Texas’ First Anti-Marriage Law

This post originally appeared on the Equality Texas Blog.

The State of Texas has on four occasions outlawed the freedom to marry. In legislative terms passing redundant laws is sometimes called creating “belt and suspenders.” Four times, however, seems more like a case of belt, suspenders, another pair of suspenders and a cut up extension cord tied around your waist for good measure. While the 2005 anti-marriage constitutional amendment and the 2003 “Texas Defense of Marriage Act” are fairly well known, and most histories of marriage in Texas will at least touch on the 1998 statutory revision, Texas’ first anti-marriage law in 1973 is rarely discussed. The story involves a transgender pioneer, an eye-patch wearing villain and mysterious backdoor legislative shenanigans.

Attorney General Crawford Martin

In 1972 Ned Granger, the Travis County Clerk, asked Texas Attorney General, Crawford Martin, whether he was obliged to issue a marriage license for two people of the same sex. This proved quite the head-scratcher for Martin. See, at the time Texas statute didn’t actually require that only “a man and a woman” could be married (and never had). The language in the Texas Family Code, Title I (the part dealing with marriage) was gender neutral.

Martin resolved this by looking at the bill caption of the bill that created the Family Code. Every legislative session there are several thousand bills filed. To make it easier for lawmakers to understand which bill they’re talking about each one is given a caption, a short description of the bill. In the case of the bill that wrote the marriage laws in Texas, Martin noted that the caption was “An Act adopting Title I of the Family Code, a substantive revision of the statutes relating to husband and wife – entering the marriage relationship;…” So, reasoned Martin, even though the law about who could get married didn’t say marriage was “between a man and a woman,” the short description the legislature put on the bill that created the law sort of did. Therefore, the freedom to marry wasn’t legal in Texas.

Martin went on to cite several Texas court cases where the courts had assumed that marriage was between a man and a woman and noted that the US Supreme Court had the previous year refused to hear a similar case out of Minnesota, letting that state’s Supreme Court ruling against the freedom to marry stand.

The matter seemed settled until, three weeks after Martin issued his opinion, Antonio Molina and Billie Ert were married in Houston.

The Wedding Antonio Molina and Billie Ert

Ert was identified male as birth, but her voter registration card identified her as female. Her contemporaries say she lived her life as woman. Ert and Molina obtained a marriage license in Wharton County, near Houston, using her voter registration card as ID and were later married in a wedding chapel in Houston. Rev. Richard Vincent of the Dallas Metropolitan Community Church (now Cathedral of Hope) presided.

The wedding garnered press attention (reporting it as a wedding between two men) and when Molina and Ert attempted to return their marriage license so the marriage could be registered the county clerk refused.

Attorney General Martin quickly issued an opinion supporting the actions of the clerk in refusing to register the marriage and suggesting Ert could be prosecuted (there’s no evidence that she ever was).

The tizzy over Molina and Ert’s wedding coincided with a massive shift in the state legislature. In response to the Sharpstown scandal (a real estate scheme gone bad that involved many members of the legislature) the way Texas elected some of its representatives changed. Other incumbent lawmakers lost their re-election bids or didn’t run for re-election as a result of the scandal. The result was the largest class of new lawmakers in Texas history and a chaotic legislative session that began just three months after the Molia/Ert nuptials.

In that chaos House Bill 103, a revision to the Family Code, quietly became the newest marriage battleground. While the bill was in committee someone, whose identity has been lost to history, attached an amendment inserting language into the Family Code that marriage was between a “man and a woman.”

The amendment was adopted by the House by a voice vote, so there is no record of any opposition. The House Journal reflects no debate on the measure.

So – very quietly, and with no fanfare – the Texas legislature passed the first anti-marriage law in the history of the state. Contrast that with the lawmakers lining up in 1998, 2003 and 2005 (and 2015) to put their imperator on anti-marriage legislation. Was the idea simply too distasteful in 1973 to warrant public comment? Or was this an intentional effort to quietly pass legislation? There’s no way to know.

The law went into effect on Jan 1, 1974. So the next time someone tries to tell you that “marriage has always been between a man and a woman.” You can tell them “not in Texas law, not before 1974” and then tell them about Crawford Martin, Antonio Molina, Billie Ert and how Texans have been on the front lines of the marriage fight for decades.

