Pam Spaulding's Blog, page 78

Groundbreaking report released: 'Bisexual Invisibility: Impacts and Recommendations'

The San Francisco Human Rights Commission is reviewing a groundbreaking report "Bisexual Invisibility: Impacts and Recommendations," believed to be the first of its kind by a government body in the U.S. Here is the PDF. Some of the findings reveal a lot about a community that is rarely central to the discussion of LGBT rights. The author and editor of the report is LGBT Advisory Committee member Lindasusan Ulrich. From the report:

According to several studies, self-identified bisexuals make up the largest single population within the LGBT community in the United States. In each study, more women identified as bisexual than lesbian, and fewer men identified as bisexual than gay men.

Bisexuals experience high rates of being ignored, discriminated against, demonized, or rendered invisible by both the heterosexual world and the lesbian and gay communities. Often, the entire sexual orientation is branded as invalid, immoral, or irrelevant. Despite years of activism and the largest population within the LGBT community, the needs of bisexuals still go unaddressed and their very existence is still called into question. This erasure has serious consequences on bisexuals' health, economic well-being, and funding for bi organizations and programs.

Bisexuals constitute the largest population within the LGBT community, but few services exist to address their specific needs.One in two bi women and one in three bi men have attempted or seriously considered suicide. This is significantly higher than the rates for heterosexuals, lesbians, and gay men.Bisexuals experience higher rates of hypertension, depression, poor or fair physical health, smoking, risky drinking, and other mood or anxiety disorders.Bisexual men were 50% more likely to live in poverty than gay men, and bisexual women were more than twice as likely to live in poverty as lesbians.In 2008 and 2009, not a single grant in the entire country explicitly focused on bisexual issues....While bisexuality has often been considered merely a "phase" en route to a stable gay or lesbian orientation, it is also a stable sexual orientation in itself. A longitudinal study of sexual minority women (lesbian, bisexual, or unlabeled) found that over 10 years, "more women adopted bisexual/unlabeled identities than relinquished them" [emphasis in original]. Of those who began the study identifying as bisexual, 92% identified as bisexual or unlabeled 10 years later, and 61% those who began as unlabeled identified as bisexual or unlabeled 10 years later. While no similar long-term study has been done with bisexual men, at least one study suggests that bisexuality can be a stable sexual orientation for men as well.

There is a lot of information to digest - and to discuss. Have a look at it.

Religious right whining about 'threats' in Maryland

crossposted on Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters

Regardless of how the marriage equality vote in Maryland will turn out, one thing is certain. The National Organization for Marriage and those against gay marriage in Maryland seem to be operating on fumes right now.

How else can one explain a recent article coming from the American Family Association's One News Now. The article pushes a phony assertion that the lgbt community and its allies engaged in "threats" to get the votes. The main snippet says the following:

Derek McCoy of the Association of Maryland Families says unscrupulous practices are being used to pressure lawmakers opposed to homosexual marriage to vote differently than their conscience. "We know those practices to be everything from threatening people's chairmanship, to one young man who was a delegate that changed his vote and then went back and changed it again because he already had had people starting to call his donors and asking for refunds from his campaign money."

McCoy is referring to the recent brouhaha regarding delegate Sam Arora who campaigned on the fact that he would support gay marriage in Maryland. Arora knocked on doors, sat down with same-sex families, and accepted donations while expressly saying that he supported marriage equality.

Then after the election, he announced that he changed his mind and would not support gay marriage.

Naturally the members of the lgbt community who supported him, who introduced him to their families, who told him their life stories and why this piece of legislation is important were furious.

And some in fact did ask  for their donations back. This led Arora to change his mind again and support the bill.

But I fail to see how this situation reaches the level of  "unscrupulous practices" that were alluded to in the article. Don't citizens have a right to contact their lawmakers and voice their support or displeasure?

Also, McCoy - and the article - conveniently forgot to mention NOM's recent pledge to spend $1 million defending Democratic senators voting against the gay marriage bill and opposing Republican senators who vote for the bill.

Seems to me that if McCoy thinks citizens contacting their lawmakers resembles "unscrupulous activities," then an organization - an out-of-town organization - using the power of the purse to sway legislators should really rank up there on the "threat chart."

 

The Equality Maryland Press Release on The Gender Identity Bill

Equality Maryland (EqMD) released a press release today on the Human Relations - Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity - Antidiscrimination bill (HB 235). The date of this press release coincided with the House Health and Government Operations Committee hearing on this bill -- the hearing at which Del. Mary Washington testified.

