Connect with us

National

Still more marriage questions for Carney

W.H. won’t say whether Obama wants marriage in Dem platform or help in state efforts

Published

on

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney (Blade file photo by Michael Key)

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney faced new questions on marriage Thursday in the first time the spokesperson publicly talked to reporters following President Obama’s announcement in support of same-sex marriage.

In a press gaggle abord Air Force One en route to Seattle, Carney declined to answer inquiries on whether Obama wants to see an inclusion of same-sex marriage in the Democratic Party platform, nor would he would say whether Obama will commit to helping with efforts to pass same-sex marriage in states.

Asked whether Obama will move toward having “pro-gay marriage language in the Democratic national platform,” Carney deferred to the Democratic National Committee.

“Well, party platform issues are for the party to decide,” Carney said. “That process is underway, and I refer you to the DNC on the question about the platform.”

Carney similarly dodged in response to a question on whether Obama will be “outspoken when these issues come up in states” deliberating same-sex marriage.

“I’m not going to speculate about what he may say or statements he might issue,” Carney said. “He has on occasion made his position known on actions by individual states, most recently in North Carolina, and I’m sure that continues to be the case. That will continue to be the case.”

Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry, said in response to Carney’s answer on the Democratic platform that those crafting the document should listen the president’s endorsement of same-sex marriage on Wednesday.

“Freedom to Marry’s call for a freedom to marry plank in the Democratic Party — a call that has won huge support from former party chairs, the convention chair, leaders in Congress, 22 senators, and over 40,000 signers on our online petition — continues full force,” Wolfson said. “The Democratic Party should do what the president did so beautifully yesterday: stand for the freedom to marry.”

Wolfson similarly said the onus is on supporters or marriage equality to advance same-sex marriage throughout the nation in the wake of Obama’s endorsement.

“We know that the president’s strong voice and clear message yesterday will have an enormous and ongoing effect in helping people wrestling with this question rise to fairness,” Wolfson said. “It’s the job of all the rest of us to go out and have the conversations that he described so well as helping change his mind.”

John Aravosis, who’s gay and editor of AMERICAblog, said he’s OK with giving Obama a short break after his endorsement of same-sex marriage, but wants to see further action from the president.

“I’m happy to give the president twenty-four hours of honeymoon before I start demanding he do more on marriage, but I do think the community will expect him, and the party, to follow through on his support of same-sex marriage,” Aravosis said. “And that would mean adding marriage equality to the party platform and speaking out more aggressively against anti-gay measures in the states, including those concerning marriage.”

Carney also took questions on the web video ad the Obama campaign on Thursday hyping Obama’s newfound support of same-sex marriage and criticizing Romney for supporting a Federal Marriage Amendment and not even supporting civil unions.

A transcript of the exchange between reporters and Carney during the gaggle follows:

Q: Jay, today the Obama campaign put out a web video that’s attacking Romney on his stance on rights for same-sex couples. Given that the President just came around on this, on the issue of gay marriage yesterday, doesn’t that seem hypocritical and politically motivated more than anything?

Carney: Well, I would refer you to the campaign to talk about ads or videos that they put out.  The president noted in his interview when it came up yesterday with Robin Roberts of ABC, that his opponent, Governor Romney, has a starkly different view of these issues, and a starkly different view of the policy issues, even prior to the president’s announcement yesterday that he had come to the conclusion that he personally supports same-sex marriage.

Gov. Romney is for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would enshrine discrimination into our founding legal document. The president thinks that’s wrong. So their positions were starkly different before yesterday.

Q: The campaign or the president —

Carney: If you want to ask the campaign about its tactics I think you ought to ask the campaign about its tactics. The president was very clear in his interview with Robin Roberts about what his personal beliefs are. The president’s record on these issues of supporting LGBT rights is long and impressive and clear, and he’ll continue to fight to expand and protect the rights of all American citizens.

Q: Can you tell us whom — after he gave his interview, to whom has the president spoken personally, both on the gay advocacy side, and also perhaps on the other side in terms of any religious leaders or people who might want to get an explanation from him about his stance?

Carney:  I don’t have any conversations of the president to read out to you. The president had quite a busy day yesterday, and it continued to be busy after his interview.

Q: And do you suspect that at any point he would just point that out?

Carney: I wouldn’t — I couldn’t predict on that.

