A short description about your blog
Current research suggests that domestic violence among same-sex partners occurs at the same level as that of heterosexual couples. Although the vast majority of states are gender-neutral when it comes to protecting victims of domestic abuse, seven states explicitly exclude same-sex partners from domestic violence protection. Louisiana is among the latter group. The definition of a “household member” to whom the domestic abuse protections apply, is provided in Louisiana Revised Statute 46:2132 as “any person of the opposite sex presently or formerly living in the same residence with the defendant as a spouse, whether married or not, who are seeking protection under this Part.”
According to a decades-old statute (which was among the first of its kind) Louisiana law provides for a procedure whereby transgendered individuals may petition the Court to have their birth certificate changed to reflect their post-sex reassignment surgery gender. While the statue is rather simplistic in its form and requirements, the procedure, in practice, is not without its difficulties.
Take the case of “Ross“ for example, who after completing sex reassignment surgery, now goes by the name of “Rose.” Rose desires to have all of her identification, including her Louisiana driver’s license, birth certificate, and passport, reflect her chosen name and current gender. Louisiana Revised Statute 40:62 requires that Rose file a petition against the Louisiana State Registrar Department of Vital Records, as well as the district attorney in either the parish of her birth, or in the parish where she currently resides. The statute states that the “court shall require such proof as it deems necessary to be convinced that the petitioner was properly diagnosed as a transsexual or pseudo-hermaphrodite, that sex reassignment or corrective surgery has been properly performed upon the petitioner, and that as a result of such surgery and subsequent medical treatment the anatomical structure of the sex of the petitioner has been changed to a sex other than that which is stated on the original birth certificate of the petitioner.”
Apparently, Michael Jackson was able to accomplish seven years ago, what many individuals never do - he took the time to execute a Last Will and Testament. It has been estimated that some 66% of Americans do not have a Will. Say, Say, Say, what you must about the King of Pop, but had he not had the wherewithal to make his wishes known in the proper form, the consequences could have been devastating.
I will not conjecture about the effect that his dying intestate would have had on his estate and his children under California law, but will explore the probabilities of the “fall-out“ under Louisiana law.
According to his Will, Michael left his entire estate to the Michael Jackson Family Trust, which had been established a few months before he signed his Will.
I contemplated on foregoing the following blog, but because my previous one concentrated on the current legislative session, my conscience compelled me to address the issue. Not only does it effect GLBTI individual in the State, but ALL Louisiana citizens.
Have you seen the latest in entertainment provided to our esteemed legislature? On June 24th, Representative Barbara Norton of Shreveport took the floor of the Louisiana House of Representatives to introduce her Godson, “Hurricane Chris,” a Shreveport twenty year old rapper who has recently gained some notoriety for his hit, “Halle Berry (She’s Fine).” Norton, speaking to her fellow legislators, offered, “I know all you all out there mens know about ‘fine’, cause ya‘ll do it all the time…don‘t act like you ain’t never heard of it.”
Proponents of House Bill 60 tout the bill as a “clarification” of existing law regarding Louisiana’s Vital Records Registry. However, what HB60 actually does, is give the Vital Records Registry the authority to deny those adoptive parents (recognized by other states) the right to obtain a Louisiana birth record listing both parents on the child’s birth certificate. HB 60, distilled to its purest essence, is basically an effort by the Louisiana Legislature to circumvent the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution. (Judge Jay C. Zainey recently ordered Vital Records to honor the Full Faith and Credit Clause, and issue a new birth certificate to an out-of-state same-sex couple, listing both men as parents. His decision has been appealed.)
New Hampshire, whose state motto is “Live Free or Die”, has taken its place as the sixth state to allow same-sex marriage. After numerous revisions and several votes, the state’s legislature presented a bill to Governor John Lynch which he agreed to sign into law.
