Something to be Grateful for this Holiday Season
Dear Friend of NCLR,
I know this is a time of year where we are supposed to be thankful, embracing family and friends, expressing gratitude for all the good things we enjoy. But this year, I confess to being slow to warm up to the whole good tidings and merriment mood that the season traditionally inspires.
Yesterday we were reminded that there’s still much work ahead to bend the arc of justice to include opportunities for immigrant children, and full equality for all lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people. First the “DREAM Act,” which would have provided humanity to undocumented immigrant kids failed, then the U.S. Senate voted against a motion to allow debate on repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” While it is too soon to declare a DADT repeal dead, it is clear we will have to redouble our efforts if we want to see the end of this misguided policy. Clearly, it was not a good day for any principles—fairness, opportunity, and justice—that we say we stand for as a nation.
But looking back just days earlier, I’m reminded that there is hope, and with any struggle, there is always victory. Watching the arguments on Monday in the federal challenge to Proposition 8—the 2008 California ballot measure that stripped the freedom to marry from same-sex couples—before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal was riveting theater.
Seeing legal giants Ted Olson and David Boies, and Chief Deputy City Attorney for San Francisco Therese Stewart, lay out the case for why District Court Judge Vaughn Walker’s August ruling striking down Prop 8 should be affirmed was itself an affirmation of how far we have come in the fight for LGBT justice and equality. There is much to dissect and ruminate upon in the arguments, and you can read the analysis by NCLR Legal Director Shannon Minter. But what I will remember and reflect over in the coming weeks is the breathtaking force of what our movement has achieved, and how tattered and incoherent it has left the voices of our opponents.
I know we have not achieved the formal legal equality that repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” winning marriage, or ending discrimination in employment promises. But we are already winning the most important battle—the struggle to change minds and open hearts. Never before have we seen this level of public support for our basic humanity. Never before have we seen the range of diverse voices speaking out in favor of LGBT inclusion and protection as we do today.
Whenever I have moments where my hope stumbles I re-read the words of one of my favorite writers, Anne Lamott: “Hope begins in the dark, the stubborn hope that if you just show up and try to do the right thing, the dawn will come. You wait and watch and work: you don’t give up.”
So between the argument on Monday, and conversations with my staff over the last few days, I am reminded of how much progress we are making. And how far we have come. I read the great reports on Kye Allums, the transgender basketball player from George Washington University, who we have been helping and who is being embraced by his school, the sports media, and his teammates. I hear about the grateful students who proudly are wearing one of the 700 T-shirts we gave away in the wake of the wave of youth suicides—emblazoned with the slogan “Gay? I’m cool with that”—and in doing so know they are making a difference to every classmate who sees the shirt (Sorry folks, free T-shirts are no longer available, but they can be purchased for as low as $8.99). Or, I talk to an NCLR donor whose 13-year-old daughter, Sydney, inspired by the cases her mom told her about from our fall newsletter, spoke out in favor of marriage equality on the steps of the courthouse the night before the Prop 8 argument.
So after a reset moment with my family, and a few moving reminders of what it means to do this work, I get my reality check. Yes, there are moments when it seems that there is not enough good, nor good will. Yes, there are real foes in our fight for justice and equality and humanity. And yes, there are times when it just feels overwhelming. This is the arch of every human rights fight, and just like each one before, light, truth, love, and compassion will win out. But just to be sure, spend more time with those you love, doing what you love. And just for fun take a quick look at NCLRights.org to see what we have accomplished over this past year. The progress you will see should bring a smile to the dourest face.
And a little extra eggnog wouldn’t hurt.
This week, we heard the long-awaited oral argument at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the federal court challenge to Proposition 8. The Ninth Circuit is the federal appeals court that covers California. The argument was heard by a panel of three judges, who will decide whether to uphold District Court Judge Vaughn Walker’s August ruling that Prop 8 is unconstitutional.
The argument ran for almost two-and-a-half hours, covering two basic questions:
- Do the proponents of Prop 8—and Imperial County, which is seeking to intervene in the case—have the right to appeal Judge Walker’s ruling, even though they do not represent the State of California? The legal term for this question is whether the proponents have “standing” to appeal.
