BRO sues Oregon over parental rights
Basic Rights Oregon filed a lawsuit today against the State of Oregon claiming that the state has failed to meet it's obligation to recognize domestic partnerships end discrimination based on sexual orientation in the provision of state benefits, services, privileges and immunities as decided in the 1998 case Tanner v. OHSU.
The specific suit stems from the state's denial to list Jeana Marie Frazzini as a legally recognized parent to Emmett Rocco Parman. Emmett Parman is now 2 years old and is the biological child of Kristan Dene Parman. Frazzini's name was included on the initial application for a Emmett's birth certificate, but was allegedly crossed off by a hospital administrator. They hope to include Frazzini as a legal parent without having to go through the lengthy and expensive process of a formal adoption. a process that married heterosexual couples need not go through even if one recognized partner is not a biological parent.
Additionally, the Tanner decision regarding sexual orientation and sex discrimination means that the state should have modified many of its administrative procedures to comply with the Oregon Constitution. Tanner specifically says that benefits cannot be extended by the state to married couples if certain citizens are prevented by law from marrying. This case seems to apply directly to what the decision in Tanner.
Specifically named in the suit are Governor Kulongoski, Department of Human Services Director Dr. Bruce Goldberg, and State Registrar Jennifer Woodward. (all are included in their official capacities)
From BRO's Blog:
"The State of Oregon has a responsibility at all levels to treat each of its citizens in accordance with the Oregon Constitution," said Basic Rights Oregon Executive Director Roey Thorpe. "To do anything less sends a message that some Oregonians are more deserving of equality under the law than others."
"Unfortunately," Thorpe continued, "The more than seven-year failure of the state to voluntarily comply with the Court of Appeals decision in Tanner has left us with no other option than to go back to court."
A copy of the complaint.
Background on Tanner, courtesy of BRO.
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, April 05, 2006 at 11:51 AM.
Want to discuss? Leave a comment below.
ByWhen I got the news yesterday that BRO was filing this lawsuit, my heart started beating faster and tears welled up in my eyes. After many years in the movements for equal rights for LGBT people and women, I was a bit surprised to feel myself responding so emotionally to a press release. It takes a certain dogged determination to stand up for justice day after day, year in and year out. I imagine I’m not alone in developing a sort of armor against the fact of my second class status. I don’t sit around and weep about it all day long – I carry my head high and move through the world as if I was afforded the same power and rights as the U.S. Constitution was designed to give me.
But every now and then, the full force of the discrimination against us hits me. Like yesterday. What the plaintiffs K.D. and Jeana must have felt when Jeana’s name was scratched off their son’s birth certificate! Did the hospital administrator who crossed Jeana out have any idea how dehumanizing the stroke of that pen would be? You don’t count, the message came across loud and clear.
I feel admiration for Jeana and K.D.’s courage to put themselves out there publicly for the betterment of all our lives. Some of my tears were tears of gratitude. I’m also grateful for an organization like BRO that continues to strategize and fight for LGBT rights, no matter the setbacks. Even though I no longer live in Oregon, I follow BRO’s work because I’m convinced it will dramatically and positively impact the national LGBT rights movement.
The State of Oregon would do well to follow my new home state California in its family law pertaining to female couples. The following information is excerpted from the National Center for Lesbian Rights website:
“Starting January 1, 2005, when a lesbian couple who are registered domestic partners has a child through artificial insemination, both partners can be included on the child's original California birth certificate…. Gay men who are using a surrogate, however, will need to obtain a court judgment of parentage before both partners can be included on the child's birth certificate, which is also true for a heterosexual married couple who uses a surrogate. Because surrogacy is a complicated area of law, we strongly advise couples who are considering using a surrogate to speak to an experienced attorney.”
www.nclrights.org
By
Hey - maybe this could be one of the first things the Kulongoski LGBT discrimination commission puts on their list...
(Oh the irony!)
By
or we could always get rid of our current governor. he hasn't exactly done anything on our issues - though he thinks he has.
» Post a Comment