadership as to how NLGLA could be supportive of their efforts short of cancellation of Lavender Law 2005.

NLGLA supports the goals of UNITE HERE's boycott and labor unions in general, especially where the labor movement values diversity and opposes discrimination based upon sexual orientation and gender identity.

Out of a desire not to undermine the union's efforts, NLGLA leadership has worked with UNITE HERE representatives to ensure that both Starwood Hotels and Resorts and Westin Hotels are aware of NLGLA's deep dissatisfaction with the way they have chosen to conduct themselves in the labor dispute. NLGLA has strongly urged the Westin Horton Plaza Hotel management to insist that Starwood Hotels and Resorts speedily and fairly resolves the dispute with its unionized employees. A copy of the letter NLGLA sent to the hotel management can be found on NLGLA's website at: http//www.NLGLA.org/FAQ.html.

NLGLA does not, and has not ever, knowingly entered into an agreement with a hotel involved in an existing labor dispute. As long as the present dispute with Starwood Hotels and Resorts continues, NLGLA will not contract for services with boycotted properties.

Looking to the future, NLGLA has already contracted with a union hotel in Washington, DC to host Lavender Law 2006, and is glad to have the commitment of UNITE HERE to assist in making every effort to work together with friends in the labor movement toward common goals of fairness and equality.

[Event] National Pride at Work v. Granholm Discussion

Join ACLU Lead Attorney, Deborah Labelle and Professor & Plaintiff, Roderick Hills, as they discuss National Pride at Work v. Granholm recent decision that the November 2004 constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in the state of Michigan does not affect domestic partner benefits. To read Ingham County Circuit Court Judge Joyce Dragonchuk opinion prior to attending the panel, go (here)

When: October 20, 2005, 12:15-1:10
Where: 218 Hutchins Hall

[event] Solomon Amendment Meet and Greet

"Be nice, and don't tolerate discrimination."
--The Association of American Law Schools to its member schools.

"You're what? I'm sorry, we won't have use of your services."
--U.S. Military to a student interviewee.

"Ok, that's discrimination and you can't recruit on our campus."
--Law Schools to the U.S. Military.

"Ok, then you can't have federal funding."
--Solomon Amendment to the Law Schools.

"Hehe, just kidding."
--Law Schools to everyone involved.

"Wait, let's talk about this."
--Outlaws to anyone who will listen (2004).

"Ok, we're listening."
--US Supreme Court. Finally (2005).

OUTLAWS
SOLOMON AMENDMENT MEET AND GREET
Wednesday, Oct. 19th. 11:45 to 1:15pm. (in front of) HUTCHINS 100.
FREE COOKIES TO ONE AND ALL.
www.umoutlaws.org

[plug]: Michigan HRC Dinner

HRC Michigan Dinner- November 12th, 2005
Andiamo Celebrity Showroom 7096 E. 14 Mile Road Warren, MI 48092
VIP Reception at 5:00pm
Silent Auction and Reception at 6:00pm
Dinner and Program at 7:30pm
Dancing and Music to follow
Program to feature Joan Rivers, Donna Rose and HRC President, Joe Solmonese

get your tickets (here) or call 1-800-494-8497

[info] GLBT at UMLS (LSAC questions)

The University of Michigan Law School welcomes and encourages applications from LGBT applicants. In considering whether Michigan Law might be a good fit for you, you should consider Michigan's answers to the questions the Law School Admissions Council suggests LGBT applicants ask.

1. Does the law school have a nondiscrimination policy which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity? YES.

Nondiscrimination Policy

The University of Michigan, as an equal opportunity/affirmative action employer, complies with all applicable federal and state laws regarding nondiscrimination and affirmative action, including Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The University of Michigan is committed to a policy of nondiscrimination and equal opportunity for all persons regardless of race, sex, color, religion, creed, national origin or ancestry, age, marital status, sexual orientation, disability, or Vietnam-era veteran status in employment, educational programs and activities, and admissions. Inquiries or complaints may be addressed to the University's Director of Affirmative Action and Title IX/Section 504 Coordinator, Office for a Multicultural Community, 2072 Administrative Services Building, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1432, 734.763.0235, TTY 734.647.1388.