Q: Is the president excited to talk about this issue tonight now that he’s going to be doing a fundraiser in California among probably a lot of people who are very supportive of gay marriage? This is sort of the first chance he’ll have to talk about it since revealing his view.

Carney: I think the President has always been clear about his support for LGBT rights and the actions that he’s taken, including repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell”; the fact that he has long opposed the Defense of Marriage Act; the fact that he and the Attorney General, and therefore the administration, have deemed Section 3 of DOMA to be unconstitutional, and therefore the decision not to continue to defend it.

But look, the President’s focus, as I think he also said yesterday in his interview, has been and will continue to be on jobs and the economy.  That’s been the — creating greater security for a middle class in this country that has been under stress for a long time, even predating the Great Recession, has been number-one priority.  It was his number-one priority when he ran for office, for this office, and it has been his priority since he took the oath of office.  And I think you will hear him focus on those issues just as he has — going forward, just as he has in the past.

Q: Will he move to repeal DOMA officially, and have pro-gay marriage language in the Democratic national platform?

Carney: Well, party platform issues are for the party to decide. That process is underway, and I refer you to the DNC on the question about the platform.

The president’s belief that DOMA ought to be repealed is well stated. I’m not aware of the status of the legislative efforts aimed at repeal, but the president certainly supports that and has for quite a long time. I would note that he opposed DOMA back in 1996 and has opposed it ever since.

Q: Why not repeal it?

Carney: He believes it should be repealed.

Q: But why doesn’t he push to repeal to it?

Carney: I said it every time I’ve been asked about the President’s record on the Defense of Marriage Act. I mean, it’s not a “why not” question, it’s a “yes, we know” answer.

Q: Jay, the President is saying that this is a — and the White House is saying this is a states’ issue now. But will the President be outspoken when these issues come up in states about whether they should pass or not?

Carney: I’m not going to speculate about what he may say or statements he might issue. He has on occasion made his position known on actions by individual states, most recently in North Carolina, and I’m sure that continues to be the case. That will continue to be the case.

But I can’t predict when that will take place or with regards to what state issue. The president believes it is a matter for the states. He personally believes that gay and lesbian Americans ought to be able to — who are in committed, loving relationships ought to be able to marry.  But he also — and I think it’s important to note — is respectful of those who disagree. He, after all, traveled some distance to reach this personal decision, and he understands that the whole country has been considering this issue and struggling with it. And we’ve seen a remarkable evolution in the broader public with regards to LGBT rights in general, and specifically with regards to same-sex marriage.

Q: So if he respects people on the other side, why go after Romney?

Carney: You can respect somebody and strongly disagree. And he absolutely disagrees with efforts to — this is the distinction, Jim: He’s respectful of those who don’t agree with him on same-sex marriage. He vehemently disagrees with those who would act to deny Americans’ rights or act to take away rights that have been established in states. And that has been his position for quite a long time.

Q: Could you tell us — did he mention anything this morning at all about how he felt about the announcement yesterday or the impact it’s having so far?

Carney: I’m not going to read out internal discussions, but I think the President was glad to have the opportunity that he had yesterday to speak to the country about his views on this matter and about the journey he’s traveled on it — about the profound importance of equality, about the underlying principle that guided him as he came to this decision.

He cited the Golden Rule and the need to treat others as you would have them treat you.  He spoke about sort of the three areas that affected him as he was dealing with this and thinking about it:  conversations with friends and family and staff members, some of whom are in committed same-sex relationships.  The effect that conversations he had with members of our armed services during the fight to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell.”  And certainly his observation of and consideration of the various ways that states have been grappling with this issue, which he spoke about during his interview.

And I think those — all of those went into the process for him — a process that was a very personal one, as he discussed yesterday in his interview.

Q: When did the president came to that conclusion? I mean, we know he said to Robin Roberts in their interview that he had already decided to publicly take this position. So did he come to the conclusion weeks ago, months ago? When was that evolution complete?

Carney: I don’t have a specific date for you. Like I said, this was a very — this was not a policy debate within the White House or the administration. This was a personal decision about his personal views. I think it’s fair to say that within the last several months he had come to the decision that he talked about yesterday and had concluded that he wanted to convey his views on this to the American people sometime in the next several weeks or months. It wasn’t going to be this week, but because of the considerable focus on the issue this week, the President decided it might as well be this week.

Q: What effect did your — the grilling you got Monday at the briefing have on his sense of expediting this? Did he say anything to you about it?

