Archive for the ‘advocacy’ Category
Marital status is a matter of religious freedom
Today’s news is that Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan once approved marital status discrimination in housing, saying that a landlord’s religious views trumped an unmarried couple’s fair housing rights. AtMP opposes her nomination unless she recants.
In addition to the obvious parallels with discrimination against LGBT people, I hope the public conversation highlights the fact that many people see marital status as a matter of religious expression.
To be truly empathetic with the American public, Supreme Court Justices must understand that some individuals and couples eschew marriage because they believe that it is a purely religious institution. For example, in a discussion posted on AtMP’s Facebook page last month, Carmen in Tennessee said “we feel it is very wrong to tell us that we HAVE to be married in order to [live together with children, under a divorce decree]. We do not believe in marriage. I feel this clause has been ordered based on religious views which I absolutely do not believe in … never in my life have I felt my rights as an American citizen have been so meaningless.”
If you haven’t already spoken out against on Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan’s outrageous statement that a landlord’s religious beliefs justify denying housing to an unmarried couple, do it now!
Share: 
advocacy, housing
Comments 2
Jun 13th, 2010 by Nicky
D.C. Council Hearing on Same-Sex Marriage: Round One
Wearing my Alternatives to Marriage button and carrying a sign saying “Don’t throw domestic partners under the marriage equality bus”, I headed into the offices of the District Council yesterday afternoon to attend the hearing on gay marriage. The hearing proved so popular that I was only able to join other visitors in an overflow room, but I watched several rounds of testimony there on closed-circuit TV. The opinions proved to be diverse and passionate.
Nearly 300 individuals have signed up to testify before the Council on this bill that would allow same-sex marriages in the District of Columbia — including AtMP! I’m slated to testify at the second round of the hearing, to take place next Monday, Nov. 2, at 9:30am. Officials report that this is the largest number of requests to testify at a hearing that it has seen in decades.
Most of the testimony centered on the pros and cons of allowing same-sex marriage licenses to be offered by the District government, and, while AtMP supports the rights of same-sex couples to marry, we will testify that this bill unnecessarily harms other couples by ending the District’s domestic partnership registry program. The current program requires that partners be over 18, competent, living together and neither married nor already registered as domestic partners. That means that domestic partnerships are open to same- and different-sex couples as well as other types of partners including those related by blood (such as siblings). Domestic partners are entitled to the same rights and responsibilities as spouses. The District’s program is so well-written and comprehensive that it has served as a model for other programs across the country.
But while endeavoring to expand rights for some same-sex couples who would choose to marry, this bill, if passed as written, would deny rights to other couples who would not, or could not, marry under the new law. At the continuation of the hearing next Monday, I will argue that this is an unwarranted and unfair step backward and this language should be removed from the bill.
So, join us in spirit by emailing the Council and tell them not to discontinue the domestic partnership registry. And, if you’re in DC, join me in person at the hearing on Monday, November 2, at 9:30 a.m. in the 5th Floor Council Chambers, John A. Wilson Building, 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20004.
To learn more about D.C.’s domestic partnership registry, and the reasons we don’t want it to end, read AtMP’s official testimony.
And if you wish to watch any or all of the 7 hours of the first part of the hearing, you can download the video.
Share:
advocacy
Comments 3
Oct 27th, 2009 by Meaghan Lamarre
a long post about advocacy
120 AtMPers emailed Congress last week, asking that the stimulus bill include domestic partners in its expansion of Cobra affordability. On Monday I called Senator Sue Collin’s office (because she has expressed support for domestic partners and because she had a high-profile role in the stimulus compromise). Her staff said that there were already 500 amendments proposed so there is no chance that they could squeeze in an amendment guaranteeing Cobra for domestic partners. But, we’ve started the conversation.
120 letters is a really good turnout – we invited fewer than 900 people to participate – about 10% of AtMP’s membership. Why so few? Because AtMP’s privacy policy promises to send only those messages that we think people really want, based on what they tell us about themselves. For example, if you want to receive action alerts about health care, check off the health care box here. (You can edit any part of your member record, which shapes how we contact you.)
Although we didn’t win Cobra guarantees for domestic partners, we did raise awareness about yet another example of marital status discrimination, and we strengthened some alliances and made new contacts in Washington. This is a good example of AtMP’s increased focus on advocacy. Some members have asked whether this is lobbying, whether it’s allowed, and whether they could be personally targetted as donors they way people were in the aftermath of Prop 8.
Yes, it’s lobbying; yes, it’s allowed. AtMP’s tax status is 501c3, and we have filed the proper forms with the IRS so we’re allowed to use up to 20% of our cash expenses telling decision makers how to vote on specific legislation, and we’re allowed to use up to 5% of our cash expenses urging people to tell their lawmakers how to vote.
No, our donors do not have to be identified if they don’t want to be. Anyone can donate anonymously. We list non-anonymous donors in our annual reports, which we mail to the donors and post online. But we do not send a list of donors to the IRS or any state regulator.