The text of the press release:

ANNAPOLIS, March 9, 2011 --  Equality Maryland, Delegate Joseline Pena-Melnyk (D-21), Delegate Ariana Kelly (D-16), the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Maryland Catholics for Equality, the Maryland Black Family Alliance, Pride at Work and other local activists, held a press conference prior to the Health & Government Operations Committee hearing testimony on HB235, the Gender Identity Anti-Discrimination Act.  The bill would prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity in the areas of employment, housing and credit.  The press conference solidified the need and urgency behind HB 235.

Delegate Joseline Pena-Melnyk (D-21), Lead Sponsor:

"Today, every Marylander should expect to work or live in comfortable housing without fear of losing a safe space because of who they are."

"HB 235 provides necessary to make sure that every Marylander can live without fear of discrimination."

Delegate Ariana Kelly (D-16), Lead Sponsor

"Today, I stand before you speaking up against unjust discrimination that happens daily in our state for thousands of transgender Marylanders. As a lead sponsor to HB 235, the Gender Identity Anti-Discrimination Act, I believe it's time that we put these vital protections in place for our trasngeder residents."

"All hardworking people in our state, including transgender people, should have a chance to earn a living and provide for themselves and their families. Nobody should have to live in fear that they can be legally fired for reasons that have nothing to do with their job performance - like our good friend Owen.  Owen was fired because of his gender identity and later harassed on the job.  It is time for this horrible discrimination to end and for us to act immediately in addressing these life or death protections for all Marylanders."

Morgan Meneses-Sheets, Executive Director for Equality Maryland

"Every person in our state deserves an opportunity to live a life free from discrimination and violence. Every person deserves to live and work with equality and dignity. No one should lose their job, or be denied a place to live, because of their gender identity or expression. House bill 235 is an important first step to living up to the promise of equality."

Lisa Mottet, Transgender Civil Rights Project

"The National Center for Transgender Equality and my organization, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, released a groundbreaking report that found that Maryland transgender and gender non-conforming people were being fired, harassed, passed over for promotion, and not hired simply for being who they were. This was not a small problem: 71% experienced harassment or mistreatment on the job and 18% had lost their job just because of who they are."

"Likely due to this discrimination, transgender Marylanders experienced poverty (making under $10,000 per year) nearly 3 times the national average.  Likely also due to troubles with employment discrimination as well as housing discrimination, homelessness was experienced by 12% of transgender Marylanders. Seventeen percent (17%) were denied a home/apartment due to being transgender. Twenty-two percent (22%) had to find temporary spaces to stay in an attempt to avoid homelessness."

Owen Smith, Equality Maryland

"I have been harassed and even assaulted at work because I am transgender.  I was kicked out of my apartment for not being able to afford my monthly rent. Without a job, how was I supposed to be able to afford my rent? I was forced to live out of my car. I am just one of the hundreds of transgender Marylanders in need of these protections."

Mara Drummond, transgender activist from Howard County

"I write software that helps keep over 700 million air travelers safe each year.  I designed and wrote the software the NASA mainframe computers use to communicate with the space shuttle.  Yet, the Maryland legislature for the last 4 years has essentially said that I do not deserve a basic human right, the right to hold employment, because I'm transgender."

Alex Hickox, Equality Maryland Board of Directors

"I can't afford to lose my job because someone may not like that I am transgender.  I can't afford to lose my job, because I will likely lose my house.  I will likely lose 15 years of hard work and dedication in one fell swoop.  I deserve to be judged on my work ethic and job performance, not on the presentation of my gender."

Donna Cartwright, Pride at Work - AFL-CIO

"Many transgender and gender-different people continue to suffer from chronic unemployment or underemployment, and many others who retain their jobs have seen the door closed to further career development."

"Transgender workers are often handicapped in seeking employment by the lack of documentation appropriate to their gender presentation...By enacting this bill, Maryland would send a critically important signal."

What isn't included in this press release are statements from lesbian and gay legislators as individuals, or a statement from the group of lesbian and gay legislators who identify themselves the LGBT Caucus.