Carney: I think — part of my job, and I think it reinforced the fact that this had become an issue that was getting a great deal of attention and focus, but certainly not about me.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

National

For lesbian victims of domestic violence, competent care is scare

Heteronormative assumptions, funding cuts contribute to lack of resources for survivors

Published

on

Design by Soph Holland.

Uncloseted Media published this story on Sept. 22.

By EMMA PAIDRA | Claire, a 25-year-old Los Angeles resident, distinctly remembers the night she and her ex-girlfriend broke up.

“She was strangling me in a CVS parking lot,” Claire recalls, adding how she was gasping for air as bystanders looked on. “I made eye contact with one man who just kept walking, and we were right behind a car that was trying to reverse out of a parking spot. No one got out of the car. They didn’t honk; they didn’t do anything.”

Claire, who asked to use a pseudonym due to safety concerns regarding her ex, says she managed to fight her way out of her then-girlfriend’s grasp. It was at this moment in 2024 she realized things had reached a breaking point.

While research on intimate-partner violence has traditionally focused on opposite-sex couples, two recent reports found that queer women, like Claire, are not immune to this type of abuse. An international research review published last year in the Journal of Media Critiques found “IPV rates in same-sex relationships are comparable to or exceed those in heterosexual relationships,” with up to 46 percent of lesbians encountering such abuse, compared to 36 percent of straight women. A separate review published earlier this year found that nearly 27 percent of lesbians surveyed had experienced IPV.

Despite the prevalence of IPV in lesbian relationships, heteronormative and outdated assumptions have left many queer women feeling like they have nowhere to turn for competent services and support, according to experts, advocates and victims interviewed by Uncloseted Media.

“Queer folks are joining the conversation to say, ‘This is happening in our communities, too, and we need the same resources and support services that straight women are offered,’” Tori Stranges, a professor of women’s studies at the University of British Columbia, told Uncloseted Media.

A frequently overlooked problem

Stranges says the false notion that only men are domestic abusers can result in violent same-sex relationships not being taken seriously.

“People assume that violence is perpetrated by men against women,” she says, adding that this “has left queer people out of the conversation.”

“If it was a man that was doing all these things, and people heard and saw it, I’m sure I would have been taken seriously,” says Claire. “People saw a 5-foot-7 woman who didn’t look that strong — and above all, she was a woman. Men, especially, don’t really see that as a threat. So they’re like, ‘If I’m not threatened, then I’m sure it’s not a big deal.’”

Outdated assumptions about IPV can even result in victims themselves overlooking their abuse.

“When it comes to abuse in heterosexual relationships, there are national campaigns, there are resources that you can access,” Stranges says. “There are people coming into the school systems to talk about relationship violence. We don’t have similar recognition and the same conversations about queer people.”

Claire says the violence she was subjected to was paired with moments of intense affection, which made it harder for her to recognize the abuse.

“We would get into a fight, and she would physically abuse me, and then apologize. She was actually also very gentle with me sometimes,” Claire recalls. “That kind of cycle can be really addicting. I would always wait for the good parts.”

The role of mental illness

K.P., a 47-year-old lesbian living in Maine, was with her abusive ex-girlfriend for five years before ending the relationship in 2023. During their time together, K.P. says her ex, who struggled with panic disorders, ADHD and depression, experienced a decline in her mental health, which contributed to more frequent outbursts of rage. When it comes to the link between rage and violence, one 2022 meta-analysis found that “anger was a significantly stronger correlate of IPV perpetration for women than men.”

K.P., who was working from home at the time and felt like she had no escape, says her ex’s verbal abuse spiraled into physical violence.

“I was on the couch with my laptop, trying to work, and she was just being belligerent,” recalls K.P., who asked to be identified by only her initials because of safety concerns. “I tuned her out, but when she realized I wasn’t giving her the attention that she expected, she went to the kitchen, grabbed two knives and started coming at me.”

K.P. ran outside, trying to get away. Her ex ran after her and then chased her back inside to avoid being seen by neighbors.

Once inside, her partner hid her phone. K.P. used this brief window to message a co-worker on her laptop, asking him to call the police.

“I was confused and afraid,” K.P. told Uncloseted Media. “I’d never been chased with a knife before, let alone by someone who I cared about.”

Research shows LGBTQ people have higher rates of mental health conditions than their non-LGBTQ peers. A study published last year in JAMA Network Open found sexual and gender minorities had “significantly higher odds of at least four of 10 commonly diagnosed mental health conditions,” including post-traumatic stress disorder and bipolar disorder.