- Is Prop 8 unconstitutional?
It is never possible to predict how any judge will rule based on the questions that are asked at argument, but overall, the argument seemed to go well for the plaintiffs. The panel asked difficult questions throughout and were particularly tough, on both sides, on the standing issue. In the end, they seemed skeptical that Imperial County has standing to be in the case. They also seemed to recognize that recent U.S. Supreme Court cases raise serious questions about whether the proponents of an initiative like Prop 8 have standing.
Some of the panel’s questions hinted that they might ask the California Supreme Court to rule on whether California law gives the proponents of a ballot measure the power to force an appeal over the objections of the official representatives of the state (the governor and attorney general). Arguing on behalf of the plaintiffs, attorney David Boies forcefully argued that even if California law would allow the proponents to defend the initiative, the proponents still could not meet the federal requirements for bringing this appeal because they cannot show that they are directly affected in any way by whether same-sex couples can marry.
In the second hour, on the constitutionality of Prop 8, the panel’s questions focused on two general areas: the unique circumstances under which Prop 8 was passed in California—where same-sex couples had the right to marry before Prop 8 stripped that right away; and the principle established by the U.S. Supreme Court in their 1996 decision, Romer v. Evans, that a state cannot deliberately discriminate against gay people just to send a message that they are inferior.
The panel seemed critical of the argument that Prop 8 can be justified based on arguments relating to procreation—which was the central defense offered by the proponents’ attorney Charles Cooper. Repeatedly, the judges pressed Cooper on how procreation could possibly justify Prop 8 when California law gives same-sex couples exactly the same parentage rights as heterosexual couples, and has affirmatively embraced same-sex couples as equally good parents.
Arguing on behalf of the plaintiffs, former U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson urged the court to reach the broad question of whether same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry under the U.S. Constitution. In an argument that complemented Olson’s, Therese Stewart, Chief Deputy City Attorney for San Francisco, did a brilliant job of laying out why Prop 8 is uniquely irrational because it took away an existing right, because California continues to give same-sex couples all of the substantive rights and benefits of marriage, and because the stated purpose of Prop 8 in the ballot materials was to counter the idea that being gay is “okay.”
Stewart also made a crucial point about what it means for a court to determine that the only justification for a law is “animus,” or bias, against a group of people, which would be unconstitutional. Contrary to how the proponents have framed this question in the media and in court, Stewart rightly argued that from a constitutional perspective, finding that a law was based on “animus” does not have to mean that the voters intentionally sought to harm gay people. Rather, unconstitutional “animus” can include situations where the voters failed to think about what is really at stake for the targeted group, or failed to guard against a natural tendency toward stereotyping of unfamiliar or historically disfavored groups.
Together, Boies, Olson, and Stewart were a great team and did a phenomenal job of presenting the most powerful arguments for upholding Judge Walker’s decision. There is no specific timeline for the Ninth Circuit panel to issue a ruling, but they have expedited the case up to this point, and we may see a decision within a few months. In the meantime, unfortunately, same-sex couples in California will have to continue to live under the state’s separate-but-equal system that designates our families as second-class.
Special to On the Docket
By Karen K. Stogdill, CEBS, EA and Deb Kinney, Esq.
In a major victory for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced in May 2010 that it will recognize the community property rights granted by states to same-sex couples in state-registered domestic partnerships, civil unions, and marriages just as it does for opposite-sex married couples. Currently, the states that both legally recognize same-sex couples and grant community property rights are California, Nevada, and Washington. While the IRS did not go so far as to recognize the relationship status, this recognition has many positive consequences. As a result of being able to split community property income, many couples—though not all—will pay less federal income tax. Whether any particular couple will pay less tax depends on their particular circumstances, and some couples may owe more in federal taxes.
The IRS announced that the changes, while mandatory for 2010 tax returns and future years, can be applied retroactively for 2007, 2008, and 2009 tax returns if desired. Tax practitioners in California, Nevada, and Washington have been busy amending tax returns for legally related same-sex couples with many of them getting considerable tax refunds, anywhere from $500 per couple to as much as $20,000 per couple, per year. You should consult with your tax advisor about amending your past returns as soon as possible to see how these changes may affect you. Generally, couples who benefit the most are those where there is a large disparity in their income levels. But there are no hard and fast rules here.
