Connect with us

News

Fed’l benefits issues linger post-DOMA for gay couples

Questions remain on Social Security, taxes, veterans benefits and family leave

Published

on

Jeff Zarillo, Paul Katami, Sandy Stier, Kris Perry, David Boies, Chad Griffin, gay marriage, same-sex marriage, marriage equality, Proposition 8, Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, Prop 8, California, Supreme Court, gay news, Washington Blade
Jeff Zarillo, Paul Katami, Sandy Stier, Kris Perry, David Boies, Chad Griffin, gay marriage, same-sex marriage, marriage equality, Proposition 8, Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, Prop 8, California, Supreme Court, gay news, Washington Blade

Federal benefit issues for gay couples continue to linger after the Supreme Court ruling against the Defense of Marriage Act (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key).

Following the Supreme Court’s decision striking down the Defense of Marriage Act, the extent to which many federal benefits — taxes, Social Security, veterans benefits and family leave — will flow to married same-sex couples remains in question.

The Obama administration has extended certain benefits to married same-sex couples regardless of whether they live in the United States, but other benefits are still in limbo because of law, regulation or policy that determines whether a couple should be considered legally married.

Here’s a breakdown of these benefit categories and where they stand in terms of what’s obstructing their flow to married same-sex couples and what LGBT advocates see as the way forward:

1. SOCIAL SECURITY

Last week, the Social Security Administration announced for the first time it was starting to process retirement claims for married same-sex couples who apply for them in aftermath of the court decision on DOMA. But the extension of these benefits is limited.

On Friday, the agency published guidance indicating these benefits will flow to same-sex married couples living in states that recognize their unions, but couples that apply for these benefits in non-marriage equality states for the time being will have their requests placed on hold.

“Bill (the claimant) and Bob (the NH) marry in MA after MA recognizes same-sex marriage, but are domiciled Texas (TX),” the guidance says. “Bill files for husband’s benefits on Bob’s record. They meet all other factors of entitlement. Hold the claim.”

William “BJ” Jarrett, a Social Security spokesperson, confirmed on Monday the agency is processing some Social Security retirement spouse claims when the individual was married in a state that permits same-sex marriage and lives in a marriage-equality state at the time of application — or while the claim is pending a final determination. Still, he acknowledged other retirement claims are on hold.

“For all other claims, including Social Security survivors benefits, we continue to work with the Department of Justice on the development and implementation of policy and processing instructions,” Jarrett said. “We do, however, encourage individuals who believe they may be eligible for Social Security benefits to apply now to protect against the loss of any potential benefits.”

The reasoning for placing these claims on holds is statutory. Social Security law looks to the state of residence when a couple applies for benefits to determine if they’re married instead of looking to the place of celebration.

Even so, LGBT advocates say it’s possible for the Obama administration to interpret the Supreme Court ruling against DOMA in a broad way that allows them to offer Social Security benefits to a greater number of couples.

Michael Cole-Schwartz, a Human Rights Campaign spokesperson, indicated that no final decision has been with the assessment of these benefits as he encouraged the Obama administration to expand the benefits to additional couples.

“We are glad to see some couples getting benefits and that the door is still open for those couples living in non-marriage equality states,” Cole-Schwartz said. “We urge them to take the broadest interpretation to ensure the maximum numbers of same sex couples have access to benefits.”

Susan Sommer, a senior counsel at Lambda Legal, said her organization also believes gay couples in civil unions or domestic partnerships should also be eligible for Social Security benefits.

“We think that the laws reads for sure to includes those people who live in those states that have a civil union or domestic partnership, but waiting to hear from the Obama administration for confirmation on that point,” Sommer said.

But a statutory change may be necessary. In that event, Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) has introduced Social Security Equality Act, which would enable gay couples to receive Social Security no matter where they live — even if their union isn’t a marriage, but a civil union or a domestic partnership.

“It is time for our government to stop telling gay and lesbian couples that they are second class citizens,” Sanchez said last week in a statement. “Same-sex couples pay into Social Security over the course of their working lives just like other Americans. They should receive the full benefits they have earned.”

