Pam Spaulding's Blog, page 68

DOJ's DOMA Decision Offers Hope For Same-Sex Bi-National Couples

Monica Alcota and Cristina Ojeda are among the thousands of LGBT bi-national couples
smiling in sweet relief this week. More info here.

 

When it was announced the DOJ would drop their defense of the Defense of Marriage Act, many recognized the repercussions may extend well beyond just 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C. And we are already seeing them. Metro Weekly is reporting:

Christopher Bentley, the spokesman for the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, [says] that cases of foreign partners who are married to a same-sex partner and would otherwise be eligible for a green card are on hold in light of questions about the continued validity of the Defense of Marriage Act.

Bentley writes, "USCIS has issued guidance to the field asking that related cases be held in abeyance while awaiting final guidance related to distinct legal issues."

He notes, however, "USCIS has not implemented any change in policy and intends to follow the President's directive to continue enforcing the law."

The implications for the immigration equality fight were apparent immediately. But the news is coming in faster than expected. And it's good. It's very good.

Groups like Immigration Equality and Noemi Masliah and Lavi Soloway, founders of THE DOMA PROJECT, immediately recognized an opening for bi-national same-sex couples.

The facts are bi-national same-sex couples have always been—because of DOMA—blocked from applying for residency status for their spouses. And since 2006, they might even include spouses lawfully wedded here in the United States.

The legal theory appears to be, since DOMA has been found to be unconstitutional, and the Department of Justice agrees, there is nothing barring the USCIS from accepting green card applications from bi-national same-sex couples, presuming these findings hold up.

Calling these developments a "game changer" Lavi Soloway explains on his blog:

The significance of the "abeyance" policy is two-fold: first, it means that petitions and applications that normally would have been denied because of DOMA, will now remain in "pending" status, and second, this status will give protection and benefits to the applicant for an indefinite period. The "abeyance" policy, it is presumed, will put these cases on hold while the ultimate fate of DOMA is determined by a decision of the Supreme Court or through repeal by Congress.

There are of course reasons to be cautious on both sides of the argument. This move by USCIS appears to only allow the applications to be accepted (not approved), and be held in abeyance pending final outcome of the case before an appellate or ultimately the Supreme Court, should they choose to take the case. The ultimate resolution could easily be five years away. And that's a very long time for these couples.

Time is what so many of these couples just don't have. But absent a clear route for actual, permanent citizenship, the legal strategy has frequently focused on just buying time, hoping the landscape would change and legal options would open up in the meantime.

And fortunately, the DOJ and USCIS just delivered for some couples the motherlode of bought time. The fact also remains that persons subjected to a deportation order are frequently barred from re-entering the country for 10 years. Had CIS respected the status quo and continued with deportation proceedings, these families would have ultimately paid a very high penalty for Congress' folly of passing an unconstitutional law. An ex-post apology from the Government of "Sorry we tore your family apart for 10 years," can ring a little hollow in the year 2021.

This is an enormously helpful turn of events for such couples, couples like Josh Vandiver Henry Velandia highlighted in the Daily Beast.

Josh Vandiver, a graduate student at Princeton, and Henry Velandia, a dance instructor who emigrated from Venezuela in 2002, had been dating for three years when, in late 2009, Velandia got word that he was going to be deported. His request for an employer-sponsored visa had been denied, and he’d been entered into deportation proceedings.  

Henry Velandia, right, and Joshua Vandiver at their wedding. (Credit: Joshua Vandiver)

Vandiver and Velandia are being represented by Lavi Soloway, a leading attorney on GLBT immigration issues. If this is indeed a national development, he says, it will change his strategy in the case—and likely do the same for scores of couples. Most gay and lesbian couples, Soloway says, have been unlikely even to file a green-card petition. If it alerted authorities to an illegal alien, it could actually spark a deportation proceeding on its own. But now, Soloway says, “it may be possible for some married, gay and lesbian couples to have their [green-card] cases held. And to have their [deportation hearings] deferred to a later date—maybe after DOMA is struck down in the courts. That would afford them protection in the meantime.”

