Oct 23
2007
HuckabyJM| Category: Action Alert!, Debate, ENDA, PFLAG |
By Jody M. Huckaby
When the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) received its first-ever vote in the House of Representatives and passed the Education and Labor Committee on Oct. 18, it should have been a historic - and celebratory - moment for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community. But there was a cloud hanging over the vote, with over 300 LGBT and allied groups in the United ENDA Coalition advocating for the original form of the bill introduced earlier this year- one that finally included a ban on discrimination based on gender identity. The House Democratic leadership’s decision to strip those protections from the bill, leaving only sexual orientation covered, has turned what should have been a victory into an unnecessarily divisive, disappointing setback for the LGBT movement. Unfortunately, the mainstream media has characterized this primarily intra-community conflict as the protestations of a “fringe minority of transgender activists” or the “extreme left” of the LGBT population. Nothing could be further from the truth. One look at the list of organizations and the constituencies we represent makes that crystal clear. This is not a conflict between “pragmatic incrementalists” and “all-or-nothing idealists.” this controversy goes to the very core of what brings the LGBT community together, and it has forced a much-needed debate to the surface. It is time for some truth-telling and difficult conversations about what it means to be a community advocating for workplace protections.
Our coalition is urging Congress either to restore gender identity protections via an amendment offered by Congresswoman and out lesbian Tammy Baldwin or, if that cannot be accomplished, to drop the effort to pass LGBT anti-discrimination legislation this year. The reality is that this President will not even consider signing such a bill, whether it covers gender identity or only sexual orientation. This gives us the opportunity in the coming months to continue to educate our elected officials - and the public - about how matters of gender affect people of all sexual orientations.
Legal experts have criticized the existing bill as having far too many flaws to provide adequate protections for ndividuals based on sexual orientation, which often is closely linked to their actual or perceived gender expression. Gay, lesbian and bisexual people who are “straight-acting and appearing” might indeed face a safer future following the passage of this bill, but those who more outwardly transgress gender norms would remain vulnerable under the stripped-down ENDA. Sadly, this has been lost in nearly all of the media coverage of this issue.
Simply put, men who are perceived as effeminate and women who are seen as masculine are often singled out for discrimination in the workplace, and federal case law is not settled as to whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides sufficient protection for such individuals. Take the example of Christopher Vickers, a private police officer at an Ohio hospital. He claimed that he had been discriminated against and verbally and physically harassed on a daily basis after he became friends with a gay man. Much of the harassment focused on questioning Vickers’ masculinity and suggesting that his sexual practices were those traditionally associated with women. Just last year, a federal appellate court threw out Vickers’ case because it found that Title VII does not forbid this type of discrimination. Keeping gender identity protections in ENDA would help correct such rulings and represent a major advance in the civil rights of all Americans — lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and straight. While under most circumstances we would support efforts to achieve a tactical victory in the House this year, we feel that seriously weakening the bill and dividing the LGBT community represent a price that is simply too high to pay for a purely symbolic exercise. We believe that maintaining an inclusive ENDA, with protections for the entire LGBT community intact, is both the pragmatic and principled way to proceed.
Advocates of the stripped down ENDA have said that insufficient education has been done concerning transgender Americans and broader issues of gender identity. However, they appear to have overlooked the dramatic, recent gains made in adding gender identity protections to state and local law. Twelve states, the District of Columbia and more than 90 counties and municipalities now protect transgender people from workplace discrimination. Together, these jurisdictions contain more than 100 million people, about 37 percent of the U.S. population. While more states and localities have sexual orientation protections (representing just over 50% of the U.S. population), the gap is narrowing rapidly.
Since 2003, every state and nearly ever municipality that has enacted sexual orientation protection has also covered gender identity. In large measure, this progress has been the result of the growing unity, solidarity and cohesion of the LGBT community.
United ENDA’s primary goal is to keep our community and our allies united behind an inclusive ENDA until progressive forces have strengthened their position in Congress and there has been a change for the better in the White House. Our coalition represents not only LGBT people, but their parents, family members and straight allies who understand the importance of keeping the community united rather than pulling it apart. Watering the bill down now and dividing the LGBT community for a victory that is more apparent than real is a dangerous distraction and the wrong precedent to set.
If members of Congress need more education on gender identity issues, let’s continue to increase our work to do that now. Let’s make sure they know that surveys show that 60 percent of transgender respondents have either no source of income or earn less than $10,000 a year, demonstrating the desperate need for employment protections for transgender people. Let’s make sure they know how frequently lesbians, gay men and bisexuals are subjected to discrimination based not on their sexual orientation but also because of attitudes about how “real” men and women are “supposed” to look and act. Let’s work together to pass the right bill, one that unites LGBT people, their families and straight allies together, not an inadequate bill that fails protect everyone equally.
Jody M. Huckaby, Executive Director, Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) National. PFLAG is one of nearly 350 organizations that are part of www.UnitedENDA.org
Oct 22
2007
Punted| Category: Action Alert!, Debate, ENDA, Pride |
These next 2 days are very important. ENDA will go up for a full vote on Wednesday, October 24th. Expected to be included is the “Baldwin Amendment” which would include transgender, gender expression, and gender identity.
This is the important defining moment. We all need to contact our congressional offices and let them know that they need to support the ENDA bill and the Baldwin Amendment. Let them know the importance of a fully inclusive society and one that provides protection from bigotry based on prejudicial bias.
Call the Capitol Switchboard TODAY! (202)-224-3121 is all you have to dial. It’s the easiest way to effect change without donating to any organization. Your representantives hear from you!
Call now! Simply type in your zip-code and you’ll be routed to aides of your representative. Remember to be polite, be on point, and be brief. Let them know who you are, and give them your information so if the representative or memebers of their staff want to call back with questions they can.
What are you waiting for? Make change for the better. Call NOW! Operators are standing by.
Aug 10
2007
Punted| Category: 2008 Elections, Barack Obama, DADT, Debate, Don't Ask, Don't Ask Don't Tell, Don't Tell, ENDA, HRC, Hate Crime Laws, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Pam's House Blend |
The Forum last night wasn’t exactly a huge success. While it was the first of its kind addressing solely the issues that affect the LGBT community the candidates were mostly able to wriggle out of answering a lot of questions that pertained to our equality.
The candidates went in the order that they responded to the invite which shows Hillary responded last while Obama responded first. it looked a lot like the set of Oprah the way seats were laid out and the audience, clearly hand-picked for their notability/recognizability in the queer community looked decidedly uncomfortable.
The order in which I write about the candidates is basically the order at whcih I pull them out of memory.
Edwards did not move positions. Once he realized that it sounded like his position had changed he backtracked immediately with the comment “My positions haven’t changed.” Edwards seems to be as he stated “evolving” but purposely saying, “Oh yeah, I wanna support you, but can’t ‘cuz I won’t get the votes. But my wife supports you, can’t you just take that?”
Kucinich and Gravel, we knew would be in our court. Gravel sounded less crazy than Kucinich, and at the same time actually discussed a lot more than the front runners.
Hillary, even when pressed by the question of “state’s rights” (my submitted question I might add) couldn’t bring herself to answer the question directly. Of the candidates so far I’m still for Kucinich and Gravel for their unaplogetic stances on anything, but that’s a different story. She even at one point said and I’m paraphrasing ‘Even if I went through the things that you all went through for the last 15 years my positions would not be any different.’ If that’s not a kick in the teeth I don’t know what is. When pressed about why she hasn’t introduced legislation in the Senate as a companion bill to the House’s Military Readiness Enchancement Act (MREA), she merely went on about
Bill Richardson lost A LOT of points when he melted down on Melissa’s and Joe’s questions. When asked whether or not he thought homosexuality was a choice his first response was “Yes, it’s a choice.” After three attempts at giving him the chance to answer the question in a different manner he maintained. He only changed his response to that after the forum when pressed about it by blogger Pam Spaulding. The question he was posed by Joe Solmonese which remains unanswered was “If presented with a bill for equal marriage, would you sign it?” His response: “I’ve done everything I can to push for ‘Domestic Partnerships.’” Three times he was asked this as well, twice in the forum and again, by Pam. Simply, he wants us to go on his record. My response to that is that while one’s record is clearly important what you say and what you do know is very important to the survival of your comapaign.
Obama did fairly well however still when pressed about the hard issues couldn’t break from his personal stance. At one point he even, and unfortunatley not many caught it, prioritized us and homophobia as last among all other things that need to be addressed in the black community.
None (other than Edwards briefly) actually seemed to be able to identify with our community and our struggles. Most candidates touched on AIDS and Healthcare and what they’ve done. But clear to me was the bottom line, we’re just not important enough for any of the top tier candidates.
We have a right and a responsibility to demand what’s right form our candidates. We still have a long road ahead of us to get to the 2008 elections and we need to keep pressing these issues to get the answers that we deserve. Human equality is not something that should be “left to the states.” Human dignity is not a votable issue. No more 85% citizenship simply because of who we love or who we’re attracted to. No more getting fired from jobs because our boss just happens to be bigoted against gay people. Whether or not your Creator is God, Jehova, Allah, Zeus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or none of the above, we all are guaranteed equal legal status by our constitution and our government and it’s time that we stand up and unite to demand it.
May 04
2007
Punted| Category: 2008 Elections, Debate, Fundies |
As the 2008 election heats up, (in May 2007 no-less) the GOP had their first debate on MSNBC, hosted by Chris Matthews. And in the ONLY gay-related question fired at ONLY ONE candidate, Tommy Thompson, his answer was not-so-great.
Matthews: “If a private employer finds homosexuality immoral, should he be allowed to fire a gay worker?”
Thompson: “I think that is left to the individual business. I really sincerely believe that that is an issue that business people have got to make their own determination as to whether or not they should be.”
Well, as a person who would be affected by such rationale this writer is deeply offended. How is it right for a person to discriminate against people because they happen to be gay or lesbian, which of course has no bearing on how well they do their job, but not OK to discriminate against a person of color, or who prays at a Synagogue? Following that logic wouldn’t it be just as right for the individual business to discriminate against black people because he doesn’t agree that he should have to pay them or that since the Jewish people are not “saved” then they shouldn’t be hired?
But, lets’ be fair, he did say in the “spin room” that hadn’t heard the question correctly and that discrimination should not be allowed. “There should be no sexual discrimination whatsoever.”
Now I see, he just didn’t hear it right. When he answered “sincerely” that he thinks business people should make their own determination as to whether or not “they” should be. Makes so much more sense now.
UPDATE: John at AmericaBlog has Thompson continuing the fumble. (h/t Bad Fruit/ Bad Trees)
clarification to CNN this morning:
THOMPSON: I made a mistake. I misinterpreted the question. I thought that I answered it yes when I should have answered it no. I didn’t hear, I didn’t hear the question properly and I apologize. It’s not my position. There should be no discrimination in the workplace and I have never believed that. And, in fact, Wisconsin has one of the first laws, which I supported.
ROBERTS: Right.
THOMPSON: So, I just made a mistake and that’s all I can say. I’m sorry and I misinterpreted the question and I answered yes, when it should have been no…. It’s not my position, it never has been. I have always been against discrimination and prejudice. In fact if you would have listened to the debate, they asked me a question about racism and I said that the president of the United States, whoever he is, has to take the point and has to be the person that does not allow discrimination or racism in any degree, whatsoever.
OK, so building on the comment below, by Bloggernista, if this writer remembers what his teachers always said when taking a test. “Follow your gut and go with your first instinct.” In a playing field where hating TEH GAY is par-for-the-course it seems that he was saying what was really in his heart. When cornered on it in the “Spin Room” and again on CNN he changed his answer because he know there would be outrage. This is the reason why taking his “correction” as his answer is so hard to do.
Apr 12
2007
Punted| Category: Debate, Fundies, Good-As-You, Hate Crime Laws, Hate Speech, Lies, Threats, Video, Violence |
A big hand to Jeremy at Good As You for the hat tip on this one.
Old Lou-ser Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition created a really interesting video in which he makes the standard set of lies about the pending hate crimes legislation in Congress. Specifically, H.R. 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007. But then he throws an easily fact checkable lie out there to further bait his audience into frantically calling their Reps and Senators to squash this bill Immediately.
Surf on over to Jeremy’s Pad to view the video for yourselves. Careful, it’s a doozy!
After the fold read the letter I sent to Lou. I’ll be sure to post a response should I get one! (more…)
Mar 02
2007
Punted| Category: Debate, Fundies, Lies, Mitt Romney, Rudy Guiliani |
Between presidential hopefulls Mitt Romney, and Rudy Guilanni it’s hard to tell who’s playing for which team or if they’re even on the team at all. Either way, we footballs in the PresidentBowl, are getting the boot.
Mitt Romney was invited to Pat “Juiced” Robertson’s 700 Club where he went on the offensive against the Guiliani camp which airs March 6th on ABC.
Graphic provided by PHB
“He is pro-choice, he is pro-gay marriage, and anti-gun,” said former Gov. Mitt Romney, R-Mass., in an interview taped in Boston on Feb. 28. “That’s a tough combination in a Republican primary.”
Giuliani is often described as being “pro-gay rights” because he signed a 1997 bill creating domestic-partnership benefits in New York City. He has never, however, been “pro-gay marriage.”
…When contacted by ABC News, the Romney campaign was not able to provide substantiation for the governor’s claim that Giuliani is “pro-gay marriage“.
So Mitt kicks us to smear Guiliani with his almost “pro-gay” stance. Guiliani’s tolerance of gays and lesbians is actually used against him in a political smear tactic. Mitt’s own past has him in a pro-gay rights position when he ran against Ted Kennedy (D-MA), an action for which he cannot reconcile with his now anti-gay rhetoric and the fundamentalist conservatives who want to support him.
But wait, Guiliani doesn’t want the ball and kicks us back…
Responding to the criticism, Giuliani spokeswoman Katie Levinson said: “Mayor Giuliani has the utmost respect for Governor Romney. The mayor’s position on gay marriage has been both clear and consistent - he does not support gay marriage and believes marriage should be between a man a woman.”
This football says it’s time to call a time-out and put these two in the penalty box for a long time.
Feb 20
2007
Punted| Category: Cross-Posted, Debate, HRC, Pam's House Blend |
HRC holds a ‘State of the Movement’ panel tonite at the HRC Headquarters in Washington, DC. The Panel will be moderated by Sean Bugg of Metro Weekly.
The problem is many think that HRC is a notorious Blue Team memeber pretending to be a GLBT rights organization.
While this is debated, “kevinbegood” a regular blender at PHB came up with a scathing and undeniably on point argument against the HRC or any other group that pretends to be doing a lot for the GLBT community but doesn’t have much to show for their efforts.
Comments after the flip. (more…)
Feb 12
2007
Punted| Category: CNN, Debate, Family Research Council, Freedom to Marry, Iniative 957, Lies, Video |
I think Wolfson of Freedom to Marry does his best to convey the real meaning of Initiative 957 and Yeost doesn’t really have much of an argument using doublespeak to first say the pro-equality side is “cruel” for “mocking” infertile couples, but turns around and speaks of the importance that children need to be raised by their biological parents.
Related: Marriage is for Children (at least in Washington State)