IPV may also contribute to negative mental health effects, with research finding that victims experience an increase in depression, anxiety and PTSD and a reduction in life satisfaction.

“After we broke up, I was messed up,” K.P. says. “It took me a good six or eight months to feel like I could breathe again.”

Trapped in a ‘double closet’

In addition to mental health, the stigma of being queer may affect a victim’s response to being in an abusive relationship. When Claire first came out to her family, she says they kicked her out of their home until she returned to the proverbial closet. They eventually accepted her sexuality, but Claire says the residual shame she carried afterwards led her to avoid the added stigma she feared she’d experience if she admitted to being in an abusive relationship.

“All of that combined made me feel so trapped. I just thought, ‘Oh my god, I’m being judged from every single angle,’” she says. “There was just nowhere to go.”

Letícia Yuki de Araujo Furukawa, a clinical psychologist specializing in supporting survivors of IPV, says this kind of thinking is not uncommon among queer women in abusive relationships.

“Sometimes lesbian women who are experiencing IPV relationships start to isolate themselves, to prevent themselves from the shame and judgment they think they are going to suffer,” she says.

Furukawa says this impulse is rooted in the layers of stigma queer women face.

“It comes down to two things that make it like a double closet: We have the closet of being a lesbian, and you have the other one that comes from being in a violent relationship.”

According to Furukawa, having a supportive family can decrease the risk of entering an abusive relationship. Unfortunately, strained familial relationships are common among queer people: A 2022 study in the Journal of Marriage and Family found that 32 percent of gay and lesbian adult children — compared to 22 percent of their heterosexual counterparts — were estranged from their fathers.

Because of the shame Claire faced from her family when she came out, she was reluctant to admit there was a problem in her relationship when her mother and sister expressed concern. She worried that if her family knew her lesbian relationship was abusive, they would stop accepting her queer identity.

“My mom and sister would say to me during the relationship that they thought my ex looked evil, and that I changed so much. I used to be such a bubbly girl, and my personality made a complete 180,” she remembers. “In my head, I was like, ‘I can’t admit that it’s true.’”

‘Gaps in, policy, care, and services’

When queer women have the courage to report IPV, some don’t receive the response they’re hoping for. When police arrived at K.P.’s home following the knife-wielding incident, she says they opened a case file and wrote an incident report but said there was nothing else they could do because her ex had fled the scene.

“It was a little frustrating that since my ex-girlfriend drove away, the police couldn’t do anything,” K.P. explains.

Laura Elizabeth, an assistant professor of criminal justice at Virginia Union University who researches IPV, says there may have been additional steps police could have taken to support K.P., including connecting her with resources for domestic-violence survivors.

“It is vital that [police] make the proper referrals, and that it not just be limited to handing the victim a brochure,” she says. “There needs to be an active discussion with victims about what their options are in terms of who they can reach out to, who can offer what services.”

Kimberley Jackson, an associate professor at the Arthur Labatt Family School of Nursing at Western University, says lack of research on same-sex domestic violence also impacts the support services available to lesbian victims.

“The intersection of IPV and the LGBTQ community is really not well understood,” Jackson told Uncloseted Media. “What we can tell you based on really limited evidence, is that there are huge gaps in policy, care and services. And with respect to shelters, we haven’t really moved the needle very far.”

One area in which shelters may be failing lesbian victims has to do with both the perpetrator and the victim being able to access the same shelter.

“This issue is further compounded in rural areas, where there’s likely only one shelter,” Jackson says. “There’s a chance they won’t be able to turn someone away, even if they’re the perpetrator.”

Jackson says queer victims of domestic violence who aren’t open about their sexuality may face additional obstacles.

“With respect to anonymity, in a lot of rural places, you’re going to know people in the community,” she says. “There are issues with accessing help if you’re worried about outing yourself.”

Calls for change

Experts and victims say LGBTQ training for shelter workers and law enforcement, as well as funding for research, could help prevent same-sex IPV and address the damage done by such abuse.

But under the Trump-Vance administration, these funding resources are slipping away. In March of last year, the administration canceled at least 68 grants, totaling nearly $40 million, that were focused on LGBTQ health. A second round of cuts followed two months later, during which $800 million worth of grants dedicated to researching LGBTQ health were terminated.