2. Does the law school have a lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered student organization? YES.

Student Organization Contact Information
Outlaws
University of Michigan Law School
625 South State Street
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
outlaws@umich.edu
www.umoutlaws.org

Outlaws' Objectives

• To add the voices of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender law students
  to the dialogue of the law school and university communities;
  
• To embrace and learn from our straight allies;
  
• To increase the visibility and involvement of our LGBT students of color;
  
• To provide a forum for gay, bisexual, transgender, and lesbian students to
  meet and form a community;
  
• To reach out to other organizations not traditionally allied with Outlaws;
  
• To extend support for closeted law students;
  
• To keep our members informed of events and queer rights issues outside of
  the law school; and
  
• To change the world, one openly queer lawyer at a time.

3. Does the law school have any openly lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered faculty members? YES.

Faculty Contact Information

Bruce W. Frier
Henry King Ransom Professor of Law
bwfrier@umich.edu

Professor Madeline Kochen
kochen@umich.edu
734.647.2622

4. Does the law school offer any courses specific to lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered legal issues? YES.

Course Titles and/or Descriptions

Sexual Orientation and the Law
This course will focus on recent developments in sexual orientation and the law, with particular emphasis on constitutional issues involving substantive due process, equal protection, and the First Amendment. Advanced constitutional problems will be examined both from a theoretical and a practical, litigator's perspective. Subjects covered will include the criminalization of consensual, same-sex sexual activity; discrimination in employment, parenting, and access to marriage; and the regulation of speech and association involving sexual orientation issues or gay people. The course will also consider the related topics of gender roles and gender identity in the law.

Family Law
Legal regulation of intimate and personal relationships and activities has undergone a great deal of change in the past four decades. In this course we will examine evolving doctrines underlying state regulation of the creation, management and dissolution of family relationships, and of related rights and obligations of the individual. We will pay particular attention to constitutional principles that circumscribe the states power and role in this area. We will explore how the meaning of family is shaped and contested, and how fundamental perceptions involving gender, religion, sexual orientation, class, etc., are reinforced or challenged, by the law of family relations. Topics to be covered include procreation and parenting, birth control and abortion, marriage and divorce, the rights of children, and new reproductive technologies.

5. Does the law school offer any form of domestic partnership benefits to faculty, staff, or students? YES.

Domestic Partnership Benefits

University of Michigan Same-Sex Domestic Partner Policy:
In September, 1993, the University of Michigan Board of Regents revised Regental By-Law 14.06 to read:
The University is committed to a policy of nondiscrimination and equal opportunity for all persons regardless of race, sex, color, religion, creed, national origin or ancestry, age, marital status, sexual orientation, disability, or Vietnam-era veteran status. The university is committed to equal and nondiscriminatory treatment for all faculty and staff in the administration of benefits programs, including the extension of benefits to same-sex domestic partners. For the purpose of this policy statement, any benefits, privileges, rights and responsibilities that accrue to spouses of university faculty and staff by virtue of their status as spouses will accrue to committed same-sex partners of university faculty and staff by virtue of their status as same-sex partners. For more information, visit:
www.umich.edu/~benefits/events/ssdp/index.htm.

If you are eligible for benefits at the University of Michigan, you can cover your same-sex domestic partner. To be eligible, you and your partner must:

• Be of the same sex; and
  
• Not be legally married to another individual; and
  
• Not be related to each other by blood in a manner that would bar marriage; and
  
• Have registered or declared the Domestic Partnership in the manner authorized by a municipality or other government entity; and
  
• Have allowed at least six months to pass since the dissolution of a previous same-sex domestic partnership in the manner authorized by a municipality or other government entity.

If you and your partner meet these criteria, you may add your partner to your eligible benefit plans which, depending on your appointment status, may include:

• Medical insurance
  
• Dental coverage
  
• Vision plan
  
• Legal plan
  
• Optional group life insurance coverage
  
• Flexible Spending Accounts*

* Due to IRS regulations, expenses of your domestic partner and/or your partner's children can be submitted for reimbursement under a FSA only if they qualify as eligible dependents that you can claim on your federal income tax return.