The law, which is scheduled to take effect January 1, 2010, follows in the footsteps of sister states, with similar language protecting religious groups, organizations, and their employees, from lawsuits. The majority of the legislature’s debate centered around the degree to which the state would hold religious organizations responsible for their right to refuse services to same-sex marriage candidates. The preamble to the bill reads,” Each religious organization, association, or society has exclusive control over its own religious doctrine, policy, teachings and beliefs regarding who may marry within their faith.”
New York and Rhode Island are currently considering bills that would allow same-sex marriage.
Currently, Louisiana law does not permit unmarried couples, regardless of sexual orientation, to adopt a child. Louisiana Children’s Code Article 1198 dictates that a single individual, or a married couple jointly, may petition the Court for adoption.
Review the following rather common scenario in differently-sexed couples: John and Lisa are married. Two years later, Lisa gives birth to a baby girl, Chloe. Shortly thereafter, John and Lisa are divorced. John no longer wants to have anything to do with his child (no contact, no child support, etc. for the next six months). One year later, Lisa meets David and the two marry. Lisa and Baby Chloe are well provided for by David. David, with Lisa’s consent, petitions the Court for adoption of Baby Chloe. John, who is now living in another state, is contacted and gladly agrees to have his parental rights terminated. The Court happily signs the Judgment of Adoption, praising David for his willingness to become legally bound as Chloe’s father, and reminding him that in the event of his death, Chloe will now inherit from his estate, just as if she was his biological child.
On May 6, 2009, Maine’s governor signed a bill passed by the state’s legislature, making Maine the fourth New England state to embrace such a measure, and the fifth in the Nation. Iowa’s Supreme Court unanimously ruled in April that the law prohibiting marriage between same-sex couples violated the state’s Constitution.
It had been unclear whether or not Governor Baldacci would actually sign the bill, as he had openly opposed same-sex marriage in the past. However, in a statement released shortly after the signing, the governor noted, “I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law, and that a civil union is not equal to civil marriage.” In what may be becoming a trend in same-sex marriage legislation, Maine’s law does not compel religious institutions to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies.
A similar bill has passed both houses of New Hampshire’s and has been sent to the state’s Governor for his signature. Enactment of the law would make New Hampshire the sixth state in the Nation, and the fifth in New England to approve same-sex marriage, leaving Rhode Island as the sole regional hold-out.
Have I mentioned that Rhode Island’s state motto is simply one word, “Hope”...
In what appears to be the first of its kind in the state, a New Orleans gay couple has filed suit in federal court against several state and local officials, claiming that their First Amendment rights are being violated by Louisiana’s Defense of Marriage Act. The couple filed the lawsuit the same day they were denied a marriage license. One of the plaintiffs stated, “[W]e were hoping for the best, but prepared for the worst.”
The suit claims that “[B]y failing to articulate a legitimate, compelling and secular interest for the restriction on marriage, the state has necessarily established a wholly religious civil institution.” Here we go again with that pesky “Separation of Church and State” idea…
Alan Levine, Health and Hospitals Secretary, named as one of the defendants in the lawsuit, is quoted in the Associated Press as commenting, “There’s no argument. The law is crystal clear in Louisiana.” With all due respect to Mr. Levine, one of the beauties of our law is its ability to change. I don’t know of too many wives who long the “good ole’ days” of Louisiana’s Head and Master law, which gave the husband exclusive control of management of community property. The provisions were declared unconstitutional and replaced in 1980 with the current “Equal Management” regime.
On April 7th, Vermont, whose state motto is “Freedom and Unity” became the forth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Vermont arrived at the decision through a legislative vote, in contrast to its predecessors, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Iowa, whose verdicts were arrived at through their respective state court systems.
Similar bills to allow same-sex marriage are currently before state legislators in Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and New York, and some feel that the passage of the Vermont bill will give the aforementioned states the impetus needed for a positive result. Others predict that with each additional state’s recognition of same-sex marriage, an overturning of the bipartisan federal Defense of Marriage Act is not far behind.