I asked the Alliance for Justice how to explain what happened with Prop 8; their response is so helpful that I’m quoting it entirely (with permission):
The reason this issue can get a little confusing is that there are two completely separate laws working here. The federal tax law that governs your 501(c)(3) status (and limits how much you can lobby under the 501(h) election) is different from the California campaign finance laws that require disclosure of some donors to ballot measure committees.
Under federal tax law, your work on ballot measures is treated as lobbying, and all you have to worry about is staying within your lobbying limits. California campaign finance law (California’s Political Reform Act) requires disclosure of campaign contributions and expenditures in connection with state and local elections, including ballot measure elections. Even though you as a 501(c)(3) are staying within your lobbying limits, you still also have to comply with the California disclosure laws if you engage in certain activities around ballot measures. You can see various campaign disclosure manuals that apply to different types of ballot measure committees on the California Fair Political Practices Commission website: http://www.fppc.ca.gov/index.html?id=505#cam.
The reason that the Prop 8 donors are being disclosed has to do with California’s campaign disclosure laws; these donors were solicited by nonprofits that had become ballot measure committees, but not all nonprofits that work on ballot measures automatically become ballot measure committees. You have to do certain things and raise money a certain way in order to be classified as a ballot measure committee. I’m being very general right now, because these laws can get pretty complicated.
Today AtMP is helping Virginians advocate for recognition of family diversity in school curricula. This campaign was initiated by just one member – she keeps an eye on state government, emailed me with a ‘heads up’ last month and called me yesterday to make it urgent. Meanwhile, volunteers in New York are planning a campaign for better hospital rights. Go grassroots activists!
Share:
advocacy, marriage promotion
Comments 2
Feb 10th, 2009 by Nicky
AtMP in Washington DC
Embodying the spirit of service that is invoked for Martin Luther King’s birthday and Barack Obama’s inauguration, AtMP’s board of directors spent this weekend at a strategic planning retreat in Washington DC.
Although most board members had to return to their far-flung home towns (including Albany, Boulder, Brooklyn, Los Angeles, and San Francisco), I am staying in DC for the inauguration. Today I attended “Driving Change: the role of activists during the Obama administration,” an Inaugural Event produced by the Alliance for Justice. Eli Pariser, Van Jones, JoDee Winterhof and Nan Aron spoke to an audience of several hundred community organizers. A couple of my key take-aways:
- at a time when the economy and war are likely to make the public fearful and reactionary, we must remind people about their shared experiences to encourage them to work together.
- politicians (like courts) rarely go out on a limb for culture change. Rather, they step into safe spaces that have been created by trends of public opinion. In other words, we should expect our leaders to follow, not lead. The job of activists and organizers is to create and give voice to public support for the policies we want politicians to enact.
Share:
advocacy
Comments 0
Jan 19th, 2009 by Nicky
Potential Allies in Congress
Our 2009 legislative agenda is starting to take shape. A key step is to identify Representatives and Senators who are likely to be receptive to our message about increasing fairness for singles and non-marital relationships in health care, taxes etc.
A recent NY Times article makes the unmarried Sanchez sisters of California sound like potential allies in the House.
Senator Sue Collins of Maine is interested in making domestic partner benefits available regardless of age or gender.
Representative Pete Stark has spoken out against using welfare funds to promote marriage.
AtMP is looking for constituents of these officials who would help us present our agenda to them.
Which additional congressmembers we should prioritize?
Share:
advocacy
Comments 1
Dec 30th, 2008 by Nicky
Litigation Options
Reporters are asking if AtMP will file an amicus brief with the CA supreme court – the short answer is ‘no.’ The reason is that we don’t have lawyers on staff nor money to hire legal consultants. But if we did, we would seriously consider the suggestions of AtMP member Joe D. He says CA could fulfill its constitutional requirement for Equal Protection by merging marriage and civil union and calling them “civil union.”
Our colleagues at the Nonprofit & Foundation Advocacy Blog have important advice about how nonprofits can litigate to change public policy. Read the rest of this entry »
Share:
advocacy
Comments 0
Nov 22nd, 2008 by Nicky
How do we end marriage discrimination?
What’s the best way to respond to marriage discrimination? Are you ready to divorce in protest? How could a test case get to the U.S. Supreme Court? Should government recognition of relationships drop the word marriage? People everywhere are bursting with ideas. This is an opportunity to capture ideas, bounce them around, improve them and create an action community. Read the rest of this entry »
Share:
advocacy, get gov't out of marriage
Comments 13
Nov 21st, 2008 by Nicky
Pain and Protest for Prop 8
Outrage over California’s Proposition 8 is sparking new interest in the decade-long grassroots movement to boycott marriage. AtMP’s mailbox is full of creative ideas and personal pleas from around the country:
- Jeff and his wife are thinking of getting divorced in protest.
- Joe has drafted a litigation proposal aiming for CA to stop licensing any marriages and offer all couples civil unions instead.
- Debanuj sees bitter irony in the absence of outrage over marriage discrimination ballots in Arkansas, Arizona and Florida, or over other votes that strip even more fundamental rights from people whether gay or not, married or not.
- Catherine says “As a gay Californian, it feels so good to have the support of so many of our straight neighbors.”
Share:
advocacy
Comments 3
Nov 20th, 2008 by Nicky
