This is why heterosexuals must demand passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act

by: Lurleen

Fri Aug 20, 2010 at 22:35:56 PM EDT

Because it is lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people who suffer from the employment discrimination that ENDA addresses, the legislation is generally portrayed as only benefiting LGBTs and its passage as a sort of "gift" from the mostly heterosexual Congress to LGBT people.  This is an unfortunate distortion.

While it is true that LGBT people are in dire need of the protections ENDA would provide, ENDA is in the best interest of heterosexuals too.  And I'm not just talking about heterosexuals facing employment discrimination because they are perceived to be gay.  The truth of the matter is that everyone benefits when the best person is hired for the job.

This was brought home to me earlier this week when I heard that Judge Anne Levinson was confirmed as the new civilian auditor for the Seattle Police Department's Office of Professional Accountability by Seattle City Council's Public Safety and Education Committee.  Her qualifications and commitment to excellence in public service are clear in her distinguished civil service resume.  The Stranger's Riya Bhattacharjee summarized:

A Seattle Municipal Court judge from 1999 to 2001 where she dealt with criminal cases, Levinson developed and presided over one of the country's first mental health courts. She served as chief of staff and then deputy mayor for Mayor Rice and was legal counsel in both the Rice and Royer administrations. Levinson also chaired the Washington Utilities & Transportation Commission-a quasi-judicial body that regulated private telecommunications and energy companies. She is one of the four owners of the Seattle Storm. Levinson was also part of the Seattle Police Chief Search Committee. "It's important that the chief fosters an environment that actively investigates misconducts and implements reforms when necessary so that the public has respect and confidence in the police," she says. 'We have a mutual goal here of treating all citizens equally." Levinson underscores the importance of encouraging community policing in Seattle. "It's also important to have early warning systems to identify potential problems," she says."

So yes, Judge Levinson is a highly-qualified and respected public servant.  She is also a lesbian.  We here in Seattle are protected by several layers of anti-discrimination law at the city, county and state levels, so sexual orientation wasn't a factor in the City's decision to hire her.  But I can't help but wonder if Judge Levinson had applied for the same job in Tampa, say, or Salt Lake City, whether her appointment wouldn't have been summarily rejected due to a characteristic that has no bearing on her ability to bring excellence to the job.  Such an outcome would not only have been a loss to her as an individual, but to the predominantly heterosexual population she sought to so ably serve.  When heterosexuals discriminate against an LGBT person in employment when the LGBT applicant is the best person for the job, they're shooting themselves in the foot.

A video of Judge Levinson's confirmation hearing is below the fold.

Focus On The Family/CitizenLink Sees "Sneaky" Gay Agenda In The Public Schools

by: Autumn Sandeen

Fri Aug 20, 2010 at 21:00:00 PM EDT

Below is a video posted by PikaFilms/CitizenLink (CitizenLink being in the activist arm of Focus On The Family), entitled Report: Identifying Gay Activism in Public Schools.

Here's just a text snippet of dialog between the two -- It's some back-and-forth discussion between CitizenLink's Director Of Digital Media, Stuart Shepard, and CitizenLink's Education Analyst, Candi Cushman. The two Christian activists discuss the "sneaky" "gay agenda"/"homosexual agenda" in the public schools.

Stuart Shepard: If there is one characteristic trait of the gay agenda in the public school system, it's this: It's sneaky. It's usually designed to look like something else -- it's disguised as something else -- to make it hard for parents to realize what's going on.

What can parents look for? -- How can you help them identify what's going on in the classroom? What do they see?

Candi Cushman: Oh what you say is so true. The activists realize that most parents in this nation do not want this kind of teaching coming in a taxpayer expense in their public schools. So, homosexual activists have become very adept at getting subtle -- at sneaking in these homosexuality lessons into things with innocent sounding titles.

Then, no sh**, they go on to discussing how lessons on student bullying, and safe school programs, are ways that homosexual activists sneak in these homosexuality lessons into public schools.

And here I was thinking that when they talked about "homosexuality lessons," they were going to talk about how discussion of gay sex was being introduced in Kindergarten classrooms. Nope, bullying and safe schools.

It's something to behold, that these two really think and believe that school systems trying to address harassment and violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer identified students -- as well as against young boys and men that are presumed to be gay because they are perceived to be too effeminate by their peer students; as well as against young girls and women that are presumed to be lesbian because they are perceived to be too masculine by their peer students -- is a way for homosexual activists to sneak in homosexuality lessons into public schools at taxpayer expense.

Can we think of the children please, Stuart and Candi? You know, the victims of harassment and violence?

Ah, the "sneaky" "homosexual activists."

Well, one doesn't need to wonder very hard as to why many in the LGBTQ community see these conservative "Christians" as bigots and haters. Folk like Stuart and Candi sadly are examples of those so looking for the evils of homosexuality in every nook and cranny of society that they don't see any real dangers of LGBTQ student bullying -- of student harassment and violence.

Open Letter to Brian and Maggie: What About the Real Lives of LGBTs?

by: JTW

Fri Aug 20, 2010 at 14:46:42 PM EDT

Dear Brian and Maggie,

I watched the recent video of Brian's discussion with Rick Jacobs of the Courage Campaign and was left wishing that Brian had devoted more time to discussing the practical and real impact of marriage restrictions on gays and lesbians.

Both of you have spoken at length about your normative vision of ideal marital and child-rearing policies, often as if we were deciding such policies in a vacuum.  We all know where you stand on the policy questions.

But you've never really addressed what should happen to existing gay and lesbian families.  See, your normative argument about how things should be ignores the practical lived experience of legally-married same-sex couples and of LGBT parents raising biological and adopted children.

And this omission, I believe, lies at the root of your public-relations difficulties.  So what can you do about it?

Well, you would go a long way toward building good will with the LGBT community if you would propose a meaningful alternative legal arrangement to govern their lives and families.  You oppose civil unions, domestic partnerships, and similar state-sponsored arrangements.  Are there any arrangements that you favor?  If so, why?  If not, why not?

And while you may not think that NOM should be in the business of offering alternatives, by treating marriage and the incidents of marriage as a zero-sum game, you practically beg for gays and lesbians to call you "bigots"--because you are lobbying for a restriction of their rights while refusing to offer up anything that's relevant to their actual lives.

Granted, Maggie has in the past suggested that LGBT couples could obtain the legal incidents of marriage through private contracts, wills, and similar personal legal documents.  But what about those incidents of marriage that can't be contracted into?  What about, for example, federal or state marital exemptions from gift tax or estate tax?  What about the spousal testimonial privilege?  There are no legal documents that can bestow these (and other) non-contractual legal benefits onto private individuals, absent state licensure or intervention.

In other words, benefits like these only attach to a "marriage."  Should LGBT couples not have these benefits?  If they should, then how should they get them?  And would you lobby for the necessary legal changes?  If they shouldn't, why not?

Moreover, even if, arguendo, all of the benefits of marriage could be obtained through private contract, the average couple cannot afford the thousands of dollars needed to acquire the limited protection offered by, for example, a will or a power of attorney--both of which, legally speaking, are rather poor substitutes for marriage, as both are subject to facial legal challenges, whereas intestate succession and spousal power of attorney are conferred by law and can only be denied if the entire marriage is nullified.  Why should LGBT couples alone be required to bear this legal risk at a prohibitive cost?

By failing to offer a meaningful, viable alternative, you leave your critics with no choice but to question your motives.  I understand that being called a "bigot" offers you ample opportunity to play the victim card and to ply for attention and donations in the short term, but it's a remarkably short-sighted strategy.  You can only cry "wolf" so many times.  People will eventually tire of the hysterics.

So permit me to ask Rick's question one more time:  In light of the reality that several states have issued valid, legal marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and in light of the reality that many states permit LGBT couples and individuals to raise biological or adopted children, what do you propose?  Should we void or nullify all legal same-sex marriages?  Should we outlaw LGBTs from having biological children?  Should we outlaw LGBT adoption, whether as primary parent or as second parent?  Should we remove children from LGBT homes?

I invite you to clarify your position on this matter.

Regards,

JTW

My Lunch With Senator Gillibrand

by: Clarknt67

Fri Aug 20, 2010 at 19:10:09 PM EDT

Since her appointment by New York Governor David Paterson to fill Hillary Clinton's vacated seat, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand has utilized her new prominence to be a strong, and much needed voice for LGBT equality in the Senate.

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand is also no stranger to the Blend. In addition to extensive coverage, the Senator has posted here as well. And our own blogmistress was gracious enough to host a fundraiser for Gillibrand during her last trip to the Big Apple. 

