LGBT Advocacy Project of the ACLU of Florida | Year in Review 2008-09
Thanks to the support of our donors, it has been an extraordinary year for the LGBT Advocacy project of the ACLU of Florida and for LGBT equality in Florida. Our Project expanded and had enormous successes as a result of our expansion. With your support, we have had a statewide impact and served thousands of LGBT families, students, and other individuals.
-web.jpg)
In all of our work, we integrate legal intervention, legislative advocacy, and public education to increase our impact. We have been successful at mobilizing our primarily non-LGBT support base of 25,000 Floridians to work on a broad range of LGBT issues.
Broadly speaking, in the last year we have worked hard to secure parental rights for gay and lesbian Floridians, insure a safe education for LGBT students, defend the existing LGBT inclusive Gainesville civil rights ordinance, and to secure and protect recognition at various levels for LGBT families in Florida.
- Gay Adoption
- Securing Safe Schools for LGBT Students
- Defending Existing Rights | Gainesville Charter Amendment 1
- Relationship Recognition
GAY ADOPTION
GOAL: End discrimination against gays and lesbians with regard to Florida's adoption policies.
RESULT: The ACLU is committed to ensuring that children have safe and secure homes and receive care from families who love them, regardless of the sexual orientation of the foster parents or potential adoptive parents. Florida continues to be the only state to ban adoption by qualified gays and lesbians. We are the only organization in Florida that has litigated this issue.
The ACLU achieved a landmark victory on November 25, 2008, when a Florida circuit court granted adoptions to a gay man who has been raising two foster children since 2004. He is providing them the only safe, stable home they have ever known. He has been represented by attorneys of the ACLU-FL's LGBT Advocacy Project and LGBT Project of the national ACLU. 
The trial court ruled that the ban violated the equal protection guarantees of the state constitution because it treats differently, for no rational reason, gay people and the children they raise. The court also found that the ban denies children the right to permanency in violation of the substantive due process clause of the Florida Constitution and federal and state law under the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997.
The court's decision came after a four-day trial in October during which the court heard from the foremost experts on children's health and development and listened to the justifications offered by the state for the ban. In reaching its decision, the court rejected the false assumptions and stereotypes about gay people presented by the State. The court cited evidence we brought forth and held that many reports and studies find that there are no differences in the parenting of homosexuals or the adjustment of their children. The court held that "[t]hese conclusions have been accepted, adopted and ratified by the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatry Association, the American Pediatric Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Child Welfare League of America and the National Association of Social Workers. As a result, based on the robust nature of the evidence available in the field, this Court is satisfied that the issue is so far beyond dispute that it would be irrational to hold otherwise; the best interests of children are not preserved by prohibiting homosexual adoption." 
The state appealed immediately. The Florida Supreme Court is likely to consider this case after a decision by the intermediate appellate court. We will complete briefing in the appellate court during the Summer of 2009, and we expect a decision by early 2010.
We are planning additional public education activities, as the legal battle continues to help create a public opinion climate for a favorable ruling by the courts.
We organized supporters to sponsor legislative visits and attend delegation hearings urging legislators to repeal the ban on gay adoptions. We have found most legislators to be receptive. Legislators have been most interested in hearing about the issue from non-LGBT perspectives, which forces them to reconsider outdated notions that only LGBT people care about this issue.
SECURING SAFE SCHOOLS FOR LGBT STUDENTS
GOAL: Ensure an educational environment in Florida schools for LGBT youth that is free of harassment and discrimination.
RESULT: The ACLU-FL's LGBT Advocacy Project has made significant progress in securing a school environment free of harassment and discrimination for LGBT youth, making administrators cognizant of their responsibility to maintain a safe school environment, and empowering LGBT students with knowledge of their rights in the school setting.
Building on our past work, including two major legal victories, we currently represent the members of the Yulee High School Gay Straight Alliance (GSA). The Nassau County School Board has denied the GSA permission to meet at their school, and the school board passed a new policy -- which allows the district to deny any club that harms the "well-being" of students -- to codify the denial. On February 11, 2009 we filed suit, and a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction requiring the school to allow the club to meet while the case makes its way through the courts.
Our work with the Yulee High School GSA comes on the heels of victories in two hard-fought cases: Gay-Straight Alliance of Okeechobee High School v. School Board of Okeechobee County and Heather Gillman v. Holmes County School Board. These cases set the stage for our ongoing work, and they have set legal standards for the responsibility of Florida school officials to respect the rights of LGBT students.
Gay-Straight Alliance of Okeechobee High School v. School Board of Okeechobee County. We won a court order protecting the rights of gay and straight students who demand greater tolerance and acceptance at Okeechobee High School (OHS). The case began in Fall 2006 when school officials refused to allow Yasmin Gonzalez to attend the school prom with her girlfriend. In response to intolerance at school, Yasmin and several other OHS students decided to form a GSA. 