Rebecca Hobbs, co-executive director of Through These Doors, a domestic violence resource and advocacy center in Portland, Maine, says LGBTQ training materials are essential to ensuring shelters can support lesbian victims.

“LGBTQ people will not come to us unless they see themselves reflected in our materials,” Hobbs says. “We want our advocates to be well versed in understanding the additional barriers and challenges that LGBTQ people might experience.”

Advocates say police departments could also benefit from LGBTQ-awareness training.

The state of California and a number of large cities — including Atlanta, Chicago, Los Angeles, Houston, New Orleans, New York, Philadelphia and D.C. — have implemented some form of LGBTQ-sensitivity training.

But Greg Miraglia, founder and CEO of Out to Protect, a national organization supporting LGBTQ police officers and equipping all officers to serve queer people, says these programs are the exception, not the rule.

“Most other states do not require any type of LGBT awareness training,” Miraglia, a retired police officer who is based in California., told Uncloseted Media “There are over 18,000 law enforcement agencies out there, and I don’t think we’ve scratched the surface.”

“The problem comes about when law enforcement goes into a domestic violence incident with a same-sex couple without any training, carrying a lot of stereotypes that are common,” Miraglia adds. “They’re not picking up the fact that this is a couple that’s involved in an intimate relationship, and therefore domestic violence laws in that state apply.”

Claire says she wishes someone had intervened when her ex abused in the CVS parking lot and on her college campus. “The police had the biggest missed opportunity to intervene, as well as campus security,” she says. “A lot of our fights were in public, and she would get very loud. I made a promise to myself that if I ever saw anything like that in public, I would say something, because that’s all I needed at the time.”

Continue Reading

National

Long-time DignityUSA executive director announces retirement

Marianne Duddy-Burke has been with LGBTQ Catholic group for decades

Published

on

DignityUSA Executive Director Marianne Duddy-Burke, right, greets Pope Francis in 2023. Duddy-Burke has announced she will retire from the LGBTQ Catholic group once her successor is named. (Photo courtesy of Marianne Duddy-Burke)

The executive director of the world’s oldest LGBTQ Catholic organization has announced she will retire once her successor has been chosen.

Marianne Duddy-Burke has been with DignityUSA for more than four decades. She has been the group’s executive director since 2007.

DignityUSA announced Duddy-Burke’s retirement on Sept. 17.

Duddy-Burke during her tenure has urged the Vatican to do more to welcome LGBTQ Catholics. She has also, among other things, championed marriage equality and advised the State Department on LGBTQ-specific issues. (The Trump-Vance administration’s decision to freeze nearly all U.S. foreign aid shortly after it took office in January 2025 has had a devastating impact on the global LGBTQ and intersex rights movement and efforts to fight HIV/AIDS around the world. A report that Outright International released earlier this month notes 90 percent of LGBTQ and intersex rights groups around the world have lost funding since 2025.)

Duddy-Burke met with Pope Francis in 2023.

She traveled to Rome in 2025 for the papal conclave to choose the Argentine-born pope’s successor. Pope Leo XIV, who was born in Chicago, succeeded Francis.

DignityUSA in the press release that announced Duddy-Burke’s retirement notes she expressed “particular appreciation to people who spoke honestly about the reality of being a queer Catholic or family member.”

“I have been inspired every day by your stories and have done my best to lift them up,” said Duddy-Burke. “It is your lives, your faith, your struggles, your hopes that I have strived to reflect in my work, and doing this has been a great honor.”

DignityUSA President Meli Barber praised Duddy-Burke.

“It is almost impossible to sum up the scope and depth of Marianne’s achievements and contributions to DignityUSA over her more than four decades of service,” said Barber. “Under her wisdom and leadership, DignityUSA has only grown in stature as an advocate for LGBTQIA+ Catholics and as a visionary thought leader for LGBTQIA+ ministry and spirituality.

“Marianne has been more than an extremely able executive director,” added Barber. “Her care for and ministry to chapters, her deep personal relationships with countless Dignity members, her connections to LGBTQIA+ Catholics around the world, the relationships she has built with other progressive Catholic organizations, her skill as a public representative, the respect with which she is universally regarded, and her tireless devotion to service all leave an indelible mark. It is not an exaggeration to say that she has shaped not only Dignity but a generation of LGBTQIA+ Catholics.”

Barber said DignityUSA will “soon begin a search for a new executive director.” Barber added Duddy-Burke “will assist with the transition.”

Continue Reading

National

Multi-billion-dollar 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund to continue until 2090

Married, same-sex partners are eligible for federal program

Published

on

The September 11th Victim Compensation Fund has awarded more than $18 billion to 77,000 9/11 victims and their families since 2011. (Photo by Anthony Correia/Bigstock)

As part of its commemoration of the 25th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund, a federally operated program, released information during the past week showing it has awarded more than $18 billion to over 77,000 9/11 victims and their families since 2011. 

Officials with what’s now referred to as the VCF point out that it was created to provide compensation to individuals or to a court-approved personal representative of a deceased individual who were present at one of the three sites where the hijacked jetliners crashed. 

Among those supported under the program are thousands of rescue workers, clean-up crews, and residents living near the World Trade Center Twin Towers destruction site who became ill, many of whom later died, by being exposed to the toxic fumes created by the fire and falling debris.

“Twenty-five years since that day, the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund has  served tens of thousands of victims and their families, and we continue to receive over 750 new claims each month — a clear indication of the ongoing importance of our mission,” said Allison Turkel, VCF’s leader, who holds the title of Special Master.

In a Sept. 2 briefing for the news media in advance of the 9/11 anniversary commemoration, Turkel pointed out that the VCF operation was upgraded and expanded by separate laws passed by Congress in 2011 and 2019, with the 2019 law signed by President Trump providing full funding to “pay all eligible claims and extended the filing deadline to Oct. 1, 2090.”

LGBTQ advocacy organizations in New York and nationwide have reported that during the time shortly after the 9/11 attacks same-sex surviving partners of 9/11 victims learned they were ineligible for compensation benefits because their same-sex relationships were not legally recognized.

Nicole Nava, a VCF spokesperson, told the Washington Blade that under long established VCF procedures, all applicants for benefit claims regarding a deceased person, whether same-sex or opposite sex, must be appointed as a Personal Representative of the deceased person by a state court. For D.C. residents, the probate division of the D.C. Superior Court appoints a Personal Representative.

“Claims for deceased victims (regardless of the cause of death) may be submitted only by the Personal Representative,” a statement on the VCF website says. “Each state has laws that define the process for appointment of the Personal Representative and the specific authority granted to that Personal Representative,” it says.

The Washington Blade couldn’t immediately determine the criteria for being approved as a Personal Representative by the D.C. Superior Court  and various state courts, including whether a same-sex survivor partner would be eligible for such an appointment. 

A spokesperson for the District of Columbia LGBTQ+ Bar Association, which includes many local attorneys who specialize in a wide range of specialized legal issues, couldn’t immediately be reached to find out if one or more of their members might be able to determine the same-sex partner eligibility for Personal Representative status.  

VCF spokesperson Navas pointed out that the VCF regulations initially did not allow a legally married same-sex partner survivor to receive benefits under the VCF program because the then existing U.S. Defense of Marriage Act, which denied federal recognition of same-sex marriage, prevented VCF from providing benefits to a same-sex partner survivor who had been married in their home state.

But Navas noted that the regulations changed in 2013 when the U.S. Supreme Court declared the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional and were further changed in 2015 when the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. Based on those changes, legally married same-sex partner survivors since 2013 and currently have been and are fully eligible for the VCF benefits.  

The updated regulations would provide benefits to married same-sex partner 9/11 survivors in the states that legalized gay marriage beginning in 2004, when Massachusetts became the first state to legalize same-sex marriage. D.C. legalized same-sex marriage in 2009. 

In her news media briefing, VCF Special Master Turkel said detailed information about how best to file a claim for 9/11 victim compensation is available on the VCF website.

“Twenty-five years since the events of September 11th , 2001, we know it has become increasingly challenging for claimants to find documents needed to prove their presence at an eligible location, which is one of the key requirements to be eligible for compensation,” she said.

She was referring to the requirement that 9/11 surviving victims seeking a claim for support for injuries or illnesses related to the 9/11 attacks must prove they were present at the World Trade Center site, the Pentagon site, or the Shanksville, Pa. site where the hijacked jetliners crashed.

“Our team is committed to ensuring no claimant feels lost or overwhelmed when submitting a claim,” Turkel said at the briefing. “We have a great helpline with real live people who can answer or refer any questions that come in,” she added. “They engage in over 4,000 calls a month on average. We encourage folks to call 1-855-1555 with any questions.”

The VCF website, which has additional detailed information, can be accessed at www.vcf.gov

Continue Reading

Popular