The latest news from SAVE

County Commission pulls trans-inclusive HRO but fight continues

Today, in the face of obstruction before the County Commission and an onslaught of hateful misinformation, the proposal to add all-inclusive language to the countywide Human Rights Ordinance has been withdrawn for the time being.

What this means is that for now, it will remain legal to be fired, refused services, or denied housing simply for being born a certain way.

Fortunately, the effort to keep Miami-Dade County moving forward does not end here. SAVE Dade will keep engaging the community on this important issue as we forge ahead with the groundbreaking TransEquality campaign to pass an all-inclusive Human Rights Ordinance. We thank Commissioners Edmonson, Barreiro, and the rest of our supporters on the commission, and we look forward to working with them in the future.

We will also hold accountable those who obstructed this crucial proposal from being brought to a vote. The chief obstructionist in this debate is Commissioner Lynda Bell, whose actions in favor of discrimination do not represent the voters of her district. Such an important proposal should not be held hostage by one out-of-touch politician.

Commissioner Lynda Bell (District 8)

Going forward, SAVE Dade will be committing significant resources to educating Commissioner Bell’s constituents about her anti-equality positions and her disregard for the views of the people she claims to represent. Commissioner Bell should represent the voters, not a small select group of special interests and extremists.

With your help, we can pass this important proposal to guarantee human rights for everyone in Miami-Dade County. You can do your part by getting involved in the TransEquality campaign today.

Attorney Mark Scott explains tax impacts of DOMA ruling

mark_scott.jpegIn June, the U.S. Supreme Court forever changed the lives of legally married same-sex persons. In U.S. v. Windsor, the court held unconstitutional the Defense of Marriage Act provision that defined “marriage” as between one man and one woman, for purposes of all federal laws.

Passed in 1996, DOMA did not directly affect people until Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage, in 2004. Only 17 years after enactment, the Supreme Court struck down the discriminatory provision. Now, same-sex married couples have access to more than 1,100 federal benefits.

Currently, 13 states and the District of Columbia allow same-sex marriage. Florida forbids same-sex marriage and does not recognize marriages held in other states or countries. Though definitive guidance is forthcoming, many legal analysts believe that federal benefits will be available to same-sex Florida residents who are legally married in other jurisdictions.

Thus, same-sex married couples should immediately consider the impact on their estate, gift, and income tax planning. Though the IRS will begin issuing guidance, it is a perfect time to research the issues and meet with your accounting and legal advisors to protect your rights to benefits.

Estate-tax considerations: Windsor, the Supreme Court case, was an estate-tax matter. Edie Windsor met her late spouse, Thea Spyer, in 1963. They were in a 43-year relationship and registered as domestic partners in New York City. In 2007, because of Spyer’s deteriorating health, they traveled to Canada, where they got married. Spyer died in 2009, leaving her estate to Windsor.

Windsor filed Spyer’s estate-tax return, claiming a marital deduction commonly used by couples to defer estate taxes until the death of the surviving spouse. The deduction would have resulted in no estate tax to Spyer’s estate. The IRS denied the deduction because the marriage was not recognized under DOMA, resulting in a $363,000 estate tax. Windsor paid the tax, then filed a claim for refund. The court’s decision to strike DOMA’s marriage definition allowed the marital deduction, requiring a refund of the tax.

Another estate tax reducing technique that can now be used by same-sex married couples is the portability of thedeceased spouse’s unused estate-tax exemption. The estate-tax exemption allows each of us to give our heirs up to $5,250,000 tax free. If an election is made on the deceased spouse’s estate-tax return, any portion of the exemption not used by the deceased spouse passes to the surviving spouse. Therefore, a married couple can effectively transfer $10,500,000 estate tax free.

Gift-tax considerations: Generally, a 40-percent tax applies when individuals make gifts to others, subject to exclusions. The marital deduction allows U.S. citizen spouses to make unlimited tax-free gifts to each other. Before Windsor, only opposite-sex married couples could use this deduction. Now, the technique is available to same-sex married couples, creating greater flexibility for estate planning.

Before the court’s decision, DOMA prevented same-sex spousal consent to split gifts. Being able to split gifts gives married couples the advantage of a doubled annual exclusion, currently $14,000 per donor, per donee. Now, same-sex married couples can gift $28,000 tax free to unlimited donee recipients each year.

Income-tax considerations: Taxpayers’ filing status typically depends on their marital situation.