Before the DOJ/DOMA decision the best hope for couples like this was the Uniting American Families Act, a bill to extend the right to petition for residency to LGBT citizens on behalf of their same-sex non-citizen partners. Though there was a House and Senate version in the last Congress, considering it combines the two-fer hot potato of "gays" and "immigrants," well, you handicap its chances for 60 Senate votes anytime soon.

This decision by the DOJ is a real game-changer for the estimated 30,000 couples that find themselves in this situation. As Chris Geidner says in Metro Weekly:

The legal distinction means that although DOMA is still being enforced, the USCIS is using its discretion to hold off on denying green card applications where applicable.

That the USCIS is exercising discretionary power to proceed cautiously on deportation orders can only be described as gracious, merciful and just and it's a decision for which they should be applauded.

For more information check out:

• Immigration Equality
• Stop the Deportations

PRIDEinUTAH: Transgender Woman Mocked At Utah DMV, Forced To Scrub Off Makeup

Utah Department of Public Safety and the Transgender Education Advocates of Utah Deny State Discrimination In This Case Took Place

In a recent piece, PRIDEinUTAH reported that Transgender Woman Mocked At Utah DMV, Forced To Scrub Off Makeup:

Salt Lake City, Utah - Not a highlight of our state. On Thursday this week, a transgender woman entered a local DMV to renew her license only to find half the staff mocking and ridiculing her, including security forcing her to scrub off her makeup and pull her hair back before she could take her photo.

Local resident Amber Anderton watched a horrifying scene play out in front of her this past Thursday at the DMV located at 1095 Motor Ave. (approx. 200 N 1000 W) in Salt Lake City, as a transgender woman sat down at the photo station to renew her license. "When the DMV worker looked at her," says Amber, "he immediately left and got another employee, whispered in their ear and they both began laughing as they looked back at the woman. They both then went and got security who escorted the woman back to a supervisor's office. When they came back out the woman was taken to the restroom where she had to scrub off her makeup and pull her hair back before they would let her take her license photo."

Amber goes on to describe how the original two employees were seen walking from office to office, and several other employees came out to laugh and toss anti-transgender slurs around.

Mortified at what she was witnessing, 29 year old Amber approached the woman (who is remaining anonymous) and apologized for the treatment she was receiving. She asked if the woman planned on filing a complaint, but was told that although the abused woman as livid, "I really don't want to cause a scene." Amber than asked if she would allow Amber herself to make a complaint which the woman agreed to.

There's more of the original story at the PRIDEinUTAH story link.

The story has been updated, with the Utah Department of Public Safety and the Transgender Education Advocates of Utah (TEA of Utah) responding to the initial story.

[More below the fold.]
From State Denies Trans-Discrimination, But Victim Speaks Out.

...in an article by the Salt Lake Tribune yesterday, the Utah Drivers License Division is claiming that not only did their employees not laugh or ridicule this Transgender woman, but that they have video to prove it. Local Transgender Advocacy Group, "TEA of Utah" was allowed to view security footage and they reported to the Trib that they did not witness any behavior out of the ordinary.

But now the victim is stepping up, and has identified herself as Regina Audette. Here's what she had to say last night:

I was the transgender female who was asked to scrub my make up off so they could took my photo. Well it was Thursday afternoon and my brother and I went to get my ID at the DMV at the Fairgrounds and the assistant supervisor and the security officer was laughing at me and so it was my turn to get my picture taken and so I gave them the... proper paperwork and they looked at it told me they need to talk to the supervisor who pulled me in her office and told me to remove my make up because I was altering my identification and so I took the make up off and they took the picture and while I was waiting the assistant supervisor was yelling that wasn't a female that is a man and making the situation that much worse and then my brother and I went to talk to the supervisor and she said that they weren't making fun of us he had to itch his ass and didn't want to do it in front of me and that was their excuse on why they were laughing.

From the Salt Lake Tribune's State denies discrimination took place at driver license office:

Although one bystander says a transgender woman was wrongly "humiliated" at the Utah Driver License Division last week, the division says an investigation revealed Monday that state employees acted appropriately.

And TEA of Utah backs the state. Members of the advocacy group reviewed surveillance videos on Monday as part of the state's investigation.

"The employees did follow procedure," said Teinamarrie Scuderi, associate director of TEA of Utah. "There was no ridicule, [no] pointing and laughing ... what we saw on the video was pretty much everyday, if you went to the Driver License Division to get your ID renewed."