Despite EEOC Ruling Local Non-Discrimination Ordinances Still Needed in Texas

This post originally appeared on the Equality Texas Blog.
 
(Note: this post is about the EEOC ruling on sexual orientation discrimination in employment. It does not discuss employment discrimination based on gender identity or expression or discrimination in public accommodations or housing. None of which should be interpreted to mean that those kinds of discrimination aren’t important or deserving of attention, only that this is a narrow conversation about a specific administrative ruling)

The July 16th announcement by the EEOC that it considers sexual orientation discrimination in employment to violate federal law is one of the most important, and most confusing, victories in LGBT history. Immediately the questions began: does this mean an employer can be sued for discriminating against LGBT employees? Do we still need state and local non-discrimination protections? Do we still need a federal employment non-discrimination law?

What did the EEOC rule?

As you’ll recall from eighth-grade civics class, the government has three branches: the legislative which makes laws, the executive that enacts and enforces laws, and the judiciary that interprets laws. The EEOC is part of the federal executive branch. The EEOC cannot make laws, but, as part of its mission to enforce laws, it has to make decisions about how it thinks laws should be enforced.
So how did the EEOC say they would interpret the law? The ruling says that the EEOC will interpret employment discrimination based on sexual orientation as a form of sex-based discrimination.  The EEOC is saying that discrimination based on sexual orientation is based on the presumption of who someone “should” be romantically and/or sexually attracted to, based on their presumed “sex.” Since the discrimination is predicated on the sex of the person discriminated against – it’s sex discrimination. The ruling applies only to employment that falls under the EEOC’s purview. That includes: most federal employees; employees of most federal contractors; and, private employers with more than 15 employees. Anyone who experiences employment discrimination based on sexual orientation from an employer that doesn’t fall into those categories is out of luck. In the case of private employers with more than 15 employees, they will likely have to dedicate substantial personal resources to pursue their claim, but more on that later.
We tend to think of the executive branch as the most powerful branch of the federal government (the President is, after all, “the leader of the free world”), and the executive is certainly the most nimble of the three federal branches. By necessity it has a top-down decision making structure and can quickly respond to new situations in a way that the legislative, with its deliberative decision-making process, and the judiciary, with its endless review and appeals process, cannot – but that also means the executive rulings are the least permanent of the three branches. As has been often noted “in America, we get the opportunity to overthrow the government every four years.” The Commissioners of the EEOC are appointed by the president and affirmed by the US Senate. Any administrative interpretation in law is subject to the whims of future administrations.
The EEOC ruling did not take place in a vacuum. At least ten federal courts have ruled, in one form or another, that sexual orientation discrimination constitutes a form of sex discrimination. It is those rulings that the EEOC turned to in trying to decide how to interpret the law. The ruling is a guess: “if we made this argument in a federal court, would the judge agree?” Based on the precedents that already exist the EEOC is guessing that yes, the court would agree – but whether or not they are correct has yet to be tested.
Once EEOC interpretations wind up in court, a judge may tell the EEOC that they are wrong. It is also possible that Congress might come along later and pass a new law that supersedes the EEOC’s interpretation. So whether it is by the actions of a later administration, the review of the judiciary, or the law making power of the legislative, this ruling by the EEOC lacks permanence.

What about State Government?

The Texas Workforce Commission administers Texas’ employment non-discrimination law and has not interpreted the law to include sexual orientation or gender identity or expression.

State employees who experience employment discrimination may be able to sue the state for employment discrimination, but when then-Attorney General Abbott was sued for sexual orientation discrimination in employment in 2009 he argued in court that no such protections existed. The case was disposed of on other grounds, so the court never addressed Abbott’s argument. It is likely that state employees do have such protections, but it has never been tested in state court. Only the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, of all state agencies, has a policy prohibiting employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. The AG’s office used to have a policy prohibiting employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, instituted by AG Morales and continued by AG Cornyn, but Abbott revoked the policy.
Employment nondiscrimination bills have been filed in the Texas legislature for over a decade, advancing furthest in 2013 when both the Senate and House version received committee hearings, but no bill has ever advanced past the hearing stage.