The Windsor decision requires same-sex married couples to choose between married filing jointly or married filing separately. Single or head of household are no longer options. If the 2012 Forms 1040 have been extended, then they need to determine correct filing status. Filing status determines applicability of tax benefits, tax rates, deductions, exemptions, phaseouts, thresholds and liability.

Same-sex married couples also need to consider whether they should amend previously filed returns, change their income-tax withholding or change their quarterly estimated tax payments. Going forward, various federal government agencies will continue to implement the ruling and decide how to apply federal benefits to same-sex marriages.

This article was originally featured on the website of the Miami Herald here and has been re-posted on SAVE Dade's website with the permission of the author.

Introducing our next Executive Director Tony Lima!

599016_10151474282337731_897780406_n.jpgSAVE Dade is proud to announce today the hiring of Tony Lima as the organization's new Executive Director. Tony is set start on Tuesday, September 3rd.

"SAVE Dade is thrilled to welcome Tony as our next Executive Director," said Board Chairman Brian Adler. "He brings talent, enthusiasm and passion to his new role and will represent the LGBT community in Miami with distinction."

Tony brings more than sixteen years of leadership in marketing and nonprofit work to SAVE Dade. Tony held the position of Vice President of Marketing, Communications, and Sales for the Miami Science Museum, where he was responsible for directing marketing efforts for the new Patricia and Phillip Frost Museum of Science at Museum Park in Downtown Miami.

Prior to his hiring as Executive Director of SAVE Dade, Tony served on the organization’s Board of Directors. He has also served as Account Group Supervisor for GolinHarris, where he led the Miami office’s consumer brands practice and the agency’s Hispanic capabilities practice at a national level, and he has led successful marketing campaigns for CVS/Pharmacy, Levi’s, The Children's Trust, Staples, Royal Carribbean and Toyota, among others. He was also instrumental in the company's social marketing practice, having worked for many years on the National truth Campaign against tobacco, the most successful smoking cessation campaign of all time.

Tony earned a Bachelors of Arts degree in English from Florida State University and completed Masters of Science work in Integrated Communications at Florida International University. In 2012, Tony completed the Miami Foundation Fellows program and was named a Top Latino Leader by Latino Leaders Magazine. Earlier this year, Tony was also featured as one of Brickell Magazine's Top 20 Professionals Under 40.

"I'm thrilled to be joining SAVE Dade at such an important time. There are many issues that affect our community and a great need to educate people in order to create tolerance, harmony and positive change. We're here to be champions for human rights and I am honored to have been chosen as the next Executive Director of this amazing organization," said Tony.

We welcome Tony and look forward to working with him starting in September.

County commission defers trans-inclusive HRO vote to August

This Monday, the Health and Social Services Committee of the Miami-Dade County Commission opted to defer a vote on the proposal to add trans-inclusive language to the countywide Human Rights Ordinance to August. This means that the committee's vote is effectively postponed until its next scheduled meeting, which will be August 26.

The sponsor of the proposal, committee chair Audrey Edmonson, cited misinformation surrounding the use of bathrooms by transgendered people as the reason for the postponement of the vote. "I think that it's a scare tactic that has been put out there," Edmonson was quoted by WPLG Local 10 as claiming, referring to the bathroom red herring being circulated by extremist groups as the reason to oppose the bill.

Over 100 opponents of the bill affiliated with fundamentalist religious groups filled the chamber on Monday, even though Commissioner Edmonson had indicated ahead of time that she would move to postpone the vote. After the deferral, which only the fundamentalist christian Commissioner Lynda Bell opposed, the chamber erupted in hissing and boos. As the religious fundamentalists noisily filed out of the chamber, they were chastised by the committee for interrupting an official meeting and conducting themselves discourteously.

Outside of Government Center in downtown Miami, which houses the Commission chamber, the fundamentalists gathered for a rally. Wearing name tags that said 'Say NO to discrimination,' the fundamentalists listened intently as their leader denounced the proposal as an infringement on haters' rights to discriminate against others.

The meeting was a wake-up call for all of us here at SAVE Dade. The other side is in full outrage mode, and we need all hands on deck to counter their hate and scare tactics. You can do your part by visiting

What do the Supreme Court rulings mean for Florida?


"The history of DOMA’s enactment and its own text demonstrate that interference with the equal dignity of same-sex marriages…was more than an incidental effect…it was its essence. DOMA wrote inequality into the United States Code.”