2. TAXES

Another question is whether legally married same-sex couples throughout the country will be eligible for tax benefits — such as the exemption from the estate tax, the ability to jointly file and exemption from taxes on employer-provided spousal health benefits — in the wake of the DOMA decision. These couples are currently not receiving benefits if they live in states that haven’t legalized marriage equality.

That means if DOMA-lawsuit plaintiff Edith Windsor had moved to a non-marriage equality state like Alabama with Thea Spyer after marrying in Canada, she wouldn’t have been eligible for exemption from the estate tax as a result of her own lawsuit.

But what’s different about these benefits is that neither law nor regulation keeps these benefits from flowing to married same-sex couples that live in marriage equality states. It’s simply the policy of the Internal Revenue Service to look to the state of residence as opposed to the state of celebration in determining whether a couple is married.

Lambda’s Sommer pointed out that only policy is keeping the IRS from allowing these couples in non-marriage equality states to receive tax benefits entitled to other married couples.

“We are aware of no statute or even a regulation that prescribes a choice of law rule for determining the marital status for tax purposes,” Sommer said. “There’s no legal impediment to having the administration follow a place of celebration standard. It could so in addition to, say a place of domicile standard, which has been articulated in some tax court rulings, but still, in some circumstances, as a place of celebration rule.”

An IRS spokesperson referred to the statement currently on the agency’s website posted at the time of the Supreme Court in response to inquiry on whether IRS would implement tax benefits for married same-sex couples on the nationwide basis, regardless of their states of residence.

“We are reviewing the important June 26 Supreme Court decision on the Defense of Marriage Act,” the statement says. “We will be working with the Department of Treasury and Department of Justice, and we will move swiftly to provide revised guidance in the near future.”

3. VETERANS BENEFITS

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel announced on the day the U.S. Supreme Court struck down DOMA that the Pentagon would comply the law to implement benefits for service members with same-sex spouses. But the question of whether veterans will be included as part of the package remains to be seen.

In U.S. Code, the Pentagon was previously unable to provide gay troops spousals benefits under Titles 10 and 32, which govern rights for service members, because of the Defense of Marriage Act. Now that the Supreme Court has struck down Section 3 of DOMA, those benefits should begin to flow.

However, the benefits under Title 38, which governs benefits for veterans, define spouse independently of DOMA in opposite-sex terms. Some of the benefits allocated under this law are disability benefits, survivor benefits and joint burial at a veteran’s cemetery. It’s unclear whether these benefits will begin to flow along with these other benefits because of the wording within the law.

Multiple media outlets are reporting that the Pentagon intends to have the benefits issue wrapped up by Aug. 31 along with the extension of benefits that were available under DOMA, such as military IDs, that were announced in February. Additionally, the U.S. Justice Department is required to file in McLaughlin v. Hagel, an ongoing DOMA lawsuit, to provide a status report by Sept. 9 on benefits afforded to gay troops addressing the Title 38 issue. An informed source told the Washington Blade the issue may be resolved as soon as this week.

Alex Nicholson, who’s gay and legislative director for Iraq & Afghanistan Veterans of America, said his organization has spoken about the issue with the administration and believes it has a “justifiable mandate” to afford these benefits to the legal spouses gay veterans.

“It’s not surprising that they’re taking their time to figure this out and do it right, but I think the mandate from the Supreme Court was clear enough that they could definitely move a little faster,” Nicholson said.

Lambda’s Sommer said the issue for gay veterans isn’t so much Title 38 because Title 1 of the U.S. Code should allow for a gender-neutral construction of this law. Still, she said other portions of the law related to veterans benefits could impact gay veterans seeking claims.

“In the veterans benefits area, there is also a statute kind of like what’s seen in the Social Security context that looks to the place of domicile at the time of celebration or when the right to the benefit has accrued,” Sommer said. “We’ll have to await guidance for how the administration will treat veterans who resided at the time of their marriage, and continue to live, in states that don’t respect their marriages.”

Lt. Cmdr. Nathan Christensen, a Pentagon spokesperson, said the Defense Department is working on the issue, but unable to provide additional information.

“The Department of Defense is working alongside the Department of Justice to implement the Court’s decision as quickly as possible,” Christensen said. “At this time no decisions have been made.”

In a statement provided to the Blade, the Department of Veterans Affairs similarly said the department was working to implement the benefits without providing anything conclusive on the extent to which they would flow.