That said, there was definitely some gender norming going on regarding Regina Audette wearing make-up in her DMV photograph.

[Dwayne Baird, a spokesman for the Utah Department of Public Safety, which oversees driver licenses] said the individual was asked to speak with a supervisor in a private office. The supervisor asked that make-up be removed.

My guess would be it was more than just a simple ask, but no one else being in the room but the supervisor and Regina Audette, we'll never really know what was discussed.

Transgender Education Advocates of Utah (TEA of Utah) has high praise for the Utah Department of Public Safety.

"The employees did follow procedure," said Teinamarrie Scuderi, associate director of TEA of Utah. "There was no ridicule, [no] pointing and laughing ... what we saw on the video was pretty much everyday, if you went to the Driver License Division to get your ID renewed."

Teinamarrie Scuderi was also quoted as saying this:

They have a great policy. The Driver License Division doesn't want to be vilified. They are doing their jobs. They are open to more education.

.

Catholic Church Urges HUD On LGBT Americans: "Let Them Go Homeless"

Note from Laurel: This diary is by Clarknt67 who was short on time and so asked me to cross-post this for him from Daily Kos.The Obama administration delivered a significant advance in the promise America would be more equal and just place for LGBT citizens when it tasked the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) with addressing the problem of LGBT-discriminatory housing practices.

On January 24, 2011 HUD announced the proposed new regulations, 76 Federal Register 15, with HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan saying:  

"We have a responsibility to make certain that public programs are open to all Americans.  With this proposed rule, we will make clear that a person's eligibility for federal housing programs is, and should be, based on their need and not on their sexual orientation or gender identity."

"Not so fast!" says the Catholic Church.
Once again, they are desperately afraid that they won't be able to participate in public programs and practice their private discrimination. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Press Release reads:

The USCCB Urges HUD Not to Include Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Among Protected Categories

We write on behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in opposition to a proposed regulation that would add "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" to the list of protected categories for which discrimination in HUD programs is prohibited.

The full statement (PDF) is here. They have two points to make:

1. The Proposed Regulation Lacks Any Statutory Basis and Undermines the Policy of a Statute in Full Force, the Defense of Marriage Act.

Ah yes, the US Government has never passed any LGBT-affirmative legislation before, and ever it shall remain. Rea Carey of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force has this to say on the long-standing discriminatory practices in the public and private sectors:

"LGBT people remain particularly vulnerable in seeking or retaining housing due to widespread bias, discrimination and a lack of housing protections," said Carey. "Explicitly including LGBT people and our families in housing policies in order to better protect them and ensure fairness marks a proper governmental response and step toward rectifying a long-standing inequity."

The second point the USCCB has to make is:

2. The Proposed Regulation May Infringe Upon the Rights of Faith-Based Organizations Not to Facilitate Shared Housing Arrangements That Violate the Organization's Religious Beliefs.

God told us to turn away gays, lesbians and trans people, and you can't tell us otherwise.

In fact, this was a very welcome step in our Government assuming responsibility that taxpayer-supported programs would be made available to all taxpayers. And the issue of housing discrimination is a very serious problem that needs addressing.

The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force released a study just months ago on the state of discrimination on trans community. It's bad. Among their issues with housing:

19% reported having been refused a home or apartment and 11% reported being evicted because of their gender identity/expression.

One-fifth (19%) reported experiencing homelessness at some point in their lives because theu were transgender or gender non-conforming; the majority of those trying to access a homeless shelter were harassed by shelter staff or residents (55%), 29% were turned away altogether, and Respondents reported various forms of direct housing discrimination -- 19% reported having been refused a home ot apartmenr and 11% reported being evicted because of their gender identity/expression.

One-fifth (19%) reported experiencing homelessness at some point in thier lives because they were transgender or gender non-conforming; the majority of those trying to access a homeless shelter were harassed by shelter staff or residents (55%), 29% were turned away altogether, and 22% were sexually assaulted by residents or staff.

Almost 2% of respondents were currently homeless, which is almost twice the rate of the general population (1%)

Respondents reported less than half the national rate of hme ownership: 32% reported owning their home compared to 67% of the general population.

Respondents who have experienced homelessness were highly vulnerable to mistreatment in public settings, police abuse and negative health outcomes.

Additionally, other studies have found and epidemic of homeless LGBT youth:

Of the estimated 1.6 million homeless American youth, between 20 and 40 percent identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT).

Much more than these regulations needs to be done to address these problem. But, any movement that provides easier access to shelter and housing is a welcome step and likely to have a ripple effect. The Government can -- and has a responsibility -- to set the standards, and this HUD decision is a great incremental step in the right direction.

We've seen the Catholic Church pull these bullying tactic many times before. If the Church isn't down with providing services equitably, they're free to get out of the business, as they did Massachusetts, they pulled it in Washington DC. And here it is again. Asserting their religious freedom to collect tax-payer money and practice discriminatory policies at the same time.

It seems to me if the Church is going to involve itself in the public business of helping the less fortunate, it might contemplate whether it's appropriate to be sorting their charity cases into piles labeled "worthy" and "unworthy".  They might consult the Constitution for some relevant thoughts.  They might consult their Bible as well.

Leviticus 25:35-36:  If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and are unable to support themselves among you, help them as you would a foreigner and stranger, so they can continue to live among you. 36 Do not take interest or any profit from them, but fear your God, so that they may continue to live among you.

The public commenting period on this regulation expired on March 25th.

Frankly, I rather resent being scolded on my morality by a organization that just paid out $250,000,000 to settle 700 cases of abusing and raping children that will never be prosecuted. Bishops? Heal thy own soul please. Think of the children.

Catholic bishops don't want to give housing to lgbts

crossposted on Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters

Some on the right tell us that lgbt equality will trump people's right to express their religious beliefs. In some cases maybe that's not a bad idea, such as the following:

U.S. Catholic bishops are urging federal housing officials not to adopt proposed rules that would bar groups that receive federal funds from discriminating against gays, lesbians or transgender persons in housing programs.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development said the new rules, proposed on Jan. 24, would “ensure equal access” to programs that help the elderly, sick, and impoverished find stable housing.

Citing recent studies, HUD said gays and lesbians face discrimination in the private housing market, and one in five transgender persons reports homelessness due to bias.

  . . . Lawyers for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops say the new rules would force some religious groups to compromise their beliefs or quit HUD housing programs.

“Faith-based and other organizations should retain the freedom they have always had to make housing placements in a manner consistent with their religious beliefs, including when it concerns a cohabiting couple, be it an unmarried heterosexual couple or a homosexual couple,” said Anthony Picarello and Michael Moses, lawyers for the bishops conference.

So in other word, these Catholic bishops would let people homeless rather than give housing to someone who may be an lgbt if that person is in a relationship but can't get married due to the anti-gay marriage laws. That doesn't strike me as very Christian.

The irony of the situation is that Jesus - whom these bishops claim to serve - was born in a manger because his parents were turn away from the inn on the night of his birth. Apparently there was no room.

Years later there is still no room, but this time it's in the hearts of those who claim to serve Him. There is no room for love or basic kindness.

Is this what Christianity has become? A selfish precept in which those needing love and support take a backseat to egos?  HUD is the last thing these bishops should worry about if they continue to be show such hatred and callousness in God's name.

Related post:

Catholic Church Urges HUD On LGBT Americans: “Let Them Go Homeless.”

 

WorldNetDaily screeches - Disney animator: 'Gay' characters only matter of time

Since I learned about this story via Bam Bam Barber tweet, I suppose this news is spreading like wildfire among the bible-beater set.

In a little-noticed story by the Australian news website News.com.au, animator Andreas Deja, who reported working on the Disney films "Beauty and the Beast," "Aladdin" and "The Lion King," said the company is open to the concept of homosexual entertainment.

"Is there ever going to be a family that has two dads or two mums? Time will tell," he said. "I think once they find the right kind of story with that kind of concept, they will do it.

"It has to be the right kind of story and you have to find that first," said Deja, according to News.com.au.

Disney, which already allows various "gay days" and other such events at its theme parks, is a "gay-friendly" company, Deja said. The report cited "Lion King" contributor Elton John as well as the late Howard Ashman, who worked on the lyrics to "The Little Mermaid."