By the day of the hearing, it appears that only two of the seven lesbian and gay Maryland legislators  -- now eight with Del. Peter Murphy (D-Charles County), coming out this week as gay -- spoke out in favor of the gender identity bill prior to its committee hearing. The five other lesbian and gay delegates who apparently didn't speak out on the gender identity bill prior to the hearing are:

• Maggie McIntosh - House of Delegates, District 43

• Anne Kaiser - House of Delegates, District 14

• Bonnie Cullison - House of Delegates, District 19

• Heather Mizeur - House of Delegates, District 20

• Luke Clippinger - House of Delegates, District 46

In my mind, that means these six lesbian and gay legislators who apparently haven't spoken about the gender identity civil rights bill are 50% on speaking out for, and working for, the passage of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) legislation submitted to the Maryland legislature this year.

And, this is of course after the self-identified LGBT Caucus -- made up of lesbian and gay Maryland legislators -- definitely didn't publicly speak out either late last year or early this year against the removal of the public accommodation antidiscrimination component from this year's gender identity civil rights bill.

How utterly sad. How utterly disgusting.

In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.

~Martin Luther King Jr.

~~~~~

Related:

* Delegate Mary Washington's Testimony On The Maryland's Gender Identity Bill

* Senator Rich Madaleno's Statement On HB 235 - The Gender Identity Civil Rights Bill

* Sen. Madaleno's Continued Silence To His Constituents On Maryland's Gender Identity Bill

* Maryland's Seven LGBT Legislators Need To Speak Out As A Caucus For Transgender Equality

* Gender Identity Anti-Discrimination bill introduced in Maryland House

* ENDA: The LGBT Community Has Ceded The "Bathroom Bill" Argument Without A Fight

* ENDA: An 800-Pound Transgender Elephant - With Issues - In The Room

* Guest column by Kerry Eleveld - The False Choice: ENDA v. Marriage Equality

.

Update: GetEqual Action At Boehner's Office

A grassroots effort is underway to put Speaker Boehner squarely in the heat of a blinding national spotlight for his decision to to move forward with the defense of the unconstitutional law, Defense of Marriage Act. GetEqual, Credo Action, Equality Ohio, Impact Cincinnati, and Human Rights Campaign, have all joined forces today to put the heat on Speaker Boehner's despicable unilateral decision to defend bigotry.

At 2:00 pm ET, five GetEQUAL Ohio activists will enter Speaker Boehner’s West Chester office to deliver 33,233 CREDO Action and GetEQUAL petition signatures asking that he not spend tax-payer dollars defending DOMA.

Simultaneously, there will be a solidarity protest/rally outside the office, where GetEQUAL Ohio activists will be joined by Equality Ohio and Impact Cincinnati.

What can you do to support this action and demand Speaker Boehner protect the rights of ALL Americans by focusing on job creation and not discrimination? Join the virtual protest. Speak out and tell him, he's taking America off-track with this decision.

Call his West Chester office: (513) 779-5400

If the line is busy, call his Washington DC Office: (202) 225-6205

Speaker Boehner is scheduled to have a Press Conference Today at 4:30. The larger and louder this protest is, the more likely he is to be confronted by the press with similar questions. This is the time to roar on this issue.

See Update and suggested questions after the fold.

Of course, you're welcomed and encouraged to improvise. But if you need a little help, these sample questions have been provided by Michael Cole-Schwartz, Director of Media Relations for Human Rights Campaign.

 

7 Questions: There are as many as nine lawsuits in federal court challenging the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA. Will House Republicans intervene in all of these lawsuits? Who will represent House Republicans in court? Will the House hire outside private counsel to defend the cases? If pro-bono legal counsel will be asked to represent the House, who will that be? Will a conflict and ethics check be conducted? Will the BLAG be consulted on strategic decisions related to the litigation? How much taxpayer money will this all cost? What will the House argue in defending DOMA? Will they go back to Congress’s 1996 arguments for passing the law – that it is necessary because marriage equality is “a radical, untested and inherently flawed social experiment” and contrary to the “moral conviction that heterosexuality better comports with traditional (especially Judeo-Christian) morality”? The Justice Department stopped defending DOMA because they concluded that laws that discriminate based on sexual orientation should receive a higher level of scrutiny by courts. Will the House Republican leaders disagree? If so, will they argue that gays and lesbians have not suffered a long history of discrimination? That sexual orientation is somehow relevant to an individual’s ability to contribute to society, when they have four openly-gay colleagues? That gays and lesbians can change their sexual orientation, a position at odds with every major psychological organization? That gays and lesbians are politically powerful, ironically in defending a law passed by Congress specifically to disadvantage them? Do they think they’ll win, especially given that in two DOMA-related cases in Massachusetts, a federal judge appointed by President Nixon has already found Section 3 of DOMA to be unconstitutional even under the lowest level of scrutiny that gives great deference to the legislature? Apart from these cases, will Republican House leadership do anything to address the inequalities that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people face? Social Media Outlets Speaker Boehner's Facebook Page Speaker Boehner's Twitter account House Contact Form This Just In

 

 