These benefits are not being offered to opposite-sex domestic partners since faculty, staff, and students can marry opposite-sex domestic partners and cover them under the university's benefit programs. In addition to coverage for a domestic partner, faculty and staff may also elect coverage for the qualified child(ren) of a domestic partner. The dependent child(ren) of a domestic partner are eligible for coverage
through the end of the month they turn 25 if they:

• Live primarily with you but may be temporarily away from home attending school or visiting the other parent; and
  
• Are claimed as a dependent on your or your partner's most recent income tax return; and
  
• Are not eligible for coverage through the university as an employee; and
  
• Are not already covered through the university as a dependent on another University employee's coverage.

6. Have there been any instances of harassment in recent years at the Law School? NO.

7. Would University housing be available for you and your partner? YES.

To qualify for Family Housing, http://www.housing.umich.edu/family/applying.html, students must be legally married or in a same-sex domestic
partnership (see City of Ann Arbor City Clerk's Office under Domestic Partnership forms).

[news] No Standing for Gays Say Judges Sitting

There are probably thirty law review articles about this (and this was the moot court case about two years ago), but here's the scoop anyway. A gay couple had a Vermont civil union. They moved to New York, and one of them died (presumably in a hospital). His partner went to court to sue for wrongful death.

Did he have standing?

One judge said yes, and it was appealed. The Appellate Division said no--but it was split 3-2. I'll have to read the opinions tomorrow--I'm terribly tired.

[EDIT]
After skimming the case, Langam v. St. Vincent's Hosp. of New York, 2005 WL 2542658 (N.Y.A.D. Oct. 10, 2005), here is the gist of the argument, since I know no one else is going to read it.

Majority:
The court sticks to strict statutory interpretation of the word "spouse," and dodges all equal protection issues by citing a 1971 Minnesota case, Baker v. Nelson, 291 Minn. 310 (1971), and dicta in Lawrence v. Texas. The Minnesota case says that (1) same-sex marriage is not supported by Minnesota statutes; (2) denying same-sex marriage does not offend due process; and (3) denying same-sex marriage does not offend equal protection. From Lawrence, the court specifically quotes O'Connor's concurrence, which states "... other reasons exist to promote the institution of marriage beyond mere moral disapproval of an excluded group" (Lawrence, at 585).

The court also cites its own Matter of Cooper, 187 A.D.2d 128 (NYAD 1993), which says that "purported [homosexual] marriages do not give rise to any rights ... pursuant to ... EPTL 5.1-1 [and that] [n]o constitutional rights have been abrogated or violated in so holding."

And finally, the court says that Vermont itself did not intend to equate civil unions with marriage, and that the decedent failed to even indicate he was married: he knew it wasn't a marriage. It then punts to the legislature, by saying "any contrary decision" to recognize this union as sufficient for spousal standing "would constitute a usurpation of powers expressly reserved by our Constitution to the Legislature." Reversed.

Dissent.
Judge Fisher says this case is not about "marriage." It is about what qualifies as a distributee under EPTL 5.1-1. And he goes through three or four arguments that he does not find convincing.

What he does find convincing, however, is the EP attack. Instead of brushing it aside to a Minnesota case (which was decided long before civil unions even existed), he states that no one is claiming this civil union is a marriage. The claim is that similarly situated individuals are being treated differently, and that there is no rational basis for this difference (textbook EP reasoning).

The similarly situated individuals are the married people and the civilly unioned folks. Both owe to one another a "legal[ly] enforceable obligation of mutual support," and therefore the death of one spouse causes economic injury to the other because "it results in the loss of an expectancy of future support created and guaranteed by law."

He then moves on to deciding whether there is a rational relationship between the state's interest in promoting marriage (stable families, tradition, etc.) and its refusal to allow standing for someone who has been deprived of guaranteed economic support through wrongful death. He points to two Supreme Court cases (not Minnesota cases): Levy v. Johnson, 391 US 68; and Glona v. American Guar. & Liab. Ins. Co., 391 US 73. Both cases were the birthplace of intermediate scrutiny for laws involving legitimacy (link to lii discussion), and both say that illegitimate children have as much standing in wrongful death cases as legitimate children: the state's interest in promoting legitimacy has no bearing on its interest in compensating victims for a tortfeasor's misdeeds.

He sees the same EP problem here. Promoting traditional families has no rational relationship to wrongful death standing.

[EDIT2]

Me.
What I think folks will say is "of course it has a rational relationship!" The link is that we don't want to create legal structures that encourage people to form same-sex relationships. We want the ease and pleasantry of married life to be relegated to those who follow our plan: man-woman marriage.

My second thought involves whether intermediate scrutiny is appropriate for gay rights cases. I don't know. Ideally, I want laws that discriminate on the basis of the respective genders of the parties (1) to be subjected to rational basis review, and (2) to fail.

(link to article)

[event] Transgender Day of Remeberance (11/20)

From our friends at TRANSFORUM:

7TH ANNUAL TRANSGENDER DAY OF REMEMBRANCE SUNDAY NOV. 20TH:

Across the nation observance of TDOR raises awareness of deadly anti-trans violence and honors the memory of people killed due to anti-transgender hatred or prejudice in the previous year. These events will be held in the University of Michigan’s Rackham Building at the corner of Washington and Fletcher streets. For more information please call the UM LGBTA Office at 763-4186.

5:30 pm
Remembering Our Dead memorial: in the Rackham Assembly Hall 4th floor.
Speakers to include historian and film director Dr. Susan Stryker. Followed by a public reading of the names and brief biographies of those being remembered, and a time for reflection by all particfipants. Light refreshments.

7:30 pm
Film Screening: "Screaming Queens: The Riot At Compton’s Cafeteria" in the Rackham Amphitheatre, 4th floor. Co-director and producer Dr. Susan Stryker will introduce the documentary and respond to questions following the screening.


These TDOR events are co-sponsored by:
The Transgender Advocacy Project of the Washtenaw Rainbow Action Project (WRAP), Transforum, and the UM Office of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Affairs (LGBTA)

[event] LGBT Career Panel (10/18 @ 12:15 in 218HH)

The Office of Career Services will sponsor a panel discussion on the issues LGBT students and lawyers may face in their job searches and in their jobs.

The panel consists of

• Judy Hudson ('88), a solo practitioner and advisor to an oil and gas energy company,
• Michael Silverman ('94), executive director of Transgender Legal Defense & Education Fund in NYC, and
• David Schrumpf ('85), currently working in-house in Detroit.

Come, ask questions, hear stories.

Tuesday, October 18, 12:15 p.m. - 1:15 p.m. in 218 HH.

[event] Same-Sex Benefits in Michigan Speakers (10/20 @ 12:15 in 218HH)

Join ACLU Lead Attorney, Deborah Labelle and Professor & Plaintiff, Roderick Hills, as they discuss National Pride at Work v. Granholm recent decision which held that the November 2004 constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in the state of Michigan does not affect domestic partner benefits.

(link to Ingham County Circuit Court Judge Joyce Dragonchuk's opinion here)

When: Thursday, October 20, 2005, 12:15-1:10
Where: 218 Hutchins Hall

Food will be served.

This event is co-sponsored by the Office of Public Service and Outlaws

[event] National Coming out WEEK

From our friends at the Office of LGBT Affairs

COMING OUT RESOURCES ON CAMPUS:


Fall Coming Out Group Starting This Wednesday

A weekly coming-out support group will begin Wednesday, October 12 and will meet on Wednesdays from 5:30-7:30 pm. This eight-week group will help participants explore a variety of coming-out issues. People of all genders and ages are welcome. Before joining, all participants must arrange to have a brief pre-screening meeting with Kevin Correa to ensure the group is right for them. To set up a meeting, please contact Kevin at kcorrea@umich.edu or 734.763.4186.

Gender Explorers: Social/support group for transgenders, transsexuals, cross-dressers, intersexed, those exploring their gender identities or simply falling outside of society's gender expectations.Gender Explorers is an open and affirming group hosted through the Office of Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Affairs. Allies - family, friends, and partners - are welcome.

Please contact pajeho@umich.edu for more information.



LIST OF EVENTS ON CAMPUS DURING NATIONAL COMING OUT WEEK:

Tuesday 10/11: National Coming Out Day!
Rally on the Diag
12-1 pm.

T-Shirt Making
6-8 pm. Hillel. RSVP to geitner@umich.edu by 10/08/2005. Sponsored by Ahava.

Anna Camilleri: Feminist Siren, Cultural Agitator and Fabulous Femme 8-10 pm. Henderson Room, Michigan League. Critically acclaimed performer and author Anna Camilleri will present a one-woman, multimedia performance in celebration of National Coming Out Day. Sponsored by the Office of LGBT Affairs.

---

Wednesday 10/12

Color Splash
4-6 pm. Trotter Multicultural Center. A social for LGBTQ and Same Gender Loving folks of Color and their Allies. Join us for a lite reception and great company. Sponsored by the Office of Multi-Ethnic Student Affairs and the Office of LGBT Affairs.

Legislative Ambiguity: Effects on the LGBTA Rights Movement
7-9 pm. Kalamazoo Room, Michigan League. The Stonewall Democrats present a panel discussion focusing on the interpretations of Smith vs. Salem and the recently decided National Pride at Work vs. Granholm and what their implications are on the LGBTA community. Will the rulings hold? Can you really interpret "sex" to include gender identity and gender expression? Sponsored by Stonewall Democrats.

8-12pm: The gayest trivia night ever! (sponsored by Lambda Grads)
Leopold Brothers, 21+. Come to Leopold Bros and flex some mental muscle for big prizes!

---

Thursday 10/13

Staff/Faculty Happy Coffee Hour
5-6 pm. Beanster's Cafe, Michigan League. Join the staff of LGBTA for LGBT and Friends Staff/Faculty Happy Coffee Hour! A great way to meet your colleagues! Sponsored by the Office of LGBT Affairs.

Gender "who-gives-a-darn" Game Night
7 pm. Office of LGBT Affairs, 3200 Michigan Union. Sponsored by LGBT Commission.

---

Friday 10/14

Outlaws sponsored gathering at Aut Bar 8-10 pm. A portion of the proceeds will benefit LGBT survivors of Hurricane Katrina.

[note] An Open Letter to the UMLS Student Body

Written by our PAC Chair, Steve.

Dear Colleagues,

Tomorrow, Tuesday, October 11 marks the eighteenth anniversary of the March on Washington for Gay and Lesbian Rights, during which over a half a million people gathered in support of providing equality under the law to people of all sexual orientations.

Since 1988, gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender communities nationwide have commemorated this historic event by organizing National Coming Out Day, which now serves as a reminder that revealing one’s sexual orientation openly is both an arduous and continuous process. The act of coming out is not completed in a single day; it is a lifelong process that requires LGBT people to make frequent decisions about whether to come out to someone new. Coming out decisions must be made in the workplace, with a health care provider, in a place of worship, and even with classmates and professors. Coming out is a daily endeavor.

Equally important is recognizing that National Coming Out Day is also meant to persuade people to come out as supportive, accepting straight allies of the LGBT community. Significant assistance from straight allies is a necessity in the fight for equal rights for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender individuals.

Outlaws encourages everyone to stop by the table outside of Hutchins Hall Room 100 tomorrow between 11:15 and 1:15 to pick up information about coming out and how to be an effective ally to the queer community. Buttons and other materials will also be distributed so that Michigan Law School can visibly display their support for the queer community, a group which remains - eighteen years after the first National Coming Out Day - subject to discrimination under local, state, and federal law.

Please come out and show your support.

Sincerely,

UMLS Outlaws
www.outlaws.org

[news] Giving Insurance to Same Sex Couples is "A Perversity"

A Michigan state senator recently wrote in a constituent letter:

"Homosexual and lesbian unions under any arrangement does not, and never will, constitute a family. ... Simply put, no homosexual or lesbian union is ever appropriate; rather, it is utter perversity."

...

"A legitimate family, as ordained by God, can only exist between a man and a woman within the context of marriage. ... As a committed Christian, I recognize this as a bedrock principle."

His argument was meant to defend why the state shouldn't allow same-sex partner benefits until courts had a chance to rule on the issue. Of course, God apparently doesn't have a problem with insurance for liars, idolaters, people who work on the Sabbath, or any of those things. As usual, God does the heavy lifting in an argument that otherwise makes no sense at all.

When asked to apologize for the comment, he said, "[Gay people] should apologize for their lifestyle and tolerating something so terrible. ... The lifestyle, the act itself, it is utterly perverse. It's not natural."

::sigh:: Ok. So?

(link to article)

[opinion] Heat of Passion

Since Steve and Kyle both brought up manslaughter heat-of-passion type defenses for straight men who find themselves in a romantic encounter with a gay man, I'd like to do some thought experiments.

