Spencer Perry takes after his parents.
The 19-year-old son of the lesbian plaintiff couple in the case against California’s Proposition 8 is straight, but as a freshman at George Washington University, he’s taken leadership roles in the school’s gay-straight alliance and LGBT graduate program.
In an interview with the Washington Blade at GWU’s Duques Hall, Spencer says he would pursue LGBT activism even if his parents â€” Kris Perry and Sandy Stier â€” weren’t plaintiffs in the case that restored marriage equality to California, because of his experience in youth government programs during his adolescence.
“Sometimes I got the opportunity to travel across the country and meet others with different views on LGBT rights,” Perry says. “More often than not, I found myself even just in conversations casually, advocating for my parents and advocating for the family that we have and families just like theirs. I really felt proud of myself doing that. It was a good feeling and I wanted to keep pursuing it.”
After growing up in Berkeley, Calif., which he calls a “bubble” in terms of support for LGBT people, Spencer enrolled at GWU, where he double majors in political science and economics. Shortly after enrolling, he was elected freshman representative for Allied in Pride and was appointed as a board member of GWU’s LGBT Health Graduate Certificate Program.
He moved to D.C., where he lives on campus at Thurston Hall, at the same time his parents relocated to the area after Kris Perry accepted a job as executive director of the First Five Years Fund, a non-profit that seeks early childhood education for disadvantaged children.
Spencer says his focus at Allied in Pride is getting the culture at GWU “to be more embracing of LGBT individuals” on campus.
The next big task? Preparing for the second annual amateur drag show set for Feb. 13 called “Allied in Greek” â€” a collaboration between the Allied in Pride and Greek life in which members of GWU’s fraternities and sororities dress up in drag. The goal for the event, which will take place at 7 p.m. at Lisner Auditorium, is to show support for fellow LGBT students and benefit The Trevor Project, which seeks to help LGBT youth considering suicide.
Nick Gumas, who’s gay andÂ president of Allied in Pride, praised Perry.
“Spencer has been an important part of Allied in Pride since he joined at the start of last semester,” Gumas says. “He always brings his creativity and positive energy to all of our meetings and events. It has been an absolute pleasure getting to know Spencer and I know he is going to continue to do great things in the future.”
Spencer knows firsthand the feeling of having the rights of his family taken from him. On Election Day in 2008 â€” the same day that President Obama was elected to office â€” voters in California approved Prop 8, rescinding the marriage rights that gay couples already enjoyed in the state.
“Anyone will tell you who lived in California and is part of the LGBT community, that was a very embarrassing moment because No. 1, we elected a phenomenal president, the first black president, which was a terrific feeling to be part of that, but at the same time, Proposition 8 was passed, too,” he says.
The day the California Supreme Court upheld Prop 8, Kris Perry and Stier â€” along with Los Angeles coupleÂ Paul Katami and Jeffrey Zarrillo â€” filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking to overturn Prop 8. They were represented by the legal dream team of Ted Olson and David Boies, who were hired by the then newly formed American Foundation for Equal Rights.
The lawsuit wasn’t filed beforeÂ Kris Perry, his birth mother, and Stier, who became his stepmother after a previous relationship Kris Perry had with another woman, asked their four children, including Spencer and his twin brother Elliott, whether it was OK.
“I remember one day after school right before dinner around that time, Kris and Sandy sat us down,” Spencer says. “They said, ‘Listen, we’ve been approached by this group called AFER and they’re interested in pursuing a lawsuit to overturn Proposition 8 as unconstitutional. We’re very interested, but we want to make a collective decision as a family. So they asked us if Elliott and I would be OK with that.”
It didn’t take much to convince Spencer to be willing to come on board.
“Elliott and I jumped at the opportunity,” he says.
At first, Spencer says his parents “did their darndest to keep us kind of protected” from the public interest surrounding the case. But as the case proceeded through the district court, to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and to the Supreme Court, and Spencer grew older and more interested in public affairs, he was able to speak out and talked to media outlets.
“I really did enjoy it,” Spencer says. “Not to be someone who’s devoted to attention, but it really was a good feeling to voice my opinion and to make sure people understand there are kids who have gay parents all across America.”
In addition to speaking at various news conferences, Spencer gave interviews to the San Francisco Chronicle, People magazine, the Los Angeles Times and New York Times, among others
One of the views against same-sex marriage that Spencer had to address â€” and one that he was living proof to counter â€” was the often-used argument that children of same-sex parents don’t fare as well as those raised by their opposite-sex biological parents.
“I’ve heard the argument a million and one times, but if anything, my gut reaction is that it’s kind of hurtful to hear that because my parents love each other, I’m worse off for it,” Spencer says. “I can’t tell you how loving and proud, and just absolutely supportive, my parents are of me. And how much better I am for them being my parents.”
After years of litigation, the case ended up before the U.S. Supreme Court, where justices ruled 5-4 that proponents of Prop 8 had no standing to defend the lawsuit, leaving in place a U.S. District Court decision from Judge Vaughn Walker that overturned the amendment on the grounds that it violated the equal protection rights of gay couples in the state.
But before that momentous decision, the justices scheduled oral arguments on March 26 to hear both sides in the case. Although Spencer wasn’t initially expecting to attend that day, an AFER board member was kind enough to give seats to allow him and Elliott to attend.
Spencer found himself sweating and uncomfortable as he observed Olson, anti-gay attorney Charles Cooper and Solicitor General Donald Verrilli makes their arguments before the justices, but for reasons other than the historic nature of the occasion.
“I caught food poisoning the night before,” Spencer says. “I never had food poisoning before, so I didn’t know what was happening, but I was just clenching the arms in my chair and sweating a little bit. I thought it was just nerves or something.”
Still, Spencer says he was inspired by what he saw, especially the comments from U.S. Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy.
“It was absolutely fantastic, especially listening to Justice Kennedy, it really touched my heart when he spoke about the kids who were involved in these cases, the children who belong to these families and feel disenfranchised by their government,” Spencer says.
Decision day came on June 28. This time Spencer wasn’t in D.C. â€” even though his parents were there to celebrate along with Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin on the steps of the Supreme Court â€” and instead was in North Carolina with other students involved in the debate team.
“The entire period when I was doing that, I was checking my phone, checking my Twitter, Instagram, everything I could get my hands on, every media outlet if it was going to happen,” Spencer says.
Despite the ups and downs as the case went through the courts, Spencer says the experience as a whole was positive and brought him closer to his family.
“Looking back on it, I feel immensely proud of my moms,” Spencer says.Â ”I never felt closer to them than when I saw Kris and Sandy testifying in front of a federal judge. Even now, I still feel proud to know that they changed the lives of so many people for the better.”
Peter Rosenstein, a gay Democratic activist and friend of Spencer’s, calls him “a great kid” and says the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree in terms of the pursuit of activism shared by his parents.
“I enjoyed his response when I was first introduced to him and asked if he was gay or straight,” Rosenstein says. “He said, ‘straight, my momâ€™s didnâ€™t rub off on me’ to which I responded my parents didnâ€™t rub off on me either. I think his being at GW will be great for the school and great for all the kids that meet him.”
What should the national LGBT movement focus on next? Spencer says it should be winning state battles on marriage equality throughout the country, so when the issue returns to the Supreme Court, justices will make a favorable ruling for gay couples throughout the country.
“There’s going to be political ideology in any ruling, and there’s going to be influence in public opinion, but I think the way that public opinion has absolutely shifted in the past four years in support of marriage equality and LGBT rights, it really does speak to the fact that there’s an opportunity for a national precedent on marriage equality in the Supreme Court,” Spencer says.
Manny Rivera, an AFER spokesperson, told the Washington Blade that Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy denied the long-shot request for a stay and will the allow the same-sex marriages that began in the state on Friday to continue.
After the Supreme Court ruled anti-gay groups don’t have standing to defend Prop 8 in court, observers had expected a 25-day waiting period before marriage equality in California would take effect. In this period, the losing parties in the lawsuit, in this case anti-gay groups, could ask for reconsideration of the high court’s decision.
Instead, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals lifted its stay on Friday after California Attorney General Kamala Harris publicly urged them to take action sooner.
On Saturday, Andrew Pugno, an attorney with ProtectMarriage.com, posted a statement on the organization’s website saying he made the “emergency petition” in the wake of the Ninth Circuit’s decision.
â€śPeople on both sides of this debate should at least agree that the courts must follow their own rules,” Pugno said. “This kind of lawlessness just further weakens the publicâ€™s confidence in the legitimacy of our legal system. We hope the Supreme Court will step in and restore some order here.â€ť
The development was reported earlier in the day by ABC News and the Los Angeles Times. The Supreme Court didn’t immediately respond to a request to comment to confirm development.
Legal experts have said lifting the stay on the injunction was completely within the authority of the Ninth Circuit during the 25-day waiting period following the Supreme Court decision.
By STEVEN A. SIGSBURY
The U.S. Supreme Court issued a pair of landmark decisions on June 26, striking down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as unconstitutional and dismissing the case against California’s Proposition 8. Currently, the District of Columbia and 13 states have legislation enacted that allows same-sex marriage, and, in light of these decisions, many more will likely consider this issue in the next several years. As a result of these rulings, the financial and estate planning of same-sex couples will be affected, as more than 1,000 federal statutes and 100 tax laws will now be applicable to them, relating to aspects of marriage, divorce, inheritance, child-rearing, taxes, retirement planning, health care, employee benefits and immigration.