This just in from GetEqual. Will post pictures or more news when I find it.

GetEQUAL Ohio Activists Refusing to Leave
Speaker Boehner's West Chester Office

Speaker Boehner:
Focus on Job Creation, Not the Destruction of American families!

West Chester -- Minutes ago, activists from GetEQUAL Ohio -- a direct action LGBT civil rights group associated with the national organization GetEQUAL -- entered Speaker Boehner's West Chester office to demand the Speaker not use tax-payer money to defend Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).  At this moment, five protesters are holding a sit-in, demanding to speak to their representative.

GetEQUAL State Organizer Tom Morgan issued this statement, "Later today the Speaker will be meeting with his bipartisan legal advisory group to consider whether to defend DOMA.  We strongly encourage the Speaker to heed the advice of Rep. Pelosi and the millions of Americans who are demanding the Speaker focus on job creation and not discrimination."

Shortly after President Obama announced his decision to stop defending the unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act, Speaker Boehner responded, "It is regrettable that the Obama administration has opened this divisive issue at a time when Americans want their leaders to focus on jobs and the challenges facing our economy."

GetEQUAL Ohio Western Region Organizer, Sean Watkins, responded to Speaker Boehner: "You continue to speak about fiscal responsibility. You have dismal unemployment rates. You're unable to balance the budget. Yet, you've decided now is the appropriate time to divert your focus and spend taxpayers' money and government resources to defend a law that enforces discrimination -- a law that the Attorney General and the President have declared unconstitutional. This isn't leadership, this is one more example of government over-reach and waste."

The protest began when a group of people entered Speaker Boehner's office to deliver 33,233 GetEQUAL and CREDO Action petition signatures urging the Speaker to focus on job creation, not discrimination and to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act.  After being denied their right to speak to their Representative, five of the activists began their sit-in.

In addition to Sean Watkins, other activists participating in the sit-in include:

Willmington College student and GetEQUAL Ohio activist Liz Mills explains why she decided to participate in today's action: "Harvey Milk said it perfectly, 'Hope will never be silent!'  I have plenty of hope that DOMA will be repealed and I will not be silent!  Today I've chosen to sit-in for those in the LGBTQI community who can’t -- to let my hope radiate and spark in the hearts of others a sense of urgency to stand up for their rights."

Mills' girlfriend, Morgan Bonney, is also participating in today's sit-in and offers her reason for taking action: "I'm ready to wake up this nation and tell them that 'Silence = Consent.' I will never be silent!  Second-class is NOT equal and I will continue to fight for my equality by standing up to the type of religious-based bigotry Speaker Boehner stands behind in his decision to tear apart American families."  

Nineteen-year-old Jesse Bonney, a constituent of Speaker Boehner, issued this statement: "The equality of people is a basic right!  While I recognize we as a growing country have a long way to go, I believe this sit-in and the use of non-violent civil disobedience brings us one step closer to equality, one step closer to a truly united country."

Thirty-year-old Wilmington College student Karay Martin expressed her growing frustration with the Speaker: "We, as a people, are protected under the Constitution equally.  Everyone has the right to live a life that does not suffer from discrimination -- it is innate to our understanding of who we are as a country."

An outdoor protest is also taking place, as well -- including members of Equality Ohio, Impact Cincinnati, and GetEQUAL Ohio -- to voice objections to the Speaker's continued refusal to extend equality to ALL Americans.

Where:  Speaker Boehner's West Chester office, 7969 Cincinnati-Dayton Road, Suite B

When:   Wednesday, March 9, at 2:00pm

Clarification from Get Equal:

The activists have been locked out of the office and are waiting to deliver the petition to Boehner's staff. Right now they are outside of the door reading the 33,233 names of those that have signed on to stand up and fight back against discrimination. More information to follow.

Where we are heading now is to make sure that we prove the point to Speaker Boehner that he agreed to protect America's house and yet he is still shutting out LGBT American's from basic equal rights protections.

 

NC: gay students feel school's not handling GSA complaints; TX: Corpus Christi school allows GSA

We have a comprehensive, enumerated anti-bullying law on the books in NC, but that's only the first step - educating parents and administrators, and ensuring it's enforced. (Fox News Charlotte)