How do Municipal Non-Discrimination Ordinances differ from the EEOC process?

Finally, we come to local governments. Texas law does not allow counties to pass employment protections countywide, only for their employees, and a couple of counties have done so. Cities, on the other hand, at least the larger ones, can (the rules are different for cities with populations under 5,000). Dallas, Fort Worth, Austin, Houston, and Plano have done so (although Houston’s is not currently being enforced, and Plano’s is written poorly).
Well, “so what,” you say. Two out of three branches of the federal government believe that most employment discrimination based on sexual orientation is prohibited under the law, and that is not bad. Why bother continuing to push for municipal protections?
Because the way that municipalities pursue employment protections is different from the way the EEOC does.
Broadly speaking, you can divide the law into two categories (and before the legal pedants comment, yes I know – it is more complicated than that): civil and criminal. Civil law is about how one person’s actions affect another person. Criminal law is about how one person’s actions affect the state (as represented by the government). When your actions harm another person that person can, under certain circumstances, take you to court to force you to either fix the problem or to pay them money to make up for causing the problem. When that happens, it is the person who is taking you to court who handles pays for all the lawyers and court fees associated with the case. When your actions harm the state, the government handles the costs associated with the case.
Federal employment protections are civil law. In Texas, municipal employment protections are criminal law.
So, if you experience employment discrimination based on a federally protected characteristic (Age, Disability, Genetic Information, National Origin, Pregnancy, Race, Color, Religion or Sex (which is inclusive of both Sexual Orientation and Gender Expression under EEOC rules)) you can file a complaint with the EEOC. In some cases, discrimination based on active duty military deployment is also covered, but the EEOC does not handle it. They will investigate that complaint unless the complaint is against the government as an employer or a government contractor. However, if the EEOC finds that your complaint has merit, and they aren’t able to get your employer to agree to a settlement, in most cases they will give you a letter giving you their blessing to sue your employer. It will be up to you to find a lawyer to take the case and figure out how to pay for them and the court costs associated. There are some limited situations where the EEOC might represent you in a private employment discrimination case. There are some wonderful legal aid organizations out there that are stretched thin trying to help people pursue these cases, but for most people facing employment discrimination they will be stuck footing the bill for litigation that can take years with the risk of never resulting in a positive court ruling.
How many people do you know with those kinds of resources? As the corporate world has increasingly adopted internal non-discrimination policies with internal processes for addressing discrimination, the people most lacking in a process to address the discrimination they face are people who don’t take home the kind of salaries needed to literally make a federal case out of discrimination.

“ Protections that aren’t accessible to the most vulnerable among us aren’t really protections at all “

Compare that to municipal protections, which are criminal law. Every city is a little different. Let us use Houston here as an example. Because, well – I live there, and it’s awesome – but also because the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance is up for a public vote in November and the more that can be said about how it works the better. In Houston complaints of employment discrimination based on protected attributes (Sex, Race, Color, Ethnicity, National Origin, Age, Familial Status, Marital Status, Military Status, Religion, Disability, Sexual Orientation, Genetic Information, Gender Identity and pregnancy) are made to the Office of Inspector General (OIG). They are instructed to give the EEOC information about the complaint. The OIG investigates the complaint and, if it is found to have merit, sets up a meeting with both the person making the complaint and the employer to try to work things out. If things cannot be worked out, the OIG refers the complaint to the City Attorney, who can take the employer to municipal court. Where, if they are found guilty, they can be fined up to $500 (it is the same level of offense as failing to mow your lawn). All without costing the person who experienced discrimination a dime.
Protections that aren’t accessible to the most vulnerable among us are not really protections at all and municipal non-discrimination protections provide a level of accessibility that federal protections simply do not.
Now, there’s a downside to pursuing complaints through criminal law rather than civil law. In that, since it is the state and not the individual who is pursuing the case, the state and not the individual receives the fine. While municipal protections are more accessible, they are less likely to result in a case with a ruling to compensate a discriminated individual in any way. This is why we also need federal and state protections.

Oh yeah! State protections! How do those work?