In response, OHS Principal Toni Wiersma refused to allow the club to meet, and the School Board of Okeechobee County immediately passed a policy banning clubs "based upon any kind of sexual... orientation." We filed lawsuit in federal court in November 2006. In July 2008, U.S. District Court Judge K. Michael Moore upheld his earlier ruling that the GSA did not interfere with abstinence-only education policies and, in a legal first, held that schools must provide for the well-being of gay students. In addition, Judge Moore criticized the school district for implementing an abstinence-based sex education policy that ignores the health and safety of LGBT students. He asserted that schools must provide for the well-being of gay students the same as straight students and therefore, the school cannot discriminate against the GSA or LGBT students. He granted students in the GSA "all the rights and privileges granted to other non-curricular groups."
Heather Gillman v. Holmes County School Board.
We won a victory for LGBT equality and for freedom of speech -- in particular, protected first amendment speech that supports equality and tolerance. In September 2007, a lesbian student tried to report to school officials that she was being harassed by other students. Instead of addressing the harassment, the school's principal, David Davis, responded with what Judge Smoak later called in his ruling "a witch hunt" -- intimidation, suspensions of LGBT students and their supporters, and deliberately "outing" the girl to her parents.
Other students began expressing messages of support for their classmate by writing "gay pride" on their arms and notebooks or wearing rainbow-themed clothing. The school began censoring and suspending students. The plaintiff in the case, Heather Gillman, who identifies herself as heterosexual, had been forbidden by her principal to wear any sort of clothing, stickers, buttons, or symbols to show her support of equal rights for gay people. 
Principal Davis admitted under oath that he had banned students from wearing any clothing or symbols supporting equal rights for gay people, although he allowed students to wear other symbols many find controversial, such as the Confederate flag.
Calling the school principal's behavior "deplorable," U.S. District Judge Richard Smoak ruled on May 13, 2008 that the school must stop its unconstitutional censorship of students who want to express their support for the fair and equal treatment of gay people. The judge also warned the district not to retaliate against students over the lawsuit and lamented that the school board did not use this opportunity to teach tolerance.
* * * * *
Fighting Bullying of LGBT Students.
In addition to our legal work, in August 2008 we began working with local school districts to include key provisions in the new anti-bullying policies that they were required to adopt by December 1, 2008. The requirement to adopt new anti-bullying policies, and the December 1 deadline, were part of the Jeffrey Johnston Stand Up for All Students Act, Fla. Stat. § 1006.147 (2008), which was passed (with ACLU support) during the 2008 Florida Legislative Session.
In order to ensure both LGBT students' safety and the right of all students to speech and expression protected by the First Amendment, we focused our efforts on convincing school districts to: 1) include in the new policy an enumerated list of traits upon which harassment and bullying cannot be based, including "sexual orientation" and "gender identity or expression;" 2) include in the new policy specific protection for expressive activity that is protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution; and 3) refrain from applying and implementing the anti-bullying policy to protected speech, regardless of the wording of the policy.
In order to convince school districts to take the above actions, we utilized the following tactics: 1) mailed two hard copy letters from an ACLU staff attorney to all Florida school districts; 2) distributed an e-mail action alert to ACLU members and supporters, with a message that they could in turn send to school officials as concerned community members; and 3) organized trained ACLU volunteers and chapter members to meet in-person with school district representatives or school board members.
In 42 of the 65 counties in which ACLU action alert subscribers received the alert, at least one recipient -- and in some cases, many more -- used the action alert to send an e-mail to a school district representative. In nine counties, our supporters sent more than 10 e-mails. In 16 counties, either an ACLU trained volunteer or an ACLU staff person met with a school district representative or school district member in person. Eight ACLU chapters actively participated in the project. In total, 43 of the 66 counties that received our letters also received some sort of additional contact from the ACLU, either via an e-mail or an in-person visit.
Of the 28 counties whose policies we have analyzed so far, we have achieved the following victories: 1) "sexual orientation" is a protected category in 11 counties; 2) "gender identity" is a protected category in 10 counties; and 3) some written protection for First Amendment speech and expression is contained in the policies of 10 counties. Seven counties do all of the above. We hope that still more counties now understand that, regardless of how their policy is worded, they should refrain from applying and implementing it to protected speech. We are confident that our efforts alerted many school districts to the need for all our students to be both safe and free -- and that in some cases the school districts changed their policies to reflect the important civil liberties concerns that we raised.