Some students at Central Cabarrus High School say their association with the Gay-Straight Alliance campus club has led to harassment and bullying for most of the school year. But recently, club members and other male students who have a strong dislike for one another, took their conflicts and disagreements to another level when sophomore student and GSA club president Jessyca Blair says she was physically attacked by a male student during school hours.

...Parents of another club member, freshman student Mercedes Torres, feel like the school hasn't taken their concerns seriously. Prior to the physical attack that took place on Friday, Janny Molina-Zambrano talked to school officials about club posters being ripped from the wall and physical threats being made to the girls. "They said, OK, we'll take it from here," said Molina-Zambrano, "and we can't tell you what's going to happen but we can tell you that we will fix it today."

The Cabarrus County School public information officer, Ronnye Boone, says they take bullying and harassment allegations seriously. "Cabarrus County schools is committed to making sure that all of our students have a safe learning environment that encourages diversity and tolerance and respect." Boone says that if parents feel the school is not taking the harassment, threats and now physical attack seriously, there is further help for them. "We want to know where there are concerns and we want to be able to resolve them."

***

There's good news to report in Corpus Christi, Texas. A Gay-Straight Alliance finally receives the thumb's up after an uphill battle.

Late last night, school board members in Corpus Christi, Texas reversed their decision to deny high school senior Bianca "Nikki" Peet's request to start a Gay-Straight Alliance at her school. Nikki Peet can now start a GSA and meet on campus. The long-term future of the club is still not certain, however, so our support is still needed.

The Flour Bluff Independent School District's board of trustees held a four-hour emergency meeting last night at the administration building in Corpus Christi to talk about the legal consequences of denying a gay-straight alliance on campus. Their discriminatory decision to block a GSA had been threatened with litigation by American Civil Liberties Union and the Anti- Defamation League, and had become a national phenomenon: more than 55,000 supporters signed a petition at Change.org on behalf of Peet and supporters held an all-day rally last Friday at Flour Bluff High.

Local residents and GSA supporters wore white T-shirts at the board meeting, while three community members addressed the board about the need to have diversity and equality at Flour Bluff. After the community spoke, the board members went into a closed door quorum for the next four hours to vote on allowing a GSA on campus.

...Paul Rodriguez, president of the Gay-Straight Alliance at Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi, was thrilled with the board's 4-2 decision, he told Change.org.

"...I applaud the school board in this decision and hope that this will continue from this date forward. We (TAMUCC GSA) are very proud of the advocates who came forward and supported the cause for equality, not only for the FB GSA, but for ALL students who had non-curricular clubs."

Delegate Mary Washington's Testimony On The Maryland's Gender Identity Bill

Update by Lurleen: You can follow the hearing via Equality Maryland's tweets at @equalityMD or watch live here.

The following is Del. Mary Washington's (D-Baltimore City) prepared testimony on Maryland's gender identity civil rights bill, given to the House Health and Government Operations Committee.

Testimony in Support of House Bill 235:

Human Relations- Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity- Anti-Discrimination

House Health and Government Operations Committee

March 9th, 2011

My name is Mary Washington, and I represent the 43rd Legislative District in Baltimore City. My district includes some of the best neighborhoods in Baltimore City, including Abell, Cedarcroft, Coldstream-Homestead-Montebello, Ednor Gardens, Guilford, Homeland, Lauraville, Northwood, Radnor-Winston, Tuscany-Canterbury, Waverly, and Woodbourne Heights. Our communities are vibrant and diverse, and truly represent a cross-section of who we are as Marylanders. The 43rd district is home to a large population of individuals who would benefit from the protections afforded by House Bill 235. House Bill 235 would, among other things, ban discrimination in employment and housing based on a person's gender identity. The bill also bans discrimination based on gender identity by entities regulated by the Maryland Office of the Commissioner of Financial Regulation, which effectively bans discrimination in the extension of credit, including mortgages and car loans. These protections would afford some of the most vulnerable members of our society to obtain a measure of much-needed protection, protections that can sometimes mean the difference between employment and poverty, or shelter and homelessness.

Maryland's laws against discrimination are intended to promote the fundamental values that underlie our political system - including personal liberty, tolerance of diverse backgrounds and points of view, and respect for privacy. Above all else, our anti-discrimination laws should serve to protect members of minority groups most marginalized in our society. We should extend that protection to individuals whether the defining factors of the minority group are race, ethnicity, national origin, disability, religious or political beliefs, sexual orientation, or gender identity. It's way past time for Maryland to extend these protections to transgendered Marylanders.