If you file as Head of Household (HOH) you may need to take some specific action before December 31, 2010 in order to preserve your HOH filing status (see below).
Changes for 2010 same-sex federal income tax returns will include:
- Every legally related same-sex couple will need to determine their community property income and their separate property income. Your earnings (i.e. your W-2 wages or your self-employment income while married or in a registered domestic partnership or civil union) are always community property income, unless you have a pre-nuptial or pre-duptial agreement to opt out. Gifts and inheritances, no matter when received, are separate property and so is the income therefrom, and property that you had prior to your marriage/partnership is typically separate property. Other income like investment income depends on whether the underlying monies are from community property or separate property. The IRS has an entire publication, Publication 555, to help you make this determination. You can find Pub 555 on the IRS website. Please note that the current version of Publication 555 was last updated in May, 2007 and page two says that it does not apply to California Registered Domestic Partners. This is no longer true and the IRS is in the process of revising Pub 555 to remove this paragraph. Be aware that the calculations of community property and separate property will have significant consequences at death or divorce.
- If you are claiming Head of Household status, you MUST have some separate property income and you MUST use it to pay a household expense before December 31, 2010. Separate property is generally income from gifts or inheritances or property that you had prior to your marriage/RDP. If you think you do not have any separate property income, or you are not sure after reading Pub 555, you should see your attorney and/or your tax advisor BEFORE DECEMBER 31, 2010, as there are ways to create separate property.
- You will not be able to e-file your 2010 federal tax return because you must attach a separate schedule showing how the community property income and the separate property income is being split between you and your partner/spouse so your refunds will take a bit longer to receive (generally about four weeks from the date you file your tax returns), but many couples will see higher overall tax refunds this year. This is true for all married couples in community property states, not just same-sex couples.
- It is unlikely that any commercial computer software programs will be able to handle the calculations for your tax returns for 2010, making calculations more complicated for you and your tax preparer. Generally, returns must be calculated by hand and/or you may want to seek professional tax assistance.
If you would like specific details on the IRS announcement, you can find more at Karen Stogdill’s website.
And if you live in the San Francisco Bay Area, we invite you to join us at our upcoming “411 For Your Form 1040” workshop on January 12th, where both Karen and Deb will be panelists along with D. Chris Kollaja. The panel will be moderated by tax law expert Pat Cain.
Please note that this information should not be construed as legal or tax advice, and you should contact your own accountant, attorney, or tax advisor for assistance.
Karen Stogdill is an Enrolled Agent and a Certified Employee Benefits Specialist and is a frequent speaker on same-sex tax issues. Her tax practice has offices in San Francisco and the East Bay. She lives with her wife and registered domestic partner, Kris Hill, in Berkeley, California.
Deb L. Kinney has an estate planning, trust administration, and probate practice with offices in San Francisco and Santa Rosa. DLKLawGroup PC also represents beneficiaries of estates, protects elders, and represents parties in prenuptial contracts.
Join our panel of experts as they talk you through the changes and what it means for same-sex couples, and then get all your questions answered.
- Karen K. Stogdill, EA, CEBS
- D. Chris Kollaja, CPA
- Deb L. Kinney, Esq.
The panel will be moderated by tax law expert Pat Cain.
- What: 411 For Your Form 1040: Making Sense of the Major Federal Income Tax Changes for Same-Sex Couples
- When: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 6:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
- Where: San Francisco LGBT Center 1800 Market St., San Francisco, CA
Event is free and open to the public. RSVP by January 12th to Kris Hermanns at email@example.com (with “Tax Workshop” in the subject line) or 415.365.1302.
Sponsored by: BALIF, EQCA, and NCLR.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has released a new policy—which will go into effect January 18—that provides new protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender patients and their families in all hospitals that receive federal funds.
The new rule—created with comments from several organizations, including the National Center for Lesbian Rights—provides significant protections for LGBT patients and their visitors. The rule prohibits any hospital receiving federal money from restricting, limiting, or denying visitation privileges based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
It guarantees that all visitors must have equal visitation privileges, regardless of whether the visitors are legally or biologically related to the patient. And it specifically notes that hospitals may not invoke a so-called “conscience clause” in order to justify denying equal visitation rights to all patients and their visitors.