DEFENDING EXISTING RIGHTS | GAINESVILLE CHARTER AMENDMENT 1
GOAL: Defeat discriminatory ballot initiative that sought to amend Gainesville's City Charter and remove "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" from Gainesville's nondiscrimination laws.
RESULT: In Spring of 2008, the Gainesville City Commission amended its human rights ordinance to include "gender identity" to the protected categories in its nondiscrimination law (sexual orientation was added in 1998), which prohibits discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations, and credit extension services. In response, a far right conservative group collected enough petition signatures to get a proposed Charter Amendment on the ballot for March 24, 2009 Gainesville city elections. The proposed charter amendment sought to amend Gainesville's City Charter to prohibit Gainesville from providing nondiscrimination protections beyond what is included in the Florida Civil Rights Act. The immediate impact of the proposed amendment was to remove "sexual orientation" and "gender identity." This means that it would have become legal in Gainesville to fire someone from their job, kick them out of their home, or turn them away from a hotel or restaurant because of they are gay or transgender. In addition, the sweeping language of the proposed amendment would have prohibited Gainesville from adding nondiscrimination protections for other groups such as socioeconomic status or veteran status, and it would have removed existing employment anti-discrimination protections for individuals in all protected categories who worked for a business with fewer than 15 employees.
We worked extensively with campaign staff and Equality is Gainesville's Business (EQGB), the local political committee set up to lead the effort to defeat Charter Amendment 1. We put a full time staff person on the ground for the seven weeks leading up to the election, who led the campaign's communications and media strategy. Other ACLU staff and statewide board members helped EQGB form important alliances with an array of communities, organizations, and individuals in Gainesville, and ACLU chapters throughout the state held phone banks to reach out to Gainesville voters. We sent weekly e-blasts to inform and rally our members in and around Gainesville to get involved in the campaign to defeat the charter amendment.
On March 24, 2008, Gainesville voters defeated proposed Charter Amendment 1 by a margin of 58% to 42%. On this historic day, Gainesville voters sent a clear message that there is no place for discrimination in Gainesville.
RELATIONSHIP RECOGNITION
GOAL: Protect and increase domestic partner benefits in Florida's private and public sector.
RESULT: We worked extensively in the unsuccessful effort to defeat Amendment 2, a proposed amendment to the Florida constitution banning same sex marriage and its "substantial equivalent." The ACLU-FL is the only organization with a largely heterosexual base of supporters that could be mobilized around this issue.
ACLU-FL staff members were active in the management and activities of two campaigns -- Florida Red and Blue, and Fairness for All Families -- that worked to defeat the amendment. We often worked to reconcile differences between the two campaigns.
We hired three full-time field staff members, including two field organizers and a campaign manager, to organize, educate, and motivate ACLU members, supporters, and allies in opposition to Amendment 2. Among our specific activities were the following:
- Through our headquarters, chapters, and regional offices, we partnered directly with more than 30 organizations around the state. Including our work with coalition partners, we worked in one way or another with more than 230 organizations.
- ACLU staff developed and conducted such public education activities as media and spokesperson trainings throughout the state and GOTV efforts at gay pride events statewide. We held workshops and participated in events in Broward, Miami-Dade, Tampa, St. Petersburg, Naples, Orlando and Daytona. In all, we planned or participated in more than 325 events around the state, whose total attendance was more than 125,000 people.
- We created a toolkit for all organizations to use in teaching people how to speak about Amendment 2, which included suggested talking points and tactics.
- We conducted a Tele-Town Hall meeting with Anthony Romero, National Executive Director to the ACLU, Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, and ACLU of Florida Executive Director Howard Simon. Nearly 2,000 ACLU supporters in participated in the event.
- We worked with coalition partners to recruit more than 200 clergy across the state of Florida to speak out against Amendment 2. We garnered earned media coverage for this activity.
- We spearheaded the recruitment of Healthcare Professionals against Amendment 2, which generated more than 60 signers from across the state. Again, we generated some earned media coverage from this activity.
- With input from the NAACP and other partners, we developed a brochure focused on African American communities, and distributed 25,000 brochures at events around the state. In addition, we helped distribute brochures and palm cards developed by coalition partners. In total, we distributed at least 60,000 brochures and palm cards designed for African-American audiences.
- In the closing weeks of the campaign, we generated more than 25 earned media hits on television, radio, in print and on blogs or online content.
With the passage of Amendment 2, legal recognition of all forms of public and private sector domestic partner employee health and other benefits are vulnerable to legal challenge. For example, anti-gay activist David Caton has publicly stated that he will take advantage of the momentum caused by the passage of Amendment 2 to attack domestic partner benefits offered by the City of Tampa. He intends to place the issue before a public referendum there. We already have begun monitoring and preparing for this and other inevitable attacks.