Discrimination against transgender and gender non-conforming individuals persists, and the necessity for explicit legal protection is imperative. Promisingly, lawyers and advocates for civil rights have argued that a broad interpretation of existing federal and state laws prohibits discrimination based on gender identity - and the courts have ruled favorably in some cases. Indeed, Title VII - the federal law that bans workplace discrimination - already prohibits some forms of sex-stereotyping against gender non-conforming individuals. However, bad actors seeking to defend discriminatory acts repeatedly challenge these holdings in court. The court rulings protecting transgender and gender non-conforming individuals from insidious discrimination are not certain or guaranteed, and Marylanders should not have to rely on a gamble in the courts as their only recourse in the face of discrimination. For this reason, we must make the law clearly state that Maryland bans discrimination based on gender identity.

I cannot understate the real-life implications for Marylanders. Every year, qualified, hard-working Marylanders lose job opportunities, face termination, or experience on-the-job discrimination merely because of their gender identity. Like all Marylanders, transgender people need to work to support themselves and their families. Discrimination based on gender identity occurs across a range of types of workplaces, all over Maryland. Workplace discrimination threatens the well-being and economic survival of these workers and their families. Like other workers, transgender workers deserve to be judged on their skills and qualifications, and on their work and its merit, not on their gender identity, which is wholly unrelated to job performance.

In addition to guaranteeing a level playing field in employment, House Bill 235 would ensure that housing opportunities are made available to all, based solely on the ability to pay and other nondiscriminatory factors. Others will testify about the difficulties faced by transgender individuals in their quest to secure adequate housing. It is well-documented that transgender individuals are shown less desirable properties when they attempt to rent or buy, are quoted higher prices than non-transgendered individuals, receive less favorable customer service, or encounter outright refusal to sell or rent properties. We have heard many anecdotes in which people suffered verbal harassment from landlords, realtors, and lenders based solely on their gender identity. This is not the Maryland way, and it needs to end.

Finally, House Bill 235 would require mortgage lenders and other originators of credit licensed by the Maryland Office of the Commissioner of Financial Regulation to not discriminate in the extension of credit based on gender identity. This is a significant protection for transgendered Marylanders, as often they will have varying forms of identification that will include different gender markers, depending on how they might identify. House Bill 235 would require lenders to work through these issues and extend credit on the basis of characteristics relating solely to the borrower's creditworthiness, not related to their gender identity.

I know that some members of our community are not happy that this legislation does not include protections against discrimination in the accessing of public accommodations. I share this displeasure. However, I commit to working in future sessions to advance legislation to ban gender identity discrimination in public accommodations.

Every single day, transgender people are fired for being who they are, even when they have excellent work records and skills. As a result, their families struggle and often fail to make ends meet, people lose their homes, and careers end, all because someone's supervisor decided that it was okay to discriminate.  People are denied housing or access to credit, based solely on their gender identity. That is not the Maryland way. This legislation is absolutely needed to make it clear that discrimination is never acceptable. Please vote in favor of House Bill 235.

Her statement...

I know that some members of our community are not happy that this legislation does not include protections against discrimination in the accessing of public accommodations. I share this displeasure. However, I commit to working in future sessions to advance legislation to ban gender identity discrimination in public accommodations.

..is an important acknowledgement. Holding Del. Washington to her words about committing to working in future sessions to pass public accommodation antidiscrimination legistion based on gender identity will be very important.

To quote Cesar Chavez:

It takes a lot of punishment to be able to do anything to change the social order.

[Below the fold: Two EqMD press releases on the Gender Identity Bill.]
Two press releases from Equality Maryland (EqMD) have been released  this week on the Human Relations - Sexual Orientation And Gender Identity - Antidiscrimination Bill {also referred to as the Gender Identity Anti-Discrimination Act (HB 235)}. The text to the two press releases below.

From the first prese release, entitled Local Clergy To Hold Press Events In Advance Of Legislative Introduction Of Statewide Gender Identity Protections Bill:

On Tuesday, March 8, Equality Maryland's Pride and Faith coalition will assemble at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Annapolis for a program of prayer and discussion of House Bill 235 - the Gender Identity Anti-Discrimination Act. Beginning at 8:30 AM, clergy members, community leaders and state lawmakers will share their stories, thoughts and prayers on gender identity equality and this important legislation.