As such, I thought folks would be interested in experience meeting the Senator last week. It was part of a outreach her campaign is doing in the state. My impressions after the fold.

Target Still Targeted For Its Political Donation

by: Autumn Sandeen

Fri Aug 20, 2010 at 14:00:00 PM EDT

Target gave $150,000 and Best Buy $100,000 to a business-focused political fund helping a conservative Republican gubernatorial candidate in Minnesota, triggering a national backlash from gay rights groups and liberals...The candidate, state legislator Tom Emmer, opposes gay marriage and other rights for same-sex couples.

"A good corporate political contribution policy should prevent the kind of debacle Target and Best Buy walked into," said Trillium vice president Shelley Alpern. "We expect companies to evaluate candidates based upon the range of their positions - not simply one area - and assess whether they are in alignment with their core values. But these companies' policies are clearly lacking that."

The shareholders said the donations don't mesh with corporate values that include workplace protections for gay employees and risk harming the companies' brands. Walden senior vice president Tim Smith said such giving can have "a major negative impact on company reputations and business."

The Target resolution urges the board to review the effect of future political contributions on the company's public image, sales and profitability and to consider the cost of backing a candidate whose politics conflict with the company's public stances.

So one of Target's and Best Buy's institutional investors thinks these were ungood political donations. It's hard to disagree with that opinion given the "core values" reasoning why the donations were not good donations; hard to disagree with that opinion given the fallout from the donations.

From the Washington Blade's Boycott takes aim at Target stores:

Gay shoppers boycotting Target for supporting an anti-gay Minnesota gubernatorial candidate have little reason to rethink their stance as the company, the nation's second largest retailer behind Wal-Mart, has done little in response.

Target's negotiations with the Human Rights Campaign ended abruptly this week with the gay civil rights group releasing a statement saying Target would "take no corrective actions to repair the harm that it caused" through its political donation.

Based in Minnesota, Target has been pressured for three weeks by LGBT activists to make amends after giving $150,000 to MN Forward, a group that has run ads supporting Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer. A straight father of seven, Emmer is against same-sex marriage and supports constitutional amendments that outlaw it.

...More than 250,000 signatures have been collected from people pledging not to shop at Target again until the company promises to stop making political donations, MoveOn.org says. Protestors have reportedly appeared at 1,100 Target stores across the country...

Perhaps I was too early in saying I'd again shop at Target due to their apology, as Target isn't seeming to fully grasp why their $150K donation supporting an anti-LGBT candidate was so cruel to LGBT community...a community the corporation states it strongly supports.

It appears to me that Target is really not that interested in our lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer community's pink dollars. That kinda stinks, actually.

~~~~~
Related:
* Target Apologizes For Emmer Donation
* Avoiding Target When I Need New Hangers And Vacuum Cleaner Bags

WorldNetDaily's Farah in complete meltdown as high-profile conservatives 'embrace the homos'

by: Pam Spaulding

Fri Aug 20, 2010 at 12:07:31 PM EDT

Conservative superstar Ann Coulter today was dropped as a keynote speaker for WND's "Taking America Back National Conference" next month because of her plan to address an event titled "HOMOCON" sponsored by the homosexual Republican group GOProud that promotes same-sex marriage and military service for open homosexuals.

Joseph Farah, editor and chief executive officer of WND, said the decision was a gut-wrenching one for his team because of their fondness for Coulter as both a person and writer-speaker.

"Ultimately, as a matter of principle, it would not make sense for us to have Ann speak to a conference about 'taking America back' when she clearly does not recognize that the ideals to be espoused there simply do not include the radical and very 'unconservative' agenda represented by GOProud," said Farah. "The drift of the conservative movement to a brand of materialistic libertarianism is one of the main reasons we planned this conference from the beginning."

Asked by Farah why she was speaking to GOProud, Coulter said: "They hired me to give a speech, so I'm giving a speech. I do it all the time."

Farah then asked: "Do you not understand you are legitimizing a group that is fighting for same-sex marriage and open homosexuality in the military - not to mention the idea that sodomy is just an alternate lifestyle?"

..."Earlier this year, GOProud was permitted to sponsor the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, the biggest event of its kind," said Farah. "This bad decision resulted in consistently conservative groups dropping sponsorship and withdrawing from participation - much to their credit. GOProud is about infiltration of the conservative movement and dividing it from within with twisted and dangerous ideas way out of the mainstream of American public opinion. Ann Coulter is, I'm afraid, validating this effort for money. I support her speaking to people with whom she disagrees on college campuses. That's a good idea. I do it, too. But if you see the way GOProud is exploiting its coup in getting Ann Coulter to speak to its HOMOCON event, you begin to understand what a mistake this is for a conservative icon like Coulter."

I'm sad that I have lost Ann Coulter as a friend.

But I have no regrets about my action this week in disinviting her to be a keynote speaker at our Taking America Back National Conference in Miami next month. It was the right thing to do under the circumstances - no matter the consequences. I guess you could say she didn't take it well. The told the Daily Caller I dumped her for publicity.

"Farah is doing this for PUBLICITY and publicity alone," she wrote in an e-mail.

She expressed anger that WND had quoted from an e-mail exchange between the two of us.

"He's a swine for using my private e-mails politely answering him," she wrote. "Why would he do such a despicable thing ... for PUBLICITY."

The evidence that I am a "publicity whore," according to Coulter, is that my "promotion of the birther nonsense (long ago disproved by my newspaper, Human Events, also Sweetness & Light, American Spectator and National Review, etc., etc., etc.) He's the only allegedly serious conservative pushing the birther thing. For ONE reason: to get his hits on his website."

Friday This & That: Open Thread

by: Autumn Sandeen

Fri Aug 20, 2010 at 12:00:00 PM EDT

So, this is what my cartoon sockpuppet Bookworm Bob have been looking at since our last This & That post.

• The Clarion-Ledger's District Sued Over Yearbook; Gay Teen Says School Violated Her Rights By Removing Her Photo:

A former student at Wesson Attendance Center in Copiah County filed a lawsuit Tuesday alleging the district illegally discriminated against her by not including her portrait in the school yearbook.

According to Ceara Sturgis, the district withheld the photo because she refused to wear a drape customarily worn by girls. Sturgis, who is gay, said she feels more comfortable in men's clothing and had her senior portrait taken in a tuxedo.

The federal lawsuit claims the district's actions violated Sturgis' right to equal protection under the law and protections against gender discrimination under Title IX.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages and legal costs.

If y'all haven't noticed, our rural lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer (LGBTQ) youth are doing a lot of heavy lifting for freedom, equality, and justice of our LGBTQ community.

As you can imagine, I admire Ceara Sturgis a lot.

• Sharon Lettman-Hicks piece for theGeorgia Voice, entitled Empowering Black LGBT People:

Barbecues, backyard parties and soul-food jams. Summer is a time for family get-togethers. A time when people all over the world take vacations so they can make memories with close friends and loved ones, but in African-American communities only some of us feel comfortable going home.

In our communities, only some of us feel safe enough to be who we are in the company of those who raised us. Only some of us can show up and be all of ourselves all of the time with the people we love most. The pain of moving through our families - closeted, and, in many instances, alienated - is devastating black families everywhere.

Homophobia and the anti-gay oppression it engenders severely limits the extent to which African-American LGBT people live out and open lives. In recent years, we have seen significant efforts to undermine black families due to restrictive laws and regulations based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Such laws include the 2008 proposition passed in Arkansas outlawing adoption by LGBT people, even though 21 percent of black LGBT couples are biological parents and 2.2 percent are adoptive or foster parents (2000 U.S. Census)...

This to me is an incredibly thoughtful piece -- I really recommend going to the website link to read the entire piece -- in my opinion, it's well worth the read.

• Philly.com's Doylestown bans sex-orientation discrimination:

Doylestown Borough has become the 17th government in Pennsylvania to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

By a unanimous, 9-0 vote, the Borough Council passed a law Monday night protecting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people from discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations.

The vote drew a standing ovation from several dozen who packed Borough Hall.

"This ordinance is a statement that we will no longer treat different groups of people differently," Councilman Don Berk said. ". . . We are protecting people who previously had no recourse."

Amen.

• Los Angeles Times' Mummified Remains Of Two Babies Wrapped In 1930s Newspapers Found; Two Women Made The Discovery After Opening A Steamer Trunk That Had Been Stored In The Apartment Building For Decades. LAPD Will Conduct A Full Investigation:

Gloria Gomez stepped eagerly into the basement of the once-grand Glen-Donald apartment building near MacArthur Park on Tuesday afternoon, hoping to find treasures in three large trunks that someone had left there decades ago.

The first two trunks were empty. Using a screwdriver, she broke the lock on the third.

Gomez, the building's manager and an amateur antique collector, was giddy over what she found: a gleaming crystal bowl, stacks of beautiful books, including a copy of "Peter Pan," and two leather doctor's satchels. Cradling one of the bags, Gomez turned to her friend, Yiming Xing, and said, "These must be worth a lot of money!"

Inside the bag was a small bundle wrapped in Los Angeles Times newspapers from the 1930s. Xing unpeeled the newspapers and shrank back in horror.

The doctor's satchels contained the mummified remains of two babies.

Ugh.

• Our Wiener Story Of The Day: NBC Miami's Hot Dog Thief Stuffs Pants With Weiners:

A St. Lucie County man was arrested for putting a two-pound pack of jumbo hot dogs into his pants and then walking out of a Publix grocery store without paying.

A store loss prevention officer spotted Allan Polhemus conceal a 32-ounce package of Publix jumbo beef franks, valued at $6.99, in his pants while walking down aisle five at the store on South U.S. 1.

The wiener packaging describes the dogs as "meaty & delicious" and as having "no fillers," but they seemed to fill the robber's pants well enough to be spotted from the ceiling security cameras...

As always, "The weenie tempts you!"

So anywho...It's an open thread! What are you thinking about today, or what books or articles have you been reading the past few days? Wanna share?

And again, please feel free to chat, blogwhore, and link-share in the comment thread because...it's an open thread! Woo-hoo!  

Transgressive: This Isn't About Grapes And Lettuce, But About People

by: Autumn Sandeen

Fri Aug 20, 2010 at 10:40:09 AM EDT

For those who don't know, I have a weekly column in the Gay & Lesbian Times entitled "Transgressive." (I'm asking an F2M writer I know if he wants to alternate writing columns with me, so hopefully my column will turn into a biweekly one from the weekly column it currently is now.) My latest Transgressive piece is entitled This Isn't About Grapes And Lettuce, But About People, and began this way:

On Wednesday, August 11, 2010 I officially went from being a participant in GetEqual actions to joining the new provisional board of GetEqual. The board met in Valencia, California on the 11th and 12th of August to discuss what we do in principle, and why we do it.

The statement of the GetEqual Board of Directors that came out of the board retreat:

The newly-formed provisional Board of Directors is committed to providing leadership and direction to GetEqual. We seek to create a societal environment that fosters freedom, equality, and justice for the diverse lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer community. One of our main goals is to illuminate discriminations that exist - to cause the tension and force our leaders and society to respond. GetEqual will continue to employ tools to create tension, specifically including nonviolent direct action, to bring our crisis to the attention of our leaders - for a community that has consistently been denied freedom, equality, and justice. We seek to underscore these issues so that they can no longer be ignored.

We are confident in the leadership of GetEqual and believe we have begun to lay the foundation for a solid organization to achieve these goals. The social and legal inequality of our community is incompatible with the ideals of the American people, and we call on our national leaders to join in the global momentum towards liberty and justice for all.

The last paragraphs of the piece ended this way:

And within the board, I am a going to be voice for radical inclusivity in our actions. Our direct actions are going to be designed to represent the full diversity of our GLBT community.

To quote Cesar Chavez:

The fight is never about grapes or lettuce. It is always about people.

The news in that GLT article is that the GetEqual board is provisional formed and active, has its statement from that first board meeting has reached the press. In my opinion, those paragraphs of the first statement give a harkening back many previous civil rights movements, and a nod to the aspirations of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) community for freedom, equality, and justice -- "liberty and justice for all."

Passing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) into law, and repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) and the Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA) are the LGBTQ community's "grapes and lettuce" -- in that these are focuses of the LGBTQ's national community's legislative focus. But, the real struggle is about the LGBTQ community's people who are unequal to other members in broader society.

~~

My previous week's Transgressive article was entitled When Dating, When Is The Right Time To Tell Someone You're Trans?

If you're interested in what I write each week (or hopefully soon every other week), check back with the Gay & Lesbian Times, and use the site search for the word "transgressive."

The "Witt Standard" and Pending DADT Cases

by: ACLU

Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 13:58:38 PM EDT

By Sher Kung, Perkins Coie Legal Fellow, ACLU of Washington

Last week, Air Force Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach filed a high-profile lawsuit arguing that the Air Force should be forced to meet the "Witt standard" if it attempts to discharge him from military service under Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT).

The "Witt standard" comes from a significant 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision (PDF) in an ACLU of Washington case, Witt v. U.S. Air Force, in which the court ruled that the Air Force must prove that dismissing a specific servicemember under DADT is necessary to ensure “good order, morale, and discipline” within the unit he or she served, rather than simply proving in a more general way that DADT broadly advances military readiness. With that requirement of proof, the “Witt standard” was born.

We filed this lawsuit back in 2006 on behalf of Maj. Margaret Witt, who was discharged from the U.S. Air Force on the grounds that she engaged in homosexual conduct. Maj. Witt is a much-decorated flight nurse and operating room nurse assigned to McChord Air Force Base near Tacoma. In 1993, she was selected to be the “poster child” for the Air Force Nurse Corps recruitment flyer. In 2003, she was awarded an Air Force Commendation Medal for saving the life of a Defense Department employee who had collapsed aboard a flight from Bahrain.

The lawsuit sought to reverse the decision to discharge Maj. Witt. The military provided no evidence that her sexual orientation had caused a problem in the performance of her military duties. The district court initially dismissed the suit.

We appealed the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. In 2008, the 9th Circuit ruled that in order to pass constitutional muster, the Air Force must prove discharging Maj. Witt is necessary for purposes of military readiness within her unit. While the 9th Circuit's decision did not overrule DADT, it made clear that the military must make this individualized determination before it can discharge LGBT service members.

Lt. Col. Fehrenbach's case, which the New York Times says "rests heavily" on the 9th Circuit's Witt standard, is pending before the federal district court in Idaho. (Rachel Maddow interviewed him and his lawyer on her show. Previously, then-Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan discussed the significance of the Witt standard in her confirmation hearings.)

In the meantime, Maj. Witt's case will be back before the U.S. District Court for Western Washington for trial, scheduled for September 13. The ACLU will prove that it was Maj. Witt’s dismissal — not her presence in her unit — that was bad for morale.

Activists Arrested in San Diego Prop 8 Sit-in

by: Clarknt67

Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 16:14:26 PM EDT

On the day hundreds of gay and lesbian couples statewide planned to obtain their long-awaited marriage licenses, a crowd of about 50 people gathered at the county clerk's office Thursday to protest a federal judge's stay of a federal ruling that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

"We believe that county officials and the Attorney General have the authority and the obligation to allow marriage licenses to proceed based on both federal court findings and that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional and the governor's filings in Prop. 8 cases," Tyler Dylan-Hyde said. "We are asking you to do what's right."

My Fox Houston Asks Website Users Whether Trans People Should Be Allowed To Marry

by: Autumn Sandeen

Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 16:00:00 PM EDT

The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.

~The Supreme Court Of The United States' ruling in Loving V. Virginia

You would think that after Loving v. Virginia, one wouldn't need to ask if any group should be allowed to legally marry -- as in legally marry, period. But, My Fox Houston "went there," and asked this question:

Q: Should transgender or transsexual people be allowed to legally marry?

Trans people have been freeping the poll, via twitter and FaceBook messaging with each other -- among use of other social networking tools. Last night (August 18, 2010), the poll results looked like this:

Q: Should transgender or transsexual people be allowed to legally marry?

Yes - 80.4 %
No -  18.4%
Not sure - 0.8%

Last I checked (August 19, 2010, approximately 11:00 AM PDT), the number of those who answered 'No" was down to 7.5%, but the answers to the posed question isn't solely where the problem lies -- the problem also lies in forming and asking the question  in the first place. This is not the kind of question a responsible news organization would ask for a non-scientific poll.

Seriously, would My Fox Houston ask their website readers in a non-scientific poll if African-American, Hispanic, Muslim, Buddhist, disabled, or infertile people should be "allowed to legally marry?" It is an example of how in our society, it is still safe to express antitrans prejudice.

And by the way, it's survey's like this that remind me why this quote is a guiding principle for me:

"[T]he job of the gay community is not to deal with extremists who would castigate us or put us on an island and drop an H-bomb on us. The fact of the matter is that there is a small percentage of people in America who understand the true nature of the homosexual community. There is another small percentage who will never understand us. Our job is not to get those people who dislike us to love us. Nor was our aim in the civil rights movement to get prejudiced white people to love us. Our aim was to try to create the kind of America, legislatively, morally, and psychologically, such that even though some whites continued to hate us, they could not openly manifest that hate. That's our job today: to control the extent to which people can publicly manifest antigay sentiment."

~Bayard Rustin, From Montgomery to Stonewall (1986)

In my thought process, I add "antitransgender sentiment" to Bayard Rustin's "antigay sentiment."

Seriously, the privilege and implied prejudice that went into creation of the My Fox Houston non-scientific poll is just beyond the pale, and the editors and producers at My Fox Houston should be ashamed of their fostering animosity towards those whom they identify as "transgender or transsexual people." In my mind, the framing of their non-scientific poll question is an unconscionable parsing out of known minority populations in the United States; an unconscionable action to give their website readers a anonymous means to identify certain Americans as not deserving of fundamental rights.

And too,  there is the basic othering of gender variant people that My Fox Houston is fostering as well...

So much wrong with this non-scientific poll, y'know?