“Our commitment to our Veterans and their families will continue to be our focus as we work to comply with recent Supreme Court decisions,” the statement says. “We are working closely with the Department of Justice to review relevant statutes and policies to implement any necessary changes to Federal benefits and obligations swiftly and smoothly in order to deliver the best services to all our nation’s Veterans.”

Here a change in the law may be required as well. The Charlie Morgan Act, introduced by Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), would enable spousal benefits to flow to gay veterans. It was reported out of the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs just prior to August recess.

4. FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE

Yet another issue that related to family leave still persists a few days after the Labor Department issued guidance stating the Family & Medical Leave Act will apply to married same-sex couples in the wake of the Supreme Court decision against DOMA: Will the change apply to married same-sex couples in non-marriage equality states?

On Friday, Labor Secretary Thomas Perez issued guidance to department staff notifying them the Wage & Hour Division made the change as the result of the work with the Justice Department and calling the Supreme Court ruling against DOMA “a historic step toward equality for all American families.”

“As part of this process, the Department of Labor updated several guidance documents today to remove references to DOMA and to affirm the availability of spousal leave based on same-sex marriages under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA),” Perez said. “This is one of many steps the Department will be taking over the coming months to implement the Supreme Court’s decision.”

The Family & Medical Leave Act entitles employees to take unpaid, job-protected leave for family and medical reasons with continuation of group health insurance coverage under the same terms and conditions as if the employee had not taken leave. Eligible employees are entitled to 12 work weeks of leave in a year-long period for the birth of a child or to care for spouse and up to 26 work weeks of leave to care for a service member with a serious injury.

But under current policy, this post-DOMA application of the Family & Medical Leave Act won’t apply to married same-sex couples if they place of residence doesn’t recognize same-sex marriage. A Labor Department official said the Wage & Hour Division’s Family & Medical Leave Act regulations define “spouse” for purposes of marriage as recognized under the state law where an employee resides. All that would be required for to change this policy is a change in regulation.

Tico Almeida, president of Freedom to Work, called on the Labor Department to update the regulations so same-sex marriages are recognized by the state of celebration for family and medical leave purposes.

“The couple that lives in Alabama, flies to New York City for the weekend to get married and returns to Alabama deserves to have the same FMLA rights as the gay and lesbian couples that live in New York City,” Almeida said. “We want a 50-state solution, and that means recognizing same-sex marriages by the state of celebration, even though current FMLA regulations recognize marriage by the state of residency.”

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Turkey

More than 150 people detained outside Istanbul courthouse

Protesters gathered after raids targeted Turkey’s LGBTQ community

Published

on

(Washington Blade photo by Michael K. Lavers)

Turkish authorities on Tuesday detained more than 150 people who gathered outside an Istanbul courthouse to protest raids that targeted the country’s LGBTQ community.

CNN reported the protesters had planned to speak with reporters outside the city’s Caglayan courthouse, but authorities prevented them from doing so.

Turkish authorities over the weekend detained dozens of people in Istanbul and in other cities during raids that were part of the government’s “My Family is Safe” campaign.

A statement from a group of Turkish advocacy groups the Washington Blade received on Tuesday notes “at least 112 people have been detained in connection with the operations.” The organizations said 43 of those taken into custody are “LGBTI+ rights defenders,” and “at least” 62 of those detained “have been arrested, while judicial proceedings remain ongoing in Istanbul.”

“Among those arrested, at least 16 are LGBTI+ activists or individuals connected to LGBTI+ associations, including founders and members of association bodies,” reads the statement. “Per press statements by the prosecutor’s offices, dissolution cases will also be launched against associations.” 

“The majority of those arrested are trans women who are charged with prostitution-related offences,” it adds. “While authorities have framed the operations as part of investigations into alleged crimes such as obscenity, prostitution and child exploitation, human rights defenders and civil society organizations have raised serious concerns regarding the use of criminal law mechanisms and public morality narratives to target legitimate LGBTI+ rights activities. Civil society views the ‘My Family is Safe’ narrative as a smokescreen to distract the public from deep economic crises and actual domestic violence, weaponizing moral panic to scapegoat LGBTI+ rights defenders, who have long been targeted by the government.”