On Wednesday March 9, Equality Maryland will hold a press conference featuring lawmakers and advocates in support of the Gender Identity Anti-Discrimination Act (HB 235) in Room 180 of the House Office Building.  Local advocates will also share information from a recent survey on transgender discrimination, including statistics specific to Maryland. The House Health and Government Operations Committee will begin hearing testimony on this legislation at 1:00 PM.

The Gender Identity Anti-Discrimination Act (HB 235) will provide critical protections to hardworking Marylanders, barring discrimination in employment, housing, and credit based on gender identity.

Speakers for the day include bill co-sponsors, local activists, clergy, and families.

The second press release, entitled Equality Maryland To Hold Press Conference In Advance Of Legislative Introduction Of Statewide Gender Identity Protections Bill:

This morning, Equality Maryland will hold a press conference featuring lawmakers and advocates in support of the Gender Identity Anti-Discrimination Act (HB 235) in Room 180 of the House Office Building.  Local advocates will also share information from a recent survey on transgender discrimination, including statistics specific to Maryland. The House Health and Government Operations Committee will begin hearing testimony on this legislation at 1:00 PM.

The Gender Identity Anti-Discrimination Act (HB 235) will provide critical protections to hardworking Marylanders, barring discrimination in employment, housing, and credit based on gender identity.

Speakers for the day include bill co-sponsors, local activists, clergy, and families.

Tin foil hats off - primer on what OutGiving 2011 was not

This past weekend I was invited to participate in a panel at The Gill Foundation's OutGiving conference. Philanthropists, representatives from quite a few LGBT organizations and other invitees from around the country met in Miami, Florida. The purpose was to inform donors about the state of the movement to date, and to discuss effective giving strategies. The meeting was off the record.

After all, if you were wealthy and donating to the movement, you'd want to know if those dollars were spent effectively; you'd also want to learn about new grassroots initiatives and technology and how these make an impact as well.

Last week the Movement Advancement Project (MAP) released its latest look at the movement's economic health, I posted it here on the Blend. Lots of interesting data to comb through. Among the report's key findings:

* The 39 participating organizations' combined 2009 expenses of $165.6 million are only half of the combined annual expenses of just the 10 largest organizations working to oppose LGBT equality ($333.1 million).

* Many organizations are scaling back their programs in order to align with available resources. Combined 2010 budgets ($135.4 million) are down 18 percent from 2009 expenses ($165.6 million).

* General financial health remains strong. Organizations have good and rising average working capital (a measure of cash reserves), declining but still-healthy liquidity ratios (funds to cover current obligations), and steady cash and net assets (which speaks to institutional durability).

* Movement groups are highly efficient in their fundraising and programming operations, with all 39 participants exceeding the efficiency standards of both the American Institute of Philanthropy and the Better Business Bureau Wise Giving Alliance. An average of 79 percent of expenses is spent on programs and services, 9 percent on management and general expenses, and only 12 percent on fundraising.

* Less than 4 percent of all LGBT adults in the U.S. donated $35 or more to these LGBT organizations. While organizations are generally effective at retaining smaller donors (those giving $35 or more) year over year, the number of larger donors (those giving $1,000 or more) is dropping and not easily replaced.

* The staffs of participating organizations are diverse, roughly mirroring the broader U.S. population: 32 percent identify as people of color (12 percent African American, 12 percent Latino/a, 7 percent Asian/Pacific Islander and 1 percent Native American or other). Also, 46 percent are women and 6 percent identify as transgender.

This report used to be confidential, but in its wisdom, MAP now openly shares its data slicing and dicing. It's transparency that is quite enlightening for philanthropists, as well as all of us, to see.

Below the fold, what Outgiving 2011 was not.
What OutGiving 2011 was not:

While there I engaged in an amusing Twitter battle with some folks who were simply enraged by my presence there, the "secrecy" and the motives of those attending. Some of the statements were so preposterous (and revealed more about them than they intended). However, I'm sure many of you would like to know what was not true, from someone on the ground:

* It's a secret cabal of rich folks steering the movement, planning its destiny regarding legislative priorities and planning advocacy positions.

That may disappoint people who wanted to see those in positions of financial influence hashing out how to deal with movement strategy that has many players, some slowing the pace of equality by placing more importance on access than advocacy (it's easier to hide when it's a politically opposition party in control).

That simply was not this meeting, folks. I'm not saying there aren't meetings where the above may occur, it just wasn't this one.