~~~~~
Related:
* Drawing Small Circles Of Normal
* One's Gender Identity Isn't Societal Perception Of It; Marriage Equality Isn't Just A GLB Issue
* Wednesday This & That: Open Thread
* The "Alleged" Transgender Wife Of A Texas Firefighter And Inheritance

John McCain's constituents are about to receive an e-blast from the DNC & OFA on his DADT record

by: Pam Spaulding

Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 15:30:00 PM EDT

The email notes that the full House and the Senate Armed Services Committee have already approved repeal, but says McCain is now "standing in the way" and urges voters to call his office in support of repeal.

"'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' isn't about politics -- it's about discrimination. And when Republicans defend discrimination of any kind, they need to know that their constituents are watching and ready to respond," states the email. "Call Sen. McCain at 602-952-2410 now and tell him Arizona supports the repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.'"

...DADT repeal is attached to the 2011 National Defense Authorization Act, which is expected to be considered shortly after the Senate returns from August recess.

Friend --

We are closer than ever to bringing an end to the discriminatory policy known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

In June, the House of Representatives and the Senate Armed Services Committee voted to repeal the practice -- but now Senator John McCain is standing in the way.

He recently blocked action on the repeal, calling it "a betrayal," "disgraceful," and "purely a political promise."

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" isn't about politics -- it's about discrimination. And when Republicans defend discrimination of any kind, they need to know that their constituents are watching and ready to respond. If we send Sen. McCain a forceful message, we can make him back down.

Call Sen. McCain at 602-952-2410 now and tell him Arizona supports the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

Senator McCain has not always been opposed to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Until recently, he claimed to defer to military leaders on the issue. But military leaders support repeal, and McCain is still reversing course.

As the President has said, we must end this practice "because it is the right thing to do." A majority of Americans agree that those who are brave enough to stand up and serve our country deserve to do so openly.

Call Sen. McCain today at 602-952-2410 and tell him to support repeal.

Thank you,

Mitch Stewart
Director
Organizing for America

Servicemembers United Web Ad Series, Part Two: Damaging Secrets

by: Jarrod Chlapowski

Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 12:59:47 PM EDT

Uganda's First Lady to country's youth: 'In God's word, homosexuality attracts a curse'

by: Pam Spaulding

Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 13:06:08 PM EDT

"In God's word, homosexuality attracts a curse, but now people are engaging in it and saying they are created that way," said Museveni, as reported by New Vision. "It is for money. The devil is stoking fires to destroy our nation and those taking advantage are doing so because our people are poor," she said. Mrs. Museveni advised the youth not only to listen to messages on how they can make money but also focus on spiritual growth. "You know that you will lose everything else when you lose your soul."

***

In other news on the continent, Human Rights Watch and Alternatives-Cameroun have called for Cameroon to decriminalize homosexuality:

The groups urged the government of Cameroon to put into effect immediately the recommendations of the United Nations Human Rights Committee made public on July 29, 2010, to bring Cameroon's law into conformity with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

Since 2005, Alternatives-Cameroun, Human Rights Watch, and other Cameroonian and international organizations have documented abuses and violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in Cameroon. Suspected homosexual men have been arrested and beaten on their bodies, heads, and even the soles of their feet while in custody. Women suffer violence in their families if they are suspected of being lesbians. In some cases, they have been forced to leave their homes or their children have been taken away from them.

"Cameroon should guarantee lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people the same rights as every other citizen," said Boris Dittrich, advocacy director of the LGBT rights program at Human Rights Watch. "There is no reason why anyone in Cameroon should live in fear of prosecution and abuse because of their sexual orientation or gender identity."

...The UN Human Rights Committee issued a recommendation to Cameroon's government to end social prejudice and stigmatization against LGBT people and to guarantee public health programs that have "universal reach and ensure universal access to HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment, care and support." The government should also carry out this recommendation, Human Rights Watch and Alternatives-Cameroun said.

"By implementing this recommendation, Cameroon would do the bare minimum to realize the fundamental human rights enshrined in its national constitution," said Steave Nemande, director of Alternatives-Cameroun. "To save lives, the government should immediately start implementing effective education programs to combat HIV/AIDS."

What will be said about the state of the community at this year's HRC National Dinner?

by: Pam Spaulding

Thu Aug 19, 2010 at 12:30:00 PM EDT

I think we can expect to hear about these positive -- though in most cases not permanent -- policy changes:

• The Office of Personnel Management, under openly gay John Berry, has made extended certain benefits to the same sex partners of federal employees that aren't affected by DOMA, of course;
• Health and Human Services has directed those institutions receiving fed funds to allow hospital visitation rights for same-sex couples;
• The Family and Medical Leave Act has been re-interpreted by the Labor Department of this administration to allow a caregiver irrespective of their biological or legal relationship to care for a child without losing their job.
• The HIV travel ban has been lifted;
• And for the transgender community there has significant change - appointment of open transgender staff to this administration, as well as implement  the issuance of gender-appropriate passports that is essential when one is unable, because of state law, to present a gender-appropriate driver's license or birth certificate;
• No doubt they'll try to coast on Hate Crimes yet again.

2/27/2010: HRCs' President Joe Solmonese at the HRC Carolinas Gala on Saturday night. I was there reporting for the Blend as he made these emphatic statements to the members of the LGBT community and allies from North and South Carolina in attendance at the Raleigh Convention Center about what was going to be accomplished this year.

1. "We are going to eliminate the tax that you pay on domestic partner benefits. We're going to get rid of that this year at long last."
2. "We are going to extend domestic partnerships to federal employees."
3. "We are going to get people living with HIV/AIDS treatment much earlier if they are on public assistance."
4. "And finally, finally this year we are going to bring down the discriminatory policy known as 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'...once and for all."

He can't tick DADT off because all of the subsequent signals from this administration indicated there was no intention of working for full repeal this year. Every public action and statement was either obstructionist (Gibbs) or just plain slow-go, foot-dragging." Either Joe was caught up in the moment and freelanced those NC remarks without HRC vetting or he was completely duped by the White House/Hill on messaging and goals regarding repeal. I don't know which it is, but since it's occurred before (see Southern Comfort and ENDA), that's not very savvy for an organization with the level of access, power and reputation that is, by default, "representing the LGBT community." If my video and the other from Southern Comfort had not been widely circulated, you folks out there wouldn't have a clue about the "missteps" (to be charitable)  that go on to this day...on your behalf. We can't tick off ENDA or domestic partners either. It's sobering. But I'm sure Pink and the cast of Modern Family will gloss over these matters for the guests with checkbooks attending.

I do hope that this dinner's state of the LGBT community speech is crafted with a sense that there are meaningful things to celebrate, but to have credibility there needs to be a public recognition that this year also represents a more difficult uphill battle with this administration and Congress than anticipated. There were promises this President made in good faith to the community that he failed to follow through on. After 8+ years in the legislative wilderness, an organization charged with lobbying for equality on the Hill will need to convey a real commitment -- not just branding -- to "no excuses" when it comes to dealing with those in power.

NOTE: I personally found the Carolinas Dinner fascinating to cover (former HRC Comm staffer Trevor Thomas was instrumental in getting me in at the last minute to set up to report) since you see, as you can imagine, a different $lice of the LGBT community, than you normally see out and about. I do know that many of the attendees at the Carolinas Dinner were not particularly well-informed about policy or progress (or not) of any legislation, but many I spoke with were there for an evening out with the communityt and to support HRC as the organization that will do the political heavy lifting for them.  I have not attended the National Dinner before, as a guest or media, so I don't have a feel for the scope or sense of the depth of political engagement of the attendees.