Given that the entertainment giant isn't known for churning out R-rated material, the fundies shouldn't get so hot and bothered. If any gay characters are going to show up in a cartoon, it's likely to be in the background, not a principal character. Hell, you could probably read some characters as gay going way back, if you count the live action films.

But go ahead bible-beaters, plan your doomed-to-fail boycott of Disney when the homos characters come a calling. It won't work this time either.

eQualityGiving: 20 Out Of 37 National LGBT Organizations Don't Have Any Transgender Board Members

According to eQualityGiving, 20 out of 37 national LGBT non-profit organizations don't have any transgender board members. Of the national lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) organization boards, only 3% of the board members are transgender.

The numbers are shocking, but hardly surprising.

The following chart gives a breakdown of the board members by organization:

Of the 6 state organizations eQualityGiving highlighted later on that same webpage, only 5% of the board members are transgender.

eQualityGiving's suggestions for adding more transgender representation on LGBT  non-profit organization boards:

Contact the organizations you support who do not have any transgender board members, and express your concern about this lack and your desire to help identify a transgender person to fill the gap.





Identify one or more transgender friends who are board member prospects, and begin mentoring them in their involvement and philanthropy.





Consider funding the give/get requirement for a trans person who cannot afford it.





Ask your board to relax give/get requirements if necessary for trans members.





Ask your board to reduce time requirements for trans members serving on multiple boards.





Ask your boards ask potential trans members to bring one or 2 others with them to a board in order to minimize tokenism.

NJ woman accused of dumping emaciated pit bull down garbage chute

I had this in the mail round up, but my blood is boiling over this so I had to give this news its own post. If someone can do this to a dog, imagine how they treat children. The photos on the site are horrific. Look at the condition of the dog when it was found. If someone can do this to a dog, imagine how they treat children.

A New Jersey woman has been charged with four counts of animal cruelty after authorities accused of her dumping a starved 1-year-old pit bull down a trash chute.

Kisha Curtis, 28, could face up to six months in jail, a $1,000 fine or community service if convicted. On March 16, the dog was found in the garbage of a Newark apartment building after apparently having been thrown down a trash chute in a plastic bag in the 22-story building.

Patricia Scavelli, an administrator at GSVS, said when hospital officials first saw Patrick they "didn't think he'd make it through the night." Patrick will be put up for adoption if he continues to improve and recovers, doctors said.

I weep when I see stories like this. I wish I had the capability to save more pits from such sorry fates. It's why I post Pam's Pit Picks of the Week on Facebook (and on occasion, PHB). The Durham AP temperaments the pits and pix mixes up for adoption, noting which like other dogs, cats, etc. They make wonderful family pets if you're not a first-time dog owner and know basics of obedience training. The bad rap has translated in stories of animal cruelty so unbelievable that you do have to question how a human being can treat an animal that humans bred for companionship.  It makes you question what kind of species we are.

Tender hugs to little Patrick. How many more never made it through the cruelty. There is a Facebook page for the little guy, called "The Patrick Miracle."

Transgender Veteran Monica Helms: "The VA Still Discriminates Against Trans Veterans"

For their service and sacrifice, warm words of thanks from a grateful nation are more than warranted, but they are not nearly enough. We also owe our veterans the care they were promised and the benefits they have earned. We have a sacred trust to those who wear the uniform of the United States of America. It's a commitment that begins in enlistment and it must never end.

~President Barack Obama, April 9, 2009

When asked about when the policy [toward the proper treatment of transgender veterans] would be released, a White House advisor said, "Soon." For those transgender veterans who keep facing discrimination from the VA on a daily bases, "Soon" is not good enough.

It seems odd that a President who has said over and over again that ALL of our veterans should receive the care they sacrificed for has decided that "All" didn't include transgender veterans.

~Monica Helms, President, Transgender American Veterans Association, March 27, 2011

The president of the Transgender American Veterans Association (TAVA), Monica Helms, has released another video regarding transgender veterans -- this one about a waited for regulatory policy from the Veterans Administration (VA) and the Obama Administration on the medical treatment of eligible, disabled transgender veterans at VA medical facilities. Many transgender veterans are aware that the proposed regulatory policy -- a policy that will functionally create a standard of care for disabled transgender veterans -- has been in the pipeline for approval for over a year.