The raids have sparked outrage among LGBTQ activists in Europe and elsewhere around the world.

The Congressional Equality Caucus and U.S. Rep. Carlos Giménez (R-Fla.) are among those who have publicly condemned them in the U.S. The Council for Global Equality on Friday is scheduled to hold a rally in support of Turkey’s LGBTQ community in front of the Turkish Embassy in Northwest D.C. 

Continue Reading

Delaware

Gay man sues Delaware AG for not prosecuting partner in domestic violence case

Also accuses Univ. of Delaware of failing to discipline Ph.D. student named as attacker

Published

on

Delaware Attorney General Kathy Jennings won her primary on Tuesday. She has faced some criticism over a decision not to prosecute a case of same-sex domestic violence. (Photo courtesy of Jennings’s campaign)

Tymothy ‘Ty’ Moyer, a gay former resident of Wilmington, Del., earlier this year filed a lawsuit in federal court charging Delaware Attorney General Kathleen ‘Kathy’ Jennings, one of her deputies, and a state-employed victims advocate with conspiring to deny him “equal protection” under the law because he is African American by declining to prosecute his then domestic partner after the partner’s arrest on Feb. 3, 2024, for assaulting and seriously injuring him, causing a “permanent traumatic brain injury.”    

The lawsuit also names as defendants the University of Delaware and one of its officials for allegedly failing to sufficiently discipline Michael Uzu, Moyer’s former partner and alleged attacker, who at the time was a graduate student seeking a Ph.D. in chemistry.

According to the lawsuit, following his arrest on an assault charge, the university conducted an investigation of Uzu and found he violated the university’s policy of student conduct by engaging in domestic violence, but issued a deferred suspension until December 2025, allowing him to continue his studies. Moyer has said the university acted improperly by not expelling Uzu from its Ph.D. program because of the seriousness of the assault.

The lawsuit identifies Uzu, 33, as a citizen of Nigeria with a U.S. student visa. Uzu identifies himself on his LinkedIn page as a chemist who was conducting research for the Delaware-based chemical company Chemours while studying advanced chemistry at the University of Delaware. His LinkedIn page says he received his Ph.D. in 2026.

 Moyer, 30, who identifies himself in his lawsuit as African American and a lifelong U.S. citizen, provided the Washington Blade with a statement describing the details of his allegations against Uzu.

“On the late evening of February 2 through the morning of the 3rd, in 2024, I ended the relationship and asked Michel ‘Mike’ Uzu to leave my apartment in Wilmington, Delaware,” his statement says. “I was ending the relationship after months of escalating mistreatment,” the statement says, adding that Uzu refused to leave his apartment and started a confrontation.

“Uzu attacked me,” the statement continues. “He struck me repeatedly with his fists, with my own cell phone, and with a titanium lacrosse stick that he picked up from inside the apartment and used to strike me on the head. I suffered severe facial trauma, swelling, bodily bruising, and required surgical staples to close the lacerations on the top of my skull.” 

The statement adds, “During the assault, Uzu told me he would kill me if I told anyone. Outside the apartment building, Uzu picked up a large rock and positioned himself to strike me with it before a bystander intervened.” It says Moyer was then transported to the emergency room of a nearby hospital.

Moyer’s lawsuit says Uzu was arrested by Wilmington police, indicted by a grand jury, and arraigned on felony and misdemeanor assault charges.

In response to an email request from the Blade for comment, Uzu emailed a statement on Sept. 15 denying all of Moyer’s allegations, saying it was he who told Moyer he wanted to end their relationship and it was Moyer who assaulted him.

“He would get drunk and use drugs and pick up fights with me and apologize when he became normal,” Uzu says in his statement. “So, I packed up my things and decided to depart from him,” he said, adding, “The night preceding the day I was moving out he attacked me while I was sleeping, kicked me in the stomach and injured me in my arms, jaw and neck while I was sleeping, that turned into a fight as I was defending myself.”

He said he called the police and before the police arrived Moyer “self-inflicted injury on himself and framed it on me.” 

Moyer couldn’t immediately be reached for a response to Uzu’s allegations. But his friend, journalist Scott Davis, who has followed the case and examined the police report and court documents, said none of Uzu’s allegations could be confirmed by police, who arrived on the scene and prepared a report. Among other things, Davis said the investigation conducted by the University of Delaware found Uzu never provided any documentation that he was injured.

Davis said Moyer, who is about 5 feet 7 inches tall and weighs about 160 pounds compared to Uzu, who is over six feet tall and weighed over 200 pounds, was the one found to be suffering serious injuries, with no injuries reported for Uzu.

Moyer’s earlier statement to the Blade says that In September 2024, on the day of his birthday, the lead prosecutor in the case, Deputy Attorney General Claudia Debonte, called him to inform him she was dropping the case. The lawsuit states that the reason given for dropping the case was insufficient evidence based on Uzu’s claim that he acted in self-defense.

“The University’s hearing officer explicitly rejected Uzu’s self-defense claims as ‘inconsistent and unreliable’ and found that Uzu’s account contained ‘multiple irreconcilable inconsistencies’ and ‘material omissions,’” Moyer’s lawsuit states.

Moyer’s lawsuit says the university’s investigative findings and the police report at the  time Uzu was arrested, along with a partial video Moyer took with his phone showing Uzu attacking him with the lacrosse stick, clearly provide sufficient evidence for a full prosecution.

Moyer has said the assault left him with permanent brain damage that impaired his vision, forcing him to resign from his career as a financial compliance associate with the BlackRock asset management company.

In response to a request by the Blade for comment on why the Delaware Attorney General’s office, with the approval of Attorney General Jennings, declined to prosecute Uzu for assault, Matt Marshall, a spokesperson for Jennings, sent the Blade a statement.

“While I can’t characterize specific evidence or statements made to police, the State’s analysis included, but was not limited to, the investigation’s finding that the Defendant had a credible claim of self-defense,” according to Marshall’s statement. 

“This kind of dynamic is fairly common in domestic violence cases, no less so in same-sex cases,” he said. “A case being unviable at trial does not mean a victim has not been harmed, that we don’t believe them, or even necessarily that a Defendant is innocent,” Marshall’s statement says. “It only means that criminal guilt could not be proven at trial.”

Among other things, he noted that prosecutors must be able to convince a jury that a defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case, he said, his office did not believe they could overcome “every reasonable doubt, which would include a Defendant’s argument that they acted in self-defense.”

Jennings, a Democrat, who easily won her primary race for re-election to a third four-year term on Tuesday, has a longstanding record of support on LGBTQ rights and progressive causes. She was challenged by two opponents in the Sept. 15, 2026, Delaware Democratic primary. One of the opponents, civil rights attorney Dwayne Bensing, is gay and would have become the nation’s first openly gay state attorney general had he prevailed in the race.

In response to a request from the Blade for comment on Moyer’s lawsuit allegations, Bensing said in a statement that when the Attorney General’s office declines to prosecute a case where an arrest was made it should maintain the public trust by being “transparent” about its decision-making process.

“As Attorney General, I will commit to reviewing how domestic partner violence cases are handled across the state to ensure that prosecutorial decisions are made consistently, transparently, and free from administrative oversight failures,” he said.

Moyer’s lawsuit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on April 16, 2026, calls for a jury trial and requests that  the court issue a judgment against each of the defendants, “jointly and severally” finding that they “conspired to deprive Plaintiff of the equal protection of the laws in violation of 42 U.S. Code 1985 (3).”

It calls for compensatory damages and punitive damages against each defendant “in an amount to be determined at trial, including damages for lost wages, medical expenses, legal fees, emotional distress, and pain and suffering.”

Moyer said he is currently representing himself without an attorney. 

In an Aug. 28, 2026, “Report and Recommendation,” Magistrate Judge Laura D. Hatcher, who was presiding over the lawsuit case, issued a recommendation that the case be dismissed without prejudice on grounds that Moyer’s complaint “fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted” based on existing federal law.

Hatcher also recommended that Moyer be “granted leave to amend his complaint within thirty (30) days of the District Court’s adoption of this Report and Recommendation.”

Moyer told the Blade District Judge Gregory B. Williams accepted the recommendation and granted him permission to amend and revise his complaint. 

“An amended complaint addressing the Court’s guidance will be filed within the timeframe the Court has provided,” Moyer said. “The Court identified areas where the complaint needed further development, and that development is underway,” he said.

Moyer’s friend, journalist and commentator Davis, said he has conducted research into domestic violence cases in Delaware and reported in articles and commentaries that Delaware is one of the states with the highest rates of domestic violence cases that are not prosecuted.

“In fiscal year 2024, Delaware law enforcement made 5,064 domestic violence arrests,” Davis wrote in a November 2025 commentary entitled, “Was Ty Moyer Too Black and Gay for Delaware AG Kathy Jennings to Prosecute His Attacker?” He added, “Yet Jennings’ office prosecuted only 1,184 cases – a mere 23 percent,” Davis wrote, adding that, “More than three-quarters of domestic violence perpetrators faced no prosecution despite being arrested.”

Davis told the Blade that Jennings’s decision not to prosecute Uzu has raised concerns that she based that decision on political bias. He points out that Jennings has publicly aligned herself with national immigration advocacy efforts, including joining lawsuits against the Trump administration’s immigration policies and its funding freezes against universities, including the University of Delaware.

Davis said Uzu’s academic ties to the University of Delaware and the chemical company Chemours, which Davis says is “politically influential” with its headquarters in Wilmington, has led some to believe that Jennings’s refusal to prosecute Uzu was politically motivated, aimed at preserving her image as a defender of immigrants rather than pursuing justice for a domestic violence victim.

Jennings’s supporters dispute those claims, saying she bases her decisions on whom to prosecute on the available evidence.     

As if all that were not enough, Davis said he contacted the U.S. Department of Homeland Security in September 2025 to find out if their strict policy of investigating and deporting immigrants found to have violated U.S. laws, including engaging in violent behavior, might apply to Michael Uzu, who was charged with assault and is in the U.S. on a visa status. Davis said the DHS did not respond to his inquiry.

Continue Reading

Virginia

Virginia Anti-Violence Project struggles to fill federal funding gaps

Group has lost 54 percent of funding since 2020

Published

on

Federal funding cuts have left the Virginia Anti-Violence Project struggling to continue its advocacy efforts in the state. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

A loss of federal funding has threatened to adversely impact the Virginia Anti-Violence Project’s work in the state.

The group’s mission is to assist LGBTQ and BIPOC (Black, Indigenous and people of color) victims of domestic, sexual, interpersonal, and state violence with direct support, education, and advocacy. The VAVP seeks to build a future where LGBTQ and BIPOC individuals can live freely without a sense for worry about violence. 

“Virginia Anti-Violence Project helps to close the distance between services existing and LGBTQIA+ survivors actually being able to reach safety, stable housing, and support that they can trust,” VAVP Executive Director Ebony Clark told the Washington Blade on Tuesday. “Our mission is to provide direct services and advocacy to LGBTQ+ survivors across Virginia.”

Clark said obtaining state and federal funds has become increasingly difficult.

“One of the reasons that we can talk about is politics and how you know queer diverse, queer communities are targets when it comes to politics, and so that may be a reason why the funding is decreasing in in very niche areas, but overall, state funding, federal funding has been lost or significantly reduced when it comes to culturally specific marginalized populations,” Clark said. “The bigger picture is that funding that was purposed for diversity, equity, inclusion, marginalized populations, or you know culturally competent programming, those funds have been strategically reduced or eliminated on state and federal levels overall.” 

Even more so with the current Trump-Vance administration.

VAVP’s federal funding has dropped 54 percent over the last six years: from $25.1 million in fiscal year 2020 to $11.6 million in fiscal year 2026.

Clark noted some federal funding has been denied due to VAVP’s DEI policies — it has had to “water down” their language. These cuts have forced VAVP to limit housing and economic support, which has resulted in fewer resources for its clients.

The organization has set up a goal for receiving between $250,000-$300,000 a year that would allow it to operate — and focus on client housing.

“Housing is fundamental to safety,” Clark told the Blade. “If you know leaving violence puts someone on the street or forces them back to the person harming them, that means the crisis isn’t over. So there needs to be other prevention strategies and reactive strategies in place to be able to prevent further violence from folks.” 

VAVP has set up a link for anyone who is interested in making a donation. It is here.

The VAVP website is also accepting donations.

Continue Reading

Popular