The reality is if our best philanthropists aren't working on movement strategy in some capacity, that's not a good thing. Our political opponents certainly do without a drop of guilt about it.

However, I do think the low- or no-dollar members of the movement -- those who put in sweat equity -- they should be part of the equation, not necessarily in this meeting, because we've seen how the establishment can get stagnant.

And finally, the vast majority of LGBTs who donate nothing at all really have nothing to complain about - giving time or money into federal, state or local organizations for your own equality seems a given. That level of apathy is disappointing, given how thousands show up at Pride events to drink, eat and be merry, but can't even dash off a note to their elected officials or visit them in their offices to make them aware of their LGBT constituents. And, we should focus on bringing in more funds from allies. There's an mostly untapped area for growth.

* "No press allowed" = no accountability. This is simply a function of the privacy of philanthropists who are there to meet one another and see how the money is working in the movement. After all, if you had your business regarding donations (and personal finances) all hanging out in the media, every kook would come out of the woodwork asking for you to fund all sorts of crazy mess. Besides, anyone with access to "teh Google" could probably find out who many of the major movement philanthropists are. The reality is, there was nothing controversial to report anyway, something not true of prior years.

* a place where I was invited as a "token black" to "lend myself to a particular constituency, specifically rich gay white queers for profit."

LOLZ to the max. Considering that in almost every venue (save Blogging While Brown) I attend as a blogger I usually am in the minority as a black lesbian from the South. That's not by design or conspiracy; it's just a fact of life that my demo is woefully under-represented in this sphere to begin with.

If that makes me an "Auntie Tom" so be it; I'm not one to suck up in the first place, but anyone can hold an opinion, even if it is fantasy-based. I didn't ask to attend, I was invited to discuss -- as only one person on a panel of several people -- the impact of social networking has on activism and there were concrete examples to share.

More importantly, I additionally took on the matter of how fragile the mostly self-funded and under-resourced LGBT blogosphere is. I felt it was my duty to try to represent the problem and promise of citizen journalism. And that includes posing the question of whether those donating to the movement 1) see the blogosphere as something to bolster by thinking creatively about a sustainable economic model; or 2) do nothing (the current model), and leave the landscape as is, with the natural course of things -- letting some bloggers fall off the radar (after all, a job loss or too little available time "kills off" a lot of talented bloggers), and others picking up where there is a void. Advertising, if you don't accept "skin" ads, is not a sustainable model except for the largest, earliest established political blogs.

Both of those subjects have been tackled not only by me, but other bloggers at many conferences, no state secret. Clearly no one has come up with an answer to address how independent journalism of this type is sustained outside of hiring the best into existing non-profit or for-profit publishing ecosystems, which in essence crushes "independence" to hold controversial positions without worrying about donor or advertiser pushback. And at the present time, legacy orgs are still struggling to figure out how to work well with bloggers, even though the keyboardists may bite their hands from time to time.

In other words, there's no news here other than delivering the message to a different audience. I'm no more co-opted by this group of philanthropists than by the attendees at, say, Netroots Nation. It's kind of laughable, but sans information (or the desire to take me at my word) anyone can weigh in with an opinion.

Related:

* OutGiving 2011 ... What Really Happened In Miami At The Hands Of Gay Inc And Friends

Maggie Gallagher ducks questions, insults young voters, and affirms gay marriage during interview

crossposted on Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters

Recently on a Maryland talk show, News Talk with Bruce DePuyt, Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage was interviewed regarding not only marriage equality in Maryland but also the decision by the Obama Administration not to defend DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act) in the courts.

She threw out a lot of comments and talking points but tripped herself up a few times and actually affirmed gay marriage on one occasion.

Some quick points about the interview:

At 2:12, Gallagher said she is sure that if the bill is passed in Maryland allowing same-sex marriage, a referendum would overturn it. She claimed that NOM's internal polling shows that folks support stopping gay marriage 54 to 38 percent.

Of course Gallagher did not reveal that NOM got into a bit of trouble with that poll. According to Erik Hartley of the Capitol Newspaper, NOM posed the question in a specific way to get more support on their side of the issue:

 . . . NOM asked it this way: "As far as you personally are concerned, should marriage be between a man and a woman, or should it also be available to same-sex couples?"

Hmm. Why the phrase "as far as you personