Blog

The NY Times published an article recently about the lack of fertility benefits available to same-sex couples, or single women, who do not have a diagnosis of infertility (i.e., endometriosis or premature ovarian failure) but instead require fertility treatment because they lack the necessary body parts to make a baby. The article specifically addressed the needs of lesbian couples who must use donor sperm to conceive a child and need a doctor to perform Intra-Uterine Inseminations (IUI’s) but I think the question is also applicable to single wannabe parents and gay men.

The Super Yuck Factor after Windsor and Hollingsworth How far did we really get in advancing the rights of same-sex families created through third-party assisted reproduction?

The Super Yuck Factor after Windsor and Hollingsworth How far did we really get in advancing the rights of same-sex families created through third-party assisted reproduction? By Elizabeth Swire Falker, Esq. The Stork Lawyer® This week the United States Supreme Court decided two cases addressing the fundamental rights of members of the LGBT community. Maybe you heard about them? In a decision written by Justice Kennedy in United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. __ (2013) ("Windsor"), it has been determined that a provision in The Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA") that restricted marriage (for almost all purposes under Federal law) to marriages between heterosexual couples, is unconstitutional. In an eloquent opinion written by Justice Kennedy, the majority of the Court held that this provision of DOMA is unconstitutional insofar as it discriminates against same-sex couples who wish to marry. In an over-simplified nutshell, because DOMA treated two groups or classes of people -- heterosexual couples and same-sex couples -- differently, DOMA violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. In a related decision, Hollingsworth v. Perry, 570 U.S. __ (2013) ("Hollingsworth"), the Supreme Court (Justice Roberts writing for the majority) refused to hear a case and address the Constitutionality of California's "Proposition 8". Proposition 8 specified that marriage in California could only be entered into between members of the opposite sex, men and women. After passage of Proposition 8, a California Federal District court held it to be unconstitutional. By declining to hear the case, albeit on technical grounds, the Supreme Court permitted the District Court's decision to stand, which now means that same-sex couples in California may enter into the bond of marriage. Thus under both Federal law (Windsor) and California State law (Hollingsworth), the rights of gay men and women have triumphed! This is without a doubt an historic moment in the advancement of fundamental rights for the LGBT community.