In the area of estate and wealth planning, the recent Supreme Court decisions have given same-sex couples a unique opportunity to revisit their plans, to ensure that they are structured to meet their lifetime and testamentary objectives.
Among the many rights and responsibilities afforded under federal laws, same-sex couples will now be able to: Transfer assets during life or at death without triggering any gift or estate tax by using the (unlimited) marital deduction for gift and estate taxes; split gifts, allowing spouses to treat taxable gifts as made half by each of them; make a “portability” election to pass one spouse’s estate tax exemption to the survivor at death; and elect to treat inherited property from a spouse as qualified terminable interest property and allocate Generation Skipping Transfer tax exemption to it at the first spouse’s death; qualify for survivor and death benefits under annuities, pension plans, 401(k) plans, or similar retirement plans, and allow a surviving spouse to rollover inherited retirement funds into their own retirement accounts and thereby avoid having to take required minimum distributions until age 70 1/2.
The DOMA decision thus affords a number of benefits to same-sex couples and, in general, most will be able to simplify their estate plans. Same-sex couples should review their estate plans and may want to revisit the ownership structure of their assets.
Considering the foregoing, many same-sex couples may now wish to marry. It is important that these couples are aware of the financial implications of marriage and enter into the appropriate premarital agreements, if necessary.
As a final word of caution it should be noted that the Supreme Court decisions left a number of questions largely unanswered. The IRS has already said it will “move swiftly to provide revised guidance in the near future,” but it did not provide any details on how it would approach resolving these issues.
One big unknown will be the effect of the laws across state borders. Specifically, what will happen to same-sex couples who are married in one jurisdiction and who move to a jurisdiction that does not recognize same-sex marriage? The Supreme Court’s decision did not address Section 2 of DOMA, which allows states to deny recognition to same-sex marriages of other states. Presumably, couples that move to such a jurisdiction may see their entire estate planning strategy less effective since they could potentially remain subject to large state tax bills upon the death of a spouse under state law. Similarly, the decisions do not address civil unions or domestic partnerships. Same-sex couples that are registered as partners but who are not “married” under state law will not be able to avail themselves of any of the estate planning benefits of having a legal spouse under federal law.
Planners are hopeful that many of these questions will be answered in the short term as the IRS and the Obama administration continues to address and update the federal laws affected by these decisions. If you have questions regarding your own planning or how these laws will affect you or your spouse, please contact one of our estate planning attorneys.
If you have any questions regarding this article, contact Steven A. Sigsbury at 202-457-1627 orÂ SSigsbury@jackscamp.com. If you have any questions regarding our firm, please contact Don Uttrich, who chairs our Diversity Committee, at 202-457-4266 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
The California Supreme Court has denied a request from anti-gay groups to place a stay on marriage equality in the Golden State, although litigation will continue on whether same-sex marriages can continue statewide.
On Monday, the state high court issued a decision denying a request from Alliance Defending Freedom and ProtectMarriage.com to place a stay on same-sex marriages. Those weddings resumed on June 28 following the ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court that anti-gay groups don’t have standing to defend California’s Proposition 8 in court, leaving in place an injunction on the measure from U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker.
Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign and one of the organizers of the lawsuit against Prop 8, praised the decision from the court to allow same-sex marriages to continue in California.
“Our opponents have failed in a desperate attempt to deny happiness and protections to lesbian and gay couples and their children and no amount of legal wrangling is going to undo that joy,” Griffin said. “Marriage equality has returned to the Golden State and just as David Blankenhorn, the star witness for Prop 8 came to support marriage equality, I hope others will open their hearts and minds and realize that marriage will soon come to all 50 states in this country.”
As part of their request for a stay, anti-gay groups maintained that Judge Â Walker’s injunction on Prop 8 applies only to plaintiff couples and not statewide as California Gov. Jerry Brown and Attorney Kamala Harris have interpreted.
The court set up a schedule on Friday to consider the argument posed by the anti-gay groups. According to the court website, opposition to arguments must be filed by July 22. Anti-gay groups then have until Aug. 1 to issue their reply.
Jon Davidson, legal director for Lambda Legal, called the argument “pure malarky.”
“The California Supreme Court previously held (in the litigation that followed San Francisco allowing same-sex couples to marry back in 2004) that county clerks and registrar/recorders are subject to the control and supervision of these state officials when it comes to the issuance of marriage license,” Davidson said. “Local officials are therefore bound to comply with the injunction by its express terms.”