The rule also provides that when a patient is unable to make visitation decisions, those decisions will be made by a “support person” who will have the authority to make visitation decisions on a patient’s behalf if he or she is unable to do so for him or herself. The support person, who will be chosen by the patient, does not need to be legally or biologically related to the patient.
The rule also explains what hospitals must do if f there is a conflict between two or more people claiming to be a patient’s support person, and the patient is incapacitated and unable to resolve the conflict. In that rare instance, hospital personnel may ask for proof that a person is the appropriate choice to be designated the patient’s support person. However, the proof does not need to be proof of a legally recognized or biological relationship. For example, proof of shared residence or an intimate personal relationship may be sufficient.
The rule was prompted by an April 15, 2010 memo issued by President Barack Obama that directed HHS to adopt new regulations that would require hospitals that receive federal funds to grant equal visitation rights to all families, not just those based on marriage or biology. In the memo, Obama specifically talked about same-sex couples as an example of family members who have been unfairly kept away from their partners when one is hospitalized. Obama also said he was taking this step due, in part, to a case in which a Florida couple, Janice Langbehn and Lisa Pond, were kept apart by a Florida hospital after Pond collapsed due to an aneurysm in February 2007. Pond died without her partner or their children being permitted to visit her.
As President Obama directed, HHS issued draft regulations on June 25, 2010. The public had 60 days—until August 27, 2010—to comment on those regulations. NCLR submitted comments on the proposed rule, specifically asking HHS to expand the regulations to provide protections for LGBT patients who are unconscious or too ill to choose their own visitors.
Learn more by reading NCLR’s frequently asked questions about the new rule: DHHS Requires Hospitals to Grant Equal Visitation Rights to All.
By Maya Rupert, Esq.
Federal Policy Attorney
While we continue to fight for the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” an end to the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, and an inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act, the National Center for Lesbian Rights also been working hard on a number of other important protections for our community.
Earlier this year, NCLR worked closely with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to help develop a groundbreaking new policy that extends federal protection against housing discrimination to gender non-conforming people. In September, NCLR partnered with HUD again to train hundreds of HUD staffers on how to implement the new policy, which will protect both the transgender community and gender non-conforming lesbian, gay, and bisexual people.
Over the past few months, those of us at NCLR have been rolling up our sleeves to help improve the administration’s new hospital visitation regulations. We wanted to be sure the new rules would really protect LGBT patients and their families. In April, Obama issued a memo telling the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to give equal hospital visitation rights to LGBT patients and families. HHS issued a draft rule shortly thereafter and invited public comments. NCLR worked closely with experts in this area to recommend some critical clarifications and additions to the proposed rule. We also worked very hard to build the largest possible coalition of LGBT and allied groups to voice their support for those changes as well.
The final rule, which was released in November and takes effect on January 18, 2011, provides significant protections for LGBT patients and their visitors. The new rule prohibits any hospital receiving federal money from restricting, limiting, or denying visitation privileges based on sexual orientation or gender identity. It also sets out clear guidelines for how hospitals should decide who gets to visit and make decisions for patients in a way that is respectful of our families.
NCLR is also committed to ensuring that LGBT people are treated fairly in the implementation of the new healthcare reform law, which is officially known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. In October, NCLR took part in the first of a series of meetings with Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and other HHS officials to advocate for nondiscrimination protections for the LGBT community in the provision of healthcare services.
Even as we push for long overdue federal legislation to end the government’s shameful discrimination against our community, NCLR is leaving no stone unturned in pushing federal agencies to take the most aggressive possible steps to ensure that LGBT people are treated fairly and equally in every aspect of our federal government.
By Daniel Redman, Esq.
Elder Law Project Fellow
Building on NCLR’s decades-long commitment to fighting for LGBT seniors, the Del Martin Initiative aims to protect LGBT seniors from discrimination, empower them to advocate for themselves, and ensure that service providers treat LGBT elders with dignity and respect. The Initiative uses all the tools available to accomplish this goal: litigation, legislative work, institutional policy changes, and community education. NCLR is proud to partner with the Pride Law Fund and the Berkeley Law Foundation to fund this Initiative.
The recent NCLR case of Clay Greene, an elderly California man who was unlawfully separated by Sonoma County officials from his partner of 20 years, shows how vulnerable our community’s elders can be, even in the most welcoming LGBT counties. Through prior publications like Life Lines and Planning with Purpose and future resources, the Elder Law Project and the Del Martin Initiative works to give LGBT elders the tools they need to know their legal rights.
The Initiative addresses a growing need in our community. LGBT elders are more likely to be poor and isolated than their straight peers, and they are rarely protected by state or federal laws. LGBT elders are especially at risk of discrimination in long-term care settings. Some of the problems we have seen include forced segregation, staff disrespect toward elders’ gender expression and gender identity, bullying by residents and staff, forced closeting, denial of admission, and restrictions on visitation. LGBT elders across the country have experienced this treatment, and the Del Martin Initiative is working to put an end to it.
In one of our recent cases, NCLR represents a low-income LGBT elder who is wrongly being denied Social Security benefits by the federal government. In another current case, we are working on behalf of a transgender elder denied admission to a nursing home in the Midwest.
We’re also dedicated to creating state policies that will truly benefit LGBT elders. For instance, in California we’re hard at work on a training program for nursing home personnel to fight discrimination against LGBT elders, which is now mandated by California law. We’re also working to implement another recent California law that requires Area Agencies on Aging to fully include LGBT elders in their planning and policies.
Protecting our LGBT elders is a vital part of NCLR’s mission, and we’re committed to setting the policies, establishing the standards, and furthering the dialogue to empower all of us to stand up for our rights and live our lives fully at every stage of life.
Get to know your fellow National Center for Lesbian Rights champions!
James Tanaka and Daniel Shaw live in New York City and have been NCLR supporters for several years. Dan is a commercial litigator at Schindler Cohen & Hochman LLP. James is a transactional attorney at Proskauer Rose LLP, focusing on capital markets, REITS, and Latin America.
Why do you support LGBT civil and human rights?
How can we not? Our rights, and the rights of our friends and loved ones, are on the line. Especially now, when so many LGBT rights issues have crystallized at the forefront of American politics, and as this country becomes increasingly polarized, we have to support organizations like NCLR that are stepping in to protect the ground we’ve gained and to fight for full equality.
When and how did you first hear about NCLR?
We learned about NCLR several years ago when our friend Dena Zaldúa-Hilkene started working there. She kept calling to tell us about these amazing people and the work they were doing.
What inspired your first gift to NCLR, and is there anything in particular about NCLR that has motivated you to continue giving through the years?
It must have been five or six years ago when we wrote our first check to NCLR in a rainy parking lot in Williamstown, Massachusetts. We had just listened to Shannon Minter, NCLR’s Legal Director, give a speech about the on-the-ground legal work that NCLR was engaged in on behalf of LGBT clients. For two office-bound lawyers, it was inspiring, and it didn’t hurt that Shannon is a great speaker and an extremely smart lawyer. We were moved to give that night, and we have been giving ever since.
Meeting Kate Kendell and the excellent staff of NCLR over the last few years, and seeing the important work they are doing in terms of impact litigation and direct services has only solidified that commitment.
What are your hopes for LGBT people in the next few years?
We hope that our federal, state, and local governments will finally acknowledge LGBT people as fully-fledged members of American society.
What is your favorite way to spend a Sunday afternoon?
Cooking for a lazy Sunday dinner with friends.
Are you interested in joining Dan and James by becoming an NCLR member?
The National Center for Lesbian Rights is proud to announce the C. Edwin Baker Clerkship, named after C. Edwin “Ed” Baker, the University of Pennsylvania law professor known as one of the nation’s foremost constitutional legal scholars and a longtime ally in support of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender equality before his death in December 2009.
Professor Baker’s estate, with a $150,000 gift authorized by a committee of his friends and colleagues, is continuing his legacy by making it possible for future generations of lawyers to follow in his footsteps through the C. Edwin Baker Clerkship at NCLR. The clerkship establishes a lasting program that supports stipends for student law clerks and fellows who have financial need, and who are committed to practicing social justice and progressive civil rights law.
“Ed was one of the most incredible progressive legal scholars in American history, and we are honored that his estate has chosen NCLR to continue his legacy by helping develop new generations of attorneys who are equally committed, equally devoted, and equally passionate about the law and social justice as Ed was throughout his life,” said NCLR Executive Director Kate Kendell. “He truly is a role model, and we are proud to be able to provide this opportunity through NCLR for the next generation of legal leaders.”
Professor Baker’s interest in law began as a young boy in Madisonville, Kentucky, when he, in the fourth grade, invoked the First Amendment to try to discourage his parents from making him attend church services. It was that intrigue with the power of the law, coupled with a deep conviction that everyone has the right to make their own decisions and live according to their own commitments and ideals, that would propel his LGBT advocacy, as well as his notable career as a law professor and scholar.
In the mid-1970s, after receiving his bachelor’s degree from Stanford University and his law degree from Yale University, Ed risked his career as an untenured assistant professor at the University of Oregon Law School to speak openly—at a time when most allies were fearful—in support of lesbian and gay rights because he believed it was the right thing to do, helping to organize the law school faculty to support the Eugene Gay Rights Ordinance, and later to oppose its repeal.
He joined the University of Pennsylvania Law School in 1981, where he was the Nicholas F. Gallicchio Professor of Law and Communication, focusing his teaching on constitutional law, mass media law, the First Amendment, and jurisprudence. Since Professor Baker’s death, his sister, Nancy Baker, has heard from people who knew him over the years, with each noting his commitment to the law and social justice, “but even more importantly, they have spoken about the way my brother always met people as people, viewing sexual orientation and gender identity as no reason to relate to people differently.
“My hope is that through this clerkship, we make it possible for my brother’s legacy, his devotion to social justice and his commitment to LGBT equality to live on in future generations.”
As you make your list of who’s deserving of your generosity this year, we hope you’ll include NCLR. We have to keep up our momentum for the anticipated battles—and opportunities—ahead!
Every donation from individuals like you makes a difference and will go directly to fighting for our civil and human rights. Now more than ever, our fight for justice needs you. Please, make your year-end gift to NCLR today, if you haven’t already.
As a bonus gift, the generous folks at Levi Strauss will match any gift given online between now and December 31st dollar for dollar! So your gift will be doubled!
And did you know you can give a gift membership to NCLR? A perfect gift for that person on your list who already has everything!
So you think NCLR is the bees’ knees. But after you make your annual membership contribution, you don’t have anything left to give, even though you’d love to.
How about using eScrip?
What is eScrip? It’s a simple way for you to support NCLR at no cost to you. All you have to do is register your credit/debit cards and ATM cards with eScrip—then any time you use one of them to shop with a participating merchant, the merchant will donate up to 8% of the purchase amount to NCLR. That’s right: you pay for only what you’re buying, and the store is the one who donates. Perfect!
NCLR’s Group Name: “National Center for Lesbian Rights” or “NCLR”
NCLR’s Group ID #: 500022336
Over 150 merchants at which you already shop participate, including Whole Foods, Wild Oats, Andronico’s, Mollie Stone’s, Bristol Farms, Working Assets, Sharper Image, Round Table Pizza, Chevron, OfficeMax, Budget Rent-A-Car, Payless Shoes, Orchard Supply Hardware, and many more. Check out the full list of participating merchants.
Register with eScrip online now: under “Make a difference in 4 easy steps,” click on “Sign up, it’s free!” Your credit card information will only be used for this purpose and is guaranteed to be safe and secure.
Still looking for cool last-minute stocking or menorah stuffers and gifts for that special someone? Check out some of the amazing—and even a little sexy—items available at NCLR’s online shop. You can find just about anything to fit that special someone’s personality, while supporting LGBT equality.
Save the Date for NCLR’s 2011 Anniversary Celebration!
Celebrate our 34th anniversary with us on May 21, 2011 in San Francisco at our annual gala event, attracting thousands of people from across the country, and known by some as the best LGBT party of the year!
Check our 2011 Anniversary Celebration site and join us on Facebook and Twitter for up-to-the minute updates. In the meantime, put it in your calendar in ink—we’ll see you there!