A transcript of the video:

Hello, my name is Monica Helms and I am the President of the Transgender American Veterans Association. Today, we will talk about the discrimination transgender and transsexual veterans face in VA medical facilities.

For the longest time, transgender veterans have been aware that if they needed the VA as their primary health care, they risked being treated badly, even if they spent 20 or more years serving our country. In some cases, they have been denied ALL services from the VA and turned away.

In 2008, the Transgender American Veterans Association conducted a survey and 827 transgender and transsexual veterans participated. Twenty-nine percent of those who took the survey (240 veterans) were using the VA when they took that survey. A full 10% of the sample was turned away from a VA medical facility at least once for being transgender. These are veterans who were essentially told that their service to our country meant nothing because of what they did AFTER they were discharged.

Other transgender veterans reported intrapersonal discrimination from doctors, nurses and non-medical staff members. This included using incorrect pronouns on purpose, not using the person's legal name and referring to them in derogatory words. One trans man said in the survey, "I was told by a religious clerk that I should just go away because I was an insult to the brave real men who were there for treatment."

[More of the transcript below the fold.]
Transcript for the video "The VA Still Discriminates Against Trans Veterans" (continued):

One Male-to-Female respondent noted, "I am asked about my genitals and my plans for SRS regardless of whether or not it has relevance to my treatment."

Many doctors and nurses were constantly singling out and stigmatizing their transgender patients.  Illustrating this, one Male-to-Female respondent recounted the following experience: "A nurse pulled my partner out in the hall of the VA Hospital where I was an in-patient and said, 'You know that really is a man, don't you'?"

Also, transgender veterans are much more likely to be denied surgeries, such as hysterectomies, mastectomies, and orchiectomies, even if they are found to be medically necessary for the patient.

Doctors continually violated their Hippocratic Oath - do no harm - by denying these medically necessary surgeries and other medical services simply because the veteran was transgender. Others violated the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) by telling other patients and non-essential personnel about the transgender veteran's transitioning status.

Because of the TAVA survey in 2008, the VA began creating a draft of a new policy toward the proper treatment of transgender veterans. In the early 2009, the VA then sent this draft to various VA medical facilities to have their transgender veterans review it. They didn't contact TAVA or the National Center for Transgender Equality for their opinion.

However, the VA made several revisions and in July of 2009, they told us it would be out "SOON."

Months came and went, and over and over, the VA kept telling us that they would release the policy "soon." In that time, NCTE and TAVA contacted people who worked for the VA, the VA Secretary Eric Shinseki, Senators, Representatives, Legislative Aids and even sent a letter to President Obama. Nothing happened.

After a year and a half, we received news that the policy was moving forward. But, it still never came out. When asked about when the policy would be released, a White House advisor said, "Soon." For those transgender veterans who keep facing discrimination from the VA on a daily bases, "Soon" is not good enough.

It seems odd that a President who has said over and over again that ALL of our veterans should receive the care they sacrificed for has decided that "All" didn't include transgender veterans.  Here's what he said one time:

April 9, 2009:

For their service and sacrifice, warm words of thanks from a grateful nation are more than warranted, but they are not nearly enough. We also owe our veterans the care they were promised and the benefits they have earned. We have a sacred trust to those who wear the uniform of the United States of America. It's a commitment that begins in enlistment and it must never end.

And, then another:

May 5, 2010:

But, we are forever mindful that our obligation to our troops don't end on the battlefield. Just as we have a responsibility to train and equip them when we send them into harms way, we have a responsibility to take care of them when they come home.

And, even this:

July10, 2010:

Just as we have a solemn responsibility to train and equip our troops before we send them into harms way, we have a solemn responsibility to provide our veterans the care and benefits they earned when they come home. That's our sacred trust with all who have served and it doesn't end when their tour of duty does.

He mentions "Sacred Trust" and "Solemn Responsibility." It seems that when it comes to its transgender veterans, the country doesn't live up to these words. Why?

Is the President thinking we are not patriotic enough to be treated respectfully by the VA? In the recent survey just released by NCTE and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force called "Injustice at Every Turn," they found that 20% of the 6,450 transgender and gender non-conforming study participants had served in the military, compared to only 10% of the general population of the US. Is this patriotic enough for you, Mr. President?