Texas law covers employment discrimination based on Age Disability, National Origin, Race, Color, Religion, Sex (not including sexual orientation or gender expression or identity). Military Status is covered only for state military services and whether a person left a workplace in compliance with an evacuation order (like a hurricane). Complaints made to the Texas Workforce Commission’s (TWC) Civil Rights Division are also reported to the EEOC.  The TWC will first seek mediation just like the EEOC and municipal agencies. Then, if that fails, they further investigate the case and refer it to a panel. If the panel agrees discrimination likely took place, just like the EEOC, they will give you their blessing to sue – but they usually won’t help you do it.
The EEOC ruling means that probably, under the right circumstances, an employer can be sued for employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. This is in no way means that local, state and federal laws are no longer needed.
The EEOC’s ruling on sexual orientation employment discrimination lacks sufficient permanence, and enough accessibility to be the final word on non-discrimination protections. We must continue to pursue protections at the state and municipal level and to defend the municipal protections that already exist.

50th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act

Today marks the 50th anniversary of the ‪#‎VotingRightsAct‬. Theresa Burroughs came of voting age during the Jim Crow Era, the board of registrars at Alabama's Hale County Courthouse prevented African Americans from registering to vote. Determined to practice her civil right Theresa remembers venturing to the courthouse on the first and third Monday of each month. Today, watch StoryCorps' astounding ‪#‎AnimatedShort‬ A MORE PERFECT UNION.

In Sandra Bland’s Death, Echos of LGBT History

This post originally appeared on the Equality Texas Blog

On March 8th, 1970, New York Police raided the Snake Pit Bar, a gay bar in Greenwich Village, arresting all 167 patrons and staff present.

Diego Vinales, a 23-year old undocumented Argentinian immigrant was one of those arrested. Depending on which account you believe Vinales either, fearing deportation, jumped from a 2nd story window in an attempt to escape and was impaled on the wrought iron fence below, or was pushed out of the window by police officers.

In a flyer protesting the police violence against Vinales the Gay Activist Alliance said “Any way you look at it, Diego Vinales was pushed. We are all being pushed… Anyone who calls himself a human being, who has the guts to stand up to this horror, join us.”

If this narrative sounds familiar to you: the story of someone arrested while disputably breaking the law then horrifically brutalized in police custody with a dispute ensuing over whether the brutality was self-inflicted or not – it should.

On July 10, 2015, a State Trooper pulled over a woman driving in Waller County, arresting her.

The woman arrested was Sandra Bland, a 28-year old business woman and civil rights activist from Illinois. Depending on which account you believe Bland either hung herself after being kept in a cell for five days following a minor traffic violation, or was hung by police.

Any way you look at it, Sandra Bland was pushed. We are all being pushed.

Tomorrow , July 30, the Texas House County Affairs Committee will convene hearings on “jail standards, procedures with regards to potentially mentally ill persons in county jails, as well as issues stemming from interactions between the general public and peace officers.” Thursday’s hearing begins at 2 pm in hearing room E1.026 at the Texas Capitol in Austin. If you are able to attend in solidarity, please do.
Anyone who calls themselves a human being, who has the guts to stand up to this horror, join us.

Houston City Council Testimony

In which Daniel abandons his prepared remarks and returns to his tent-revival roots.

Five Things to Know About Today's Texas Supreme Court's Writ on the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance

1. This was not a court ruling.

The court did not hear arguments or issue a ruling. The court issued what's called a "writ of mandamus" which is an order to a governmental body to perform a function of government - in this case to the Houston City Council to either repeal the ordinance, or put it on the Nov. ballot.


2. The writ is not about the merits of HERO.

The court did not consider whether HERO was good policy, nor did it consider the negative effect it's repeal would have on the people of Houston or the city's international and business reputation. If someone tries to tell you the Supreme Court ruled against HERO, they are wrong.
 
3. The writ is not about the validity of the repeal petitions.
 
A state court has already found that many of the petitions calling for the repeal of HERO were forged and that still more were improperly filled out. SCOTX did not consider any of that in today's order - in fact, the order specifically states that they did not consider the validity of the petitions.
 
4. The writ hinges on a specific and narrow interpretation of a single word.
 
The city secretary, in her report to city council, stated that she could "certify" a certain number of signatures, but that - on consultation with the city attorney - not enough of the certified signatures were valid for the repeal petition to qualify. The Texas Supreme court has interpreted the Houston City Charter to say that, since the city secretary said that she could "certify" enough signatures for the repeal to qualify, city council must act by either repealing or putting HERO on the ballot. Despite the very same document saying that not enough of the "certified" signatures were valid to qualify.
 