With those words published Wednesday, the Supreme Court of the United States exposed the Defense of Marriage Act for what it was: a law that had a sole purpose of discriminating---of creating a sub-class of citizens without the full rights afforded to all.  Since the Supreme Court published its decisions in the cases of United States v. Windsor (DOMA) and Hollingsworth v. Perry (Prop 8), equality advocates have celebrated a victory, and both sides have attempted to spin the decisions in an attempt to create talking points.  It is important that citizens arm themselves with the facts, understand what these two cases actually have done, and what they will mean for the future of this generation’s greatest debate.

The Immediate Nationwide Impact

The impact of these two cases is quite clear: (1) the Federal Government must grant full legal recognition of any same-sex marriage in any state which legally recognizes such marriages and (2) California is now among the states that will legally recognize same-sex marriages. The importance of those two facts should not be understated. By August, about 30% of the population will live in a state that recognizes same-sex marriages; the DOMA ruling clears the way for those people to enjoy all the rights and privileges conferred upon married couples by the federal government. The provisions of federal law which now must be applied to same-sex marriages in those states number over 1,000. Those provisions grant a host of very important rights that can impact the lives of same-sex couples in a wide range of ways, including rights regarding immigration, health care, taxes, and even greater protection from violent crime. In short, the rulings are a big win for any same-sex couples living in a state which recognizes such a marriage, and an especially big win for Californians.

The Immediate Impact for Florida’s Families

What the DOMA ruling means for Miamians remains to be seen, but it probably won't change much immediately for us locally. For Miami couples who have been married in a state which legally recognizes same-sex marriages, this case could end up having an effect; the Federal Government could decide to recognize such a marriage even though the State of Florida would not. The Respect for Marriage Act is an important piece of legislation pending before Congress that could help resolve those situations for Miamians. Additionally, expect the Obama administration to create a series of regulations that should provide some clarity for Miami LGBT couples in the next year. What the DOMA ruling does not do is force the State of Florida to recognize same-sex marriages granted by other states. The bottom line for Miamians remains largely unchanged: same-sex marriage will not be recognized in Florida until the state constitution is amended to allow it or the Supreme Court rules that prohibiting same-sex marriages is unconstitutional. It will take hard work from pro-LGBT advocates and organizations such as SAVE Dade to create an atmosphere where all of Florida’s families can enjoy the benefits of marriage.

How They Ruled and What It Means

While the result of a Supreme Court case is often very important to the people directly involved in and impacted by the case, the court’s reasoning is almost more important, as it tells us what type of precedent the case sets -- that is, what the impact of the case will be in the future, for cases that are not resolved by the court at the current time.

The Prop 8 case, commonly known as Perry, was decided on what most would call a technicality.  The District Court in California originally declared Prop 8 unconstitutional and, when neither the governor nor the attorney general of California chose to appeal, the proponents of Prop 8 -- the individuals who had placed the provision on the ballot, and who had been permitted to intervene to defend the provision -- were the only parties to file an appeal. The Supreme Court said that the Prop 8 proponents did not have the power to appeal the ruling, however, which had the effect of rendering the District Court ruling the final judgment on Prop 8. The substantive issues -- whether a state can deny marriage to same-sex couples, and whether gays and lesbians have a particular entitlement to equal treatment from the government -- did not factor into the ruling at all.  What this means is that the case will have little impact on the broader issue of same-sex marriage outside of California.

The DOMA case, on the other hand, was not decided on a technicality -- although it did include a somewhat notable detour. The Court’s opinion, written by Justice Kennedy, embarks on a lengthy discussion of states' rights, and the extent to which the federal government has the authority to create laws regulating marriage that are at odds with laws of states -- as DOMA is, in that it refuses to recognize marriages that twelve states (and the District of Columbia) now perform.  The Court recognized that domestic issues like marriage had historically been left to state regulation, and identified DOMA as “an unusual deviation” from that history. The Court thus established solid grounds to overturn DOMA as a federal intrusion on the historic power of states to regulate marriage -- but it stopped short of saying so, and made an abrupt turn.  

Instead of relying solely on states' rights, the Court decided the case on equality and liberty grounds.  Invoking the Constitution's guarantees of equal protection and due process, it concluded that DOMA discriminated in “visible and public ways,” in that DOMA disparaged and injured the same-sex marriage couples whose marriages had been recognized under state law.  The Court held that no legitimate purpose for its creation could be found, using a harsh tone to completely reject Congress's stated purposes for enacting the law. It therefore concluded that the statute was unconstitutional.  

Despite its conclusion that DOMA was unconstitutional, however, there was a noticeable lack of discussion and explanation from the Court as to how it had arrived at the conclusion that DOMA violated the Constitution.  It is particularly noteworthy that the Court took a very narrow approach in defining the class of individuals that Congress had discriminated against; instead of holding that Congress had discriminated against gays and lesbians more broadly, it focused on the fact that Congress had discriminated against individuals in same-sex marriages that had been made lawful by their State.  What this means is that there is little guidance for courts down the road, addressing future challenges to other laws discriminating against gays and lesbians more broadly, or even same-sex couples whose states do not yet permit them to be married.  In other words, the Court’s decision on DOMA may not be spectacularly helpful in resolving future cases about the constitutionality of state laws banning same-sex marriage.

The Future of the Debate on LGBT Equality

Even leaving aside the constitutionality of the laws in over 30 states banning same-sex marriage, there are many issues left unresolved that will need attention in wake of this ruling, and we should keep a close eye on them. For instance, imagine a Naval officer stationed in California who lawfully marries a spouse of the same sex and is then issued a transfer order to a state that does not recognize his marriage. Will the federal government continue to recognize his marriage in the new state, even though the state refuses to do so?  These type of issues, and scores of issues like it, will need to be resolved. The aforementioned series of regulations from the Obama Administration will start to provide the much-needed answers to those ambiguous and potentially troubling scenarios. If President Obama or Congress fails to address these issues, the courts will likely have to step in at some point down the road. 

The elation and cheers from the LGBT community and its allies over Wednesday’s decisions were well-deserved, but proclamations of victory are premature. While these cases will change the lives of many, they do not ultimately resolve the ongoing national debate about same-sex marriage and equal rights for gays and lesbians in general.  What’s more, there is the fear that in hearing and ruling on these two cases, the Supreme Court -- and in particular its swing justice, Anthony Kennedy -- may decide that the Court should wait at least a few years before again weighing in on same-sex marriage. If that is the case, the divisive split among the states on same-sex marriage may continue for years -- if not over a decade -- before the Supreme Court again opines on gay and lesbian rights.

Thus, as the dust begins to settle from these two cases, three things are clear: History has been made, and a lot of people’s lives have changed for the better.  But the battle continues to rage on. That is why it is so important for our community to continue to support SAVE Dade and similar organizations working to promote, protect, and defend the rights of LGBT people in Florida.


Don Donelson, J.D.

Don Donelson is full-time faculty member at the University of Miami, and a member of SAVE Dade’s Young Guardian Society- a young professionals network with a focus on equality and philanthropic giving.

Supreme Court rules in favor of equality


Today at SAVE Dade we are ecstatic that the Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act that before today denied thousands of legally married same-sex couples certain federal benefits and privileges granted only to married heterosexual couples. We applaud the Justices for ruling on the side of equality and we look forward to a brighter future for LGBT couples in the United States. Today was a great win for American democracy and the time-honored American tradition of equal treatment under the law.

We are also overjoyed that we can add California as the 13th state in the union to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The Supreme Court also chose to rule on the side of equality in the Prop 8 case and we applaud the justices for that decision as well.

Overall, today is a tremendous victory for our movement, but it is not the finish line, especially in the state of Florida and Miami-Dade County where gay and transgender people can still be fired from their jobs.  That's why we're committed in Miami-Dade county to passing a trans-inclusive Human Rights Ordinance that would guarantee employment and housing protections to the local trans community. Join us today at the LGBT Visitor Center on Washington Avenue and 11th Street on Miami Beach at 6PM as we celebrate today's incredible victories and plan for the continuing action in the days and weeks ahead.

My Farewell to Exodus Int'l - Op Ed by Jaime Bayo

pray-your-gay-away234.jpgWednesday night I heard that Exodus International — the world’s largest “ex-gay” ministry — announced during its annual conference that it will close. Shortly after, the organization’s president issued a public apology to everyone who has ever been a victim of “change therapy” meant to alter sexual orientation.

Read more

SAVE Dade hails passage of Miami Beach tax equity

Today SAVE Dade welcomed the passage of a first-of-its-kind ordinance providing for reimbursement of taxes on health benefits to city employees in domestic partnerships.  The move was hailed as another step forward for a city that in recent years has put itself ahead of the curve when it comes to LGBT issues.

Read more

Sign up for emails Donate Volunteer