Every day this policy sits on ice, another transgender veteran gets discriminated against or harassed at a VA medical facility. TAVA has received dozens of E-mails over the last 20 months from frustrated transgender veterans with horror stories on how badly they have been treated by the VA. There is no excuse for this kind of treatment for ANY veteran, no matter what direction their lives took after they got out. If any American volunteers to protect this country and the people in it, then they deserve the best from our government. No exceptions. Let's hope the President gets the message, and he gets it SOON. Thank you.

This video is about the issue that has been the foundation of the Transgender American Veterans Association, the discrimination and harassment transgender and transsexual veterans face at VA medical facilities. In this, we show some examples of what people faced and point out that President Obama says ALL veterans should receive good service in the VA because they served this country. The video also covers a draft of a good policy toward trans veterans that the VA has been sitting on for the last 20 months. We need to be treated with the same respect all other veterans get from the Obama Administration.

Monica Helms and I have discussed the real possibility of TAVA and GetEQUAL jointly engaging in direct action to push the issue if we don't see the policy released within the next several weeks, and we both now are preparing for the possibility that the planned policy won't be released "soon." We're hopeful it will be, and preparing for if it isn't.

Transgender veterans deserve the care they were promised and the benefits they have earned. The lack of standardized, appropriate healthcare treatment for American transgender veterans by the VA accomplishes real harm, and the harm can be minimized with the release of the regulatory policy that still has not been released by the Obama Administration.

The Obama Administration really needs to understand exactly how important this issue is to transgender veterans -- We take this issue very, very seriously.

.

News in the mailbag...including ENDA bill update

Lots and lots of mail piles up when even a weekend goes by without checking it...we'll start off with some breaking news from MetroWeekly re: ENDA.

* ENDA To Be Introduced This Week; Rep. Frank Talks Trans Support, ENDA's Future.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) plans to introduce the Employment Non-Discrimination Act in the House on Wednesday, according to two LGBT equality advocates with direct knowledge of the congressman's plans. Frank's communications director, Harry Gural, confirmed that the plans are "to formally announce ENDA this week," although he added over the weekend that specifics are not yet nailed down and were expected to be so by Monday afternoon.

The bill, which Gural says will be the same exact bill as that introduced in the 111th Congress, would prohibit most employers from discriminating in hiring and promotions on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

Although the bill is not expected to move forward in the House under the leadership of Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), Frank, talking with Metro Weekly on Sunday, March 27, says, "It's an organizing tool. Obviously, with the Republicans in power, you're not going to get the bill even considered."

* ALCU: Forrest County Sheriff's Department To Reinstate Gay Corrections Officer After ACLU Lawsuit .

The Forrest County Sheriff's Department will reinstate Andre Cooley as a deputy corrections officer as part of the settlement of a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Mississippi, in which Cooley alleged that he was fired because he is gay. As part of the settlement agreement reached today, the sheriff's department will also update its written non-discrimination policy to make explicit that the sheriff's department does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

"I am looking forward to returning to a job that I loved in the sheriff's department," Cooley said. "I'm very happy that the sheriff's department has clarified in writing that they do not discriminate based on sexual orientation. Everyone should be judged by their ability to do the job, not by their sexual orientation."

"We are happy to have Mr. Cooley return to work in the department. His sexual orientation has no bearing on his ability to perform the duties of a corrections officer," said Sheriff Billy McGee. "The Forrest County Sheriff's Department is an equal opportunity employer, and we do not discriminate based on sexual orientation. Our new written policy will make this position clear to every employee in our department."

* Outserve , the underground network of over 2,900 LGBT military personnel, launches magazine.

* Louisiana: school says no to girl in prom tux. After what went on with Mississippi, Constance McMillen and prom discrimination, you'd think the state next door would have paid attention.

A Terrebonne Parish girl is weighing her options now that school officials have said the 19-year-old student can't attend her senior prom if she shows up in a tuxedo.

Nason Authement, secondary education supervisor, says the policy for each of Terrebonne's four high schools is that boys must wear tuxes or suits and girls must wear dresses or gowns. Authement says the policy is based on long-held tradition.

* Over at JMG, this incredible BS : TN Housing Official Says Gays Are Like Murderers and Drug Dealers. You can see the document on Scribd.