5. NONE OF THAT MATTERS
 
There is still some legal wranglering to do by the legal wranglers, but the whos, whats and details of the SCOTX writ don't really matter any more. What matters is that HERO protects Houstonians from discrimination based on 15 different attributes and that those protections will be on the ballot in Nov. We have four months to defend the Houston values of fairness and opportunity from the people who want to take away those protections. The time is NOW to start having difficult conversations, to educate your friends, family and neighbors about the need for HERO and to register everyone to vote in the November election and make sure they get to the polls.

A Poem: July 26, 2015

July 26, 2015

For a long time we were afraid, and we hid.

There was a time before we hid, when we were warriors and leaders, but we don't remember it well.
We remember the hiding. The long, long time of hiding.

Every once in a while one of us would get tired of hiding and stop.
They would hang him.
Or one of us would get tired of hiding and sing!
They would burn her.

Often the ones who stopped hiding were the best of us, the smartest and most talented. That's when they got the most angry.
One time one of us stopped hiding. They made him pick up and set down heavy things till his body stopped working.
Another time one of us stopped hiding.
They pumped his body with poison until he wanted it to stop working.
There are many stories like this.

Then, several of us decided to stop hiding and they said that that would be OK, as long as we went over there and didn't leave or ask for anything.

Over there wasn't great, but it was better than hiding so we made over there better. We painted things bright colors and sang bright songs and planted bright flowers.

Later they would see our colors and hear our songs and smell our flowers and they would want to take them for themselves because we made over there a good place, but that would take a long time and mostly over there was only better than hiding - still not good.

Sometimes those of us in hiding would learn about over there and yearn, and sometimes those of us over there would think about hiding and miss. Sometimes one of us would leave hiding and join us over there and we should have been nice to them but we weren't always because we were sad a lot.

Then some of us got tired of being over there. We wanted to ask for things, we wanted to go places, we wanted to take our paintings and songs and flowers and bring them places other than over there and some of us thought that was good but a lot of us said no, we didn't want to make them angry.

Then one of us threw a doughnut.
They beat her.
Then one of us threw a coffee cup.
They beat her.
Then one of us threw a shoe.
They beat her.
They beat a lot of us. They threw one of us out a window.

Some of us said stop! We're making them angry! It will get worse! But we didn't stop.

We threw bright parties. We marched bright marches - and things did get worse but they mostly got better.

One of us said that we should all work together and get the power to stop them from beating us.
They shot him.

We got really angry. We marched brighter marches and threw brighter parties, we painted brighter paintings and sang brighter songs and planted brighter flowers.

Some of us got sick.
Some of us got really sick.
Some of our bodies stopped working.

We didn't know what to do so we all got together and marched many very bright marches, we threw many very bright parties, we painted very bright paintings and sang very bright songs and planted very bright flowers.
So many of us! We looked around. We had never seen so many of us before, not over there, not hiding.

They said we got sick because of our brightness. They said we should go back over there and be quite again and not ask for things, they said we should hide again.
But now we knew better.
They tried to make us go back over there, but now that wasn't allowed.
They remembered that we used to hide and tried to make us do that again but now that wasn't allowed.
The said that they loved us and tried to damp our bright colors; they said they didn't hate us and tried to mute our bright songs; they said we were hurting them and tried to kill our bright flowers.

So we marched the brightest march yet, two by two we marched and now that is not allowed.

Some of us are still sick.
Some of us still have bodies that do not work well.
Some of us are still not kind when we should be.
Some of us are still sad a lot.
Some of us still have not discovered their bright colors.
Some of us still have to throw things.
Some of us are still afraid.

We are not done yet, but we will not go back.

2015 "FED" Talk

Legislative Update for April 25: The Good, The Bad and the Legislative

In your legislative update this week: Two bad bills and one good one make it out of committee - with 38 days left in the session the next couple of weeks are crucial!

Take Action!

Tell your lawmaker to support equalizing the Romeo and Juliet defense: http://bit.ly/1Dygwf8
To oppose tax-payer funded discrimination: http://bit.ly/1I9bh7W
and to support the freedom to marry: http://bit.ly/19Pe3kS

Transcript:

Legislative Update for April 17: Just 45 days to go!

This week in your Legislative Update: With just 45 days to go a lot of things are happening at once: Birth Certificates, Homeless Youth, Transgender Bounties and Indiana-style Religious Liberty bills are just the highlights of this week's update.

Watch the latest Legislative Update:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNqMC...

Tell your lawmakers to support accurate birth certificates for all Texas children at bit.ly/1wZtsJE

Tell your State Senator to support homeless youth at bit.ly/1DF4Qre

Tell the members of the House State Affairs Committee to oppose HB 2801 and protect Trans students at bit.ly/1DoRTjO

Learn more about the legislation we're working on at the LEGISLATIVE INFORMATION CENTER.
http://www.equalitytexas.org/legislat...

Thank you for your support! Together, we are Building a State of Equality in Texas.

Transcript:

Rep. Anchia Addresses Texas House on HB537 (Birth Certificate Bill)

Representative Rafael Anchia (D-Dallas) makes a Personal Privilege Speech before the Texas House of Representatives urging the membership to help adopted children by giving them a birth certificate that reflects their real family.

Legislative Update for April 10: Marriage Fees, Surrogacy and Homeless Youth

This week in your Legislative Update: Daniel tells us about Rep. Bell's contingency plan in case of the freedom to marry and two good bills gain momentum.
Contact your lawmakers using our ACTION CENTER.
http://equalityfederation.salsalabs.c...

Through next Tuesday, April 14, your donations to Equality Texas will be matched, dollar for dollar, go here to support our work: http://www.bit.ly/EQTXMatch

Learn more about the legislation we're working on at the LEGISLATIVE INFORMATION CENTER.
http://www.equalitytexas.org/legislat...

TRANSCRIPT:

Legislative Update for April 2: Youth Homelessness and Appropriations

This week in your Legislative Update: The House Human Services Committee passes important Youth Homelessness legislation and the House debates the budget

Contact your lawmakers using our ACTION CENTER.
http://equalityfederation.salsalabs.c...

Learn more about the legislation we're working on at the LEGISLATIVE INFORMATION CENTER.
http://www.equalitytexas.org/content....

Join us for Freedom Advocacy Day on April 13, register at https://hq-equalityfederation.salsala...

Thank you for your support! Together, we are Building a State of Equality in Texas.

Transcript:

Texas House State Affairs Committee Hearing on HB 1745 - 3-25-15

In 2015, the Travis County Clerk complied with a court order to issue a marriage license to a loving lesbian couple who have been together for 30 years and, experiencing health concerns, petitioned the court fearing they might not see the day when a federal court found Texas’ prohibition on the freedom to marry unconstitutional. In response, HB 1745 seeks to remove the power to issue marriage licenses from locally elected county clerks and place it with the Secretary of State, who is appointed. This would allow the Secretary of State to disallow the issuance of marriage licenses in counties whose clerks complied with court orders requiring the issuance of licenses.

Facts:
• 67% of Texas voters believe that there should be some form or legal recognition for same-gender couples.
• Providing the freedom to marry would generate $14,799,292 in sales tax revenue to the State of Texas over the first three years of legalization.
• The 2010 U.S. Census reported 46,401 same sex couples in Texas, 20% of which are raising children.
• More Texans support the freedom to marry (48%) than oppose (47%).
• HB 1745 would cost Texas taxpayers $1,450,919 in the first year of implementation and an additional $1,005,863 every year after that in administrative cost alone . This estimate does not include legal costs associated with defending the law in court.

Legislative Update for March 27: Here Comes the Budget

This week in your Legislative Update: Daniel tells us about a hearing on an anti-marriage bill and why the budget can be dangerous.

Contact your lawmakers using our ACTION CENTER.
http://equalityfederation.salsalabs.c...

Learn more about the legislation we're working on at the LEGISLATIVE INFORMATION CENTER.
http://www.equalitytexas.org/content....

Join us for Freedom Advocacy Day on April 13, register at https://hq-equalityfederation.salsala...

Thank you for your support! Together, we are Building a State of Equality in Texas.

Transcript:

House State Affairs Hearing on HB 537 Mar 18th, 2015

It is standard practice for courts to issue “supplementary birth certificates” that reflect the names of adoptive parents. This is done because birth certificates are the primary document for establishing the parental relationships and are often required to enroll children in school, add them to the parents’ insurance policy or admit them for medical treatment. Current Texas law does not allow two men or two women, who are both the legal parents of a child, to receive a supplementary birth certificate reflecting both of their names. This creates a serious obstacle for parents in caring for their children. HB 537 addresses this inequity.
Facts:
• Adoption by two parents of the same gender is a fact of life in Texas. Over 9,191 same sex couples are raising children in Texas .
• In Texas, if the parents of an adopted child are of the same gender, the child cannot get the primary document used to demonstrate their relationship with their parents.
• Correcting this inequity in the law does not create any new rights, privileges or relationships.

Legislative Update for March 20: It's been a good week

This week in your Legislative Update: We've been very busy at the Equality Texas office! Plus, this has been a record year for pro-LGBT legislation in Texas.
Contact your lawmakers using our ACTION CENTER.
http://equalityfederation.salsalabs.c...

Learn more about the legislation we're working on at the LEGISLATIVE INFORMATION CENTER.
http://www.equalitytexas.org/content....

Join us for Freedom Advocacy Day on April 13, register at https://hq-equalityfederation.salsala...

Transcript:

Legislative Update for March 13: DON'T PANIC

This week in your Legislative Update, Daniel warns that, despite the rash of bad bills at the last minute, we can beat back the onslaught if we work together.
Contact your lawmakers using our ACTION CENTER.
http://equalityfederation.salsalabs.c...

Learn more about the legislation we're working on at the LEGISLATIVE INFORMATION CENTER.
http://www.equalitytexas.org/content....

Join us for Family Advocacy Day on March 23. Register at https://hq-equalityfederation.salsala...

and Freedom Advocacy Day on April 13, register at https://hq-equalityfederation.salsala...

Transcript:

Legislative Update for March 6: This is when the real fun starts

Published on Mar 6, 2015

Contact your lawmakers using our ACTION CENTER.
http://equalityfederation.salsalabs.c...

Learn more about the legislation we're working on at the LEGISLATIVE INFORMATION CENTER.
http://www.equalitytexas.org/content....

Join us for Family Advocacy Day on March 23. Register at https://hq-equalityfederation.salsala...

and Freedom Advocacy Day on April 13, register at https://hq-equalityfederation.salsala...

Thank you for your support! Together, we are Building a State of Equality in Texas.

Transcript:

Legislative Update 2/20: Hooray!

Published on Feb 21, 2015

This week: Hooray for marriage! and more work to be done.
Contact your lawmakers using our ACTION CENTER.
http://equalityfederation.salsalabs.c...

Learn more about the legislation we're working on at the LEGISLATIVE INFORMATION CENTER.
http://www.equalitytexas.org/content....

Join us for Family Advocacy Day on March 23. Register at https://hq-equalityfederation.salsala...

and Freedom Advocacy Day on April 13 register at https://hq-equalityfederation.salsala...

Transcript:

Legislative Update: My job is SOOOOOOOO Hard

This week in your Legislative Update: Daniel's job is sooooo hard... and Sen Whitmire files legislation to ensure that LGBT teen sweethearts are treated the same as their heterosexual peers.

There are one-hundred and eight days to go in the Legislative Session and we are pressing ahead full steam!

Contact your lawmakers using our ACTION CENTER at http://equalityfederation.salsalabs.c...

Learn more about the legislation we're working on at the LEGISLATIVE INFORMATION CENTER.
http://www.equalitytexas.org/content....

Join us for Family Advocacy Day on March 23. Register at https://hq-equalityfederation.salsala...

and Freedom Advocacy Day on April 13 register at https://hq-equalityfederation.salsala...

Thank you for your support! Together, we are Building a State of Equality in Texas.

Transcript:

Legislative Update for Feb 6: House Committee Assignments

Legislative Update: Waiting for Committees to Start Committeeing

Legislative Update 1-23: We've Only Just Begun

Legislative Update 1/16: The First Week