A heat-of-passion defense is available for times when you find your wife in bed with another man, or get in an amazingly heated argument with your abusive husband, and things like that (the list is relatively limited, but not exhaustive). The idea is that you didn't have malice aforethought (in advance) and therefore aren't guilty of actual murder. You've committed a less serious crime, because you were forced into violence by the situation.

I call bullshit. I tend to lean toward the Mulatto Bob approach, which says that "no time is too short for a wicked man to frame in his mind a scheme for murder, and to contrive the means of accomplishing it." But, unfortunately, the courts don't agree with me: they say that there are provocations which are "calculated to inflame the passion of a reasonable man and tend to cause him to act for the moment from passion rather than reason." (Girouard v. State, 583 A.2d 718 (Md. 1991).

An act without reason cannot be murder, since murder requires malice aforethought.

In homicides, there are usually only two witnesses to the crime: one of them can't be made to testify, and one of them is dead. In such an unfortunate situation, we get very little information about the defendant's actual state of mind at the time of the killing. Luckily, we don't need to know what really happened: we can drag the "reasonable man" before the court and ask jurors to imagine: what would the reasonable man have felt in this situation?

This is the heart of the heat-of-passion defense. Through a mix of jury instructions and admitted testimony and overruled objections, the court allows the story to be told that a reasonable man in this situation might find himself in a heat-of-passion, unable to control his impulses or unable to countenance the consequences of his deeds. The jury then gets to decide if the defendant was following the lead of that reasonable man, and--if so--that defendant is not guilty of murder at all.

So, here are the thought experiments. What would the reasonable man feel in these situations? Would he be able to control his rage? If he killed, would we entertain the suggestion that he just couldn't help it?

(A) A guy meets a pretty girl at a bar and she has an expensive purse, designer shoes and flashy jewelry. He's pretty hard up for cash due to a medical debt, and thinks, "This is the one. If only she'd marry me, I'd be able to have my surgery and live an extra five years." She offers to let him walk her home. The whole way he thinks about how great it's going to be when they're legally married and have joint bank accounts. They arrive at her apartment and it's a dump. In the streetlight he realizes that her Gucci is a Fucci and--in an uncontrollable rage, he stabs her twenty times with a rusty pair of scissors.

Can financial disappointment trigger heat of passion?

(B) Same guy meets a pretty girl in the bar and walks her home. The whole way, he's looking forward to spending time with the most beautiful woman he's ever seen. Under the same streetlight he realizes she's actually quite homely--her eyes are different sizes and she has ogre breath. In an uncontrollable rage, he stabs her twenty times with a rusty pair of scissors.

Can misapprehension of physical attractiveness trigger heat of passion?

(C) Same guy meets a beautiful girl--only this time she really is quite beautiful. He walks her home, with all the same thoughts about spending time with a lovely and kind woman. Under the streetlight, he notices the name on her mailbox. It's his mother's maiden name. He mentions it. Three minutes later they realize they are siblings. In an uncontrollable rage, he stabs her twenty times with a rusty pair of scissors.

Can mistaken potential for sexual encounter trigger heat of passion?

(D) Same guy. Jewish girl turns out to be Greek. Scissors.

(E) Same guy. Girl with fake breasts. Scissors.

(F) Same guy. Girl is a guy. Scissors.

Maybe the trick is that they had already begun engaging in sexual activity. So, at what point would the reasonable man be unable to control his rage at a man dressed like a woman?

(A) Standing close in the bar. Scissors.
(B) Kissing in the bar. Scissors.
(C) Kissing on the street corner. Scissors.
(D) Second base in her apartment. Scissors.
(E) Third base. Scissors.
(F) Home run. Scissors.
(G) After the fact? Scissors?

The underlying question is whether intentionally killing someone is ever reasonable. I'm inclined to say no. Therefore, I think the reasonable man would say, "Whoa, wait a minute--this isn't what I thought I was getting myself into. Goodbye, and no don't call me." To be enraged because someone misrepresented their gender (a misrepresentation which I think, for the purposes of tricking someone into having sex with you, is ethically reprehensible) is not reasonable. Killing someone for misrepresenting their gender is more akin to revenge killing than heat-of-passion killing. It deserves no slack in our criminal system.

Of course, maybe I'm the unreasonable one here. I'm gay, so I'm used to gender-benders. I've probably got more education than is healthy. I'm in law school. I also believe that it takes only a moment for an evil man to frame in his mind a scheme for murder. It would take longer than that to find a pair of scissors.

[news] Man Gets 4 Years in Prison for Trans Slaying

FRESNO, Calif. - Four years isn't much time to spend behind bars for stabbing a man 20 times, but that's what one man got for a killing in Fresno, Calif., last year, after a blind date in a bar went terribly wrong.

(link to article)

[note] Perry Watkins Fellowship! (due 12/2 @ 5:00pm)

Perry Watkins Fellowship

The University of Michigan Law School, 2006

Purpose:
The University of Michigan Law School established the Perry Watkins Fellowship as a means to ameliorate the effects of the Solomon Amendment. Whereas military employment opportunities are foreclosed to openly LGBT Michigan Law students, the Perry Watkins Fellowship offers an opportunity for all Michigan Law students to work on behalf of LGBT causes.

The Fellowship will be awarded to a qualified student who obtains a summer internship promoting LGBT rights. The Fellowship is named in honor of Perry Watkins, a courageous and openly gay military officer who challenged the exclusionary precursor to the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy and, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, won reinstatement to the Army.

Who Can Apply: 1Ls and 2Ls (Please note: You do not have to have a job secured to apply for the fellowship--just list the organization(s) you are hoping to work for.)

What is the Amount of the Fellowship: $3,500

Selection Criteria Process:
The selection committee, made up of faculty and staff shall look to the following criteria in selecting the Perry Watkins fellow:

1. The applicant must work on LGBT legal issues for a nonprofit organization for a minimum of 10 weeks during the summer.
   
2. The applicant must demonstrate a commitment to LGBT issues.
   
3. The applicant must demonstrate a commitment to public service or social justice issues.
   
4. The applicant must demonstrate a significant commitment to the law school community.

Application Deadline is December 2, 2005 at 5 p.m.

(link to application)

[warning] Gay Guys: Don't hit on a straight boy in the wrong jurisdiction

Here's an good, older (1995) Dressler article about the provocation defense (which I just learned about today in CrimLaw!). Is it an excuse or a justification or neither when a hetero guy kills a hopeful homo? Read it for yourself on Lexis or West:

When "HETEROSEXUAL" Men Kill "HOMOSEXUAL" Men: Reflections On Provocation Law, Sexual Advances, and the "REASONABLE MAN" Standard, 85 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 726.

[hooray!] LGBT History Month!

October is LGBT history month! It's time to learn all about our queer heritage/lineage/ancestry.

Here's a great link to a timeline about LGBT history in SoCal. It is fascinating and nicely designed and relevant to everyone, even those of us in Michigan!

www.lgbthistory.org

Here's another more light-hearted timeline looking at LGBT history:

http://www.trikkx.com/history1.html

Here's a slightly more academic timeline:

http://www.lavenderlibrary.org/announcements/Timeline.html

Enjoy!

[news] Miers Conceded Civil Rights Exist

I'm sure the big question on every gay person's mind is "Does this 60-year-old, single lady with no kids like me?" The answer seems to be that sixteen years ago she really didn't care much one way or the other. In 1989 she did, however, say that gay folks should have the same civil rights as everyone else. This is not a bold statement.

(link to article)

[story] Dan Savage is Pretty Cool

Last night a bunch of us who happen to live in the Lawyer's Club went to see Dan Savage, universally acclaimed author and syndicated columnist, speak in a dank auditorium on campus. He was really funny, and later at the /aut bar/ he bought our dear friend William a piece of cake for his birthday. We all sang.

He was in town touting his book The Commitment (link to amazon), which, along with funny stories about marriage and parenting, also had an interesting argument in it. I don't know that the argument is originally his, but it is still something to think about.

It goes...

(1) Gay people can already get married in a church with their families and friends, if they want to--with all the commitment and monogamy of a straight marriage.

(2) If you corner most people who are fighting for traditional family values, they'll eventually admit that they don't care if a gay guy designates his partner as his next-of-kin for insurance policies and all that.

(3) Therefore, anti-gay-marriage folks are fighting to keep us from getting something we already have, and don't really mind if we get the things that we really want.

And I guess my conclusion from that is that this anti-gay-marriage thing is an unstable philosophy and will topple as soon as people realize how dumb it is.