In January, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) invited public comment on proposed new rules banning discrimination against LGBT people in all its programs. That prompted Vicki Barnes, the executive director of Tennessee's Sweetwater Housing Authority to fire off a letter to HUD in which she compares gay people to murderers, cult members, prostitutes and drug dealers. According to Barnes, if HUD's proposed rules are adopted, landlords will opt out of Section 8 programs rather than "be bullied into accepting tenants who have chosen a lifestyle that goes against their moral convictions."

More below the fold.
* Good news in NC from the business community: We support gay rights because it's right, executive says .

Alan King has never seen himself as a "poster boy" for gay corporate executives. "I see myself as a good business person," King said. "Being gay doesn't define my ability to do my job well. I don't wrap myself in a rainbow flag."

But as the president of Raleigh-based Workplace Options takes a more visible role in supporting gay rights, he recognizes he'll increasingly be viewed as a model in the business world. His company, which arranges work-life benefits for other businesses' employees, is the title sponsor of OutRaleigh. The festival, scheduled for May 14 and organized by the LGBT Center of Raleigh, will celebrate diversity with music, family activities and more. There have been similar events in other cities, but this will be the first in Raleigh.

"It's an opportunity to make a visible statement in the community we live ... and celebrate diversity," King said. "We're supporting OutRaleigh not because I'm gay, but because it's the right thing to do. It's also at the heart of what we do as a company."

* For those waiting for news about the 2011 White House Easter Egg Roll, here you go . It will be held Monday, April 25, 2011. This year's theme is "Get Up and Go!" in order to promote health and wellness.

* There's a great essay at Salon, "I preached against homosexuality, but I was wrong," by a Presbyterian minister, Murray Richmond, who shares his journey to become gay-affirming. It's a must-click.

* Video Interview: Dan Choi at Straight Talk. dot429's On the Dot columnist, R. Couri Hay, talks to Dan.

Lt. Dan Choi has become the poster boy for DADT.  dot429 columnist, R. Couri Hay, sat down with Choi at our Straight Talk event in New York City to discuss life at West Point, DADT, Obama's decision regarding DOMA, and even Choi's personal views on Anderson Cooper.

Choi firmly believes and states, "Coming out is our only weapon of political consequence that matters."

Is The New Hampshire GOP Gearing Up to Inject Same Sex Marriage into the 2012 Elections?

I'm a registered resident and voter in Salem New Hampshire, and one of my representatives is David Bates, sponsor of HB 437. HB 437 is an attempt to repeal same sex marriage in the "live free or die" state, which was sent back to committee just after the last public hearings on February 17, 2011.

In excess of 500 people came out to support same sex marriage (as compared to the 70 or so against equality), many giving their testimony. Some think that because there was a lack of support for the bill at this hearing that this battle is all but won, and come next year the vote against HB 437 will be a formality. However, republicans are also still firmly in control of New Hampshire and not afraid to use their advantage to further their agenda. 

 

 Sending HB 437 back to committee seems like a victory to many who don't know how savvy politicians are in this state, so I feel it is my obligation to share some insight into this matter. I've contacted Rep. David Bates and exhanged dialogue through emails; he has no intention of changing his position on this matter. So why then would he request the Judicial Committee table the bill he sponsored until next year? Why would 2012 be a better time to vote on this in New Hampshire, which has huge influence in Presidential Elections? 

This may very well be an orchistrated delay meant to bring this issue up during the Presidential Election process next year, effectively resurrecting what happened in 2004. I took keen notice when Rep. Bates asked to table his bill because in doing so in the public hearing he mentioned that the NH GOP was in agreement that this should happen and reminded his fellow Republicans on the committee to follow their marching orders. The testimony at this hearing is largely preserved on YouTube for people to review for themselves and hear what he said first hand.

Anyone interested in fact checking can visit the NH GOP Party Platform and see for themselves what the New Hampshire Republican Party thinks of marriage equality, but here is the pertinent excerpt listed under article VIII FAMILY:

Recognizing marriage as the legal union between one man and one woman

Opposing recognition by the state of New Hampshire of all other forms of civil unions, regardless of where such unions were formed (other states, U.S. territories, and foreign countries)