Same-sex couples have won some victories at the state and local level, most notably in Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health [798 N.E.2d 941 (Mass. 2003)] which granted marriage rights in Massachusetts. However, there are 1138 federal rights granted to married heterosexual couples that are still unavailable to same-sex couples. In light of this fact, this author advocates repealing the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), and passing legislation at the federal level which would make it illegal to discriminate against homosexuals in the workplace.

This report of the Judiciary Committee, together with dissenting views, recommends passage of H.R. 1592 (short title—Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007), a bill to “provide federal assistance to states, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes…”. The bill would “provide assistance to state and local law enforcement in the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes, and would amend chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, to make violent crimes against a person motivated by bias against characteristics for which there is a history of such bias-motivated violence a felony. It would also amend the Hate Crime Statistics Act to require the collection of data on violent crimes motivated by bias against the victim’s perceived gender or gender identity, as well as data on crimes committed by and directed against juveniles.”

Businesses which restrict their goods and/or services to same-sex couples do so on the basis of an “individualist paradigm.” Under an individualist paradigm, this author suggests that a travel resort which restricts access to opposite-sex couples seems no more discriminatory than a store which sells only women’s bras. This article advances a theory of couples’ aggregate rights, and proposes a model public accommodations law to govern couple-oriented business establishments. The model law would prevent businesses, such as dating services and resorts, from distinguishing between same-sex and opposite-sex couples.

Alaska Civil Liberties Union ex. rel. Carter v. Alaska [122 P.3d 781 (Alaska, 2005)] struck down a provision which limited public employee benefits to spouses. Carter is significant because it was the first state court decision which extended public employee benefits to same-sex couples in a state with a marriage amendment. Lobsinger first explores the history of Alaskan laws pertaining to same-sex couples. He then analyzes whether Carter may act as a model for other states who must navigate between rights for same-sex couples and state DOMAs.

Since the passage of the federal Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, same-sex couples have been excluded from federal benefits, even if their union is recognized by the state in which they live. This article advocates extending rights granted under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and the Internal Revenue Code to same-sex couples “where their respective states have legally recognized their relationship under civil marriage, civil union, or domestic partnership laws.”

Written as a guide for Colorado practitioners who represent gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender clients, with workplace discrimination claims, this article presents legal strategies which may be used in support of such claims (not necessarily limited to Colorado). Strategies explored include gender non-conformance, Title VII retaliation, same-sex harassment, local non-discrimination ordinances, and wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. The article was presented by the Colorado Bar Association Labor and Employment Law Section.

An exploration of the history of discrimination against homosexuals, this article also warns of history’s nature of repeating itself. The author begins with discrimination against homosexuals in the Progressive Era (1886-1915), then shifts to the Cold War Era (1946-1961), in which homosexuals faced “unprecedented discrimination in the name of national security.” After laying the historical groundwork, the author demonstrates how all of the old arguments used to justify discrimination against homosexuals (particularly those of familial sanctity) have been revived. The author explains that we are witnessing this re-emergence of discrimination as a backlash in the wake of Lawrence v. Texas, and subsequent legal victories.

How much money does it cost to replace homosexual service members who are separated under the military’s homosexual conduct policy? Two recent reports attempted to answer this question, and drew dramatically different conclusions. The Comptroller General of the United States, David M. Walker, prepared this report to explain the difference between the two reports. The first report, released in 2005 by GAO, estimated the costs from 1994-2003 at $190.5 million. The second report, released in 2006 by the University of California Blue Ribbon Commission, estimated costs for the same period at $363.8 million. Mr. Walker explains that the Commission’s estimate was larger because it included training costs for Marines, medical workers, and officers, and the cost of separation travel. Also, the Commission included infrastructure costs, which the GAO claims is a constant figure regardless of the number of enlistees who complete their contracts.

Arguing for a political (or social) solution to the issue of same-sex sexual harassment in the workplace, this author contends that courts are ill-equipped to understand the sexuality inherent in sexual harassment. Rather, the courts have gone out of their way to avoid arguments of sexuality, relying instead on a “false binarism.” The author argues that “the courts’ inability to adequately theorize sexuality precludes an equitable approach to adjudication of sexual harassment claims.” The article begins with a review of sexual harassment law and traces its progression over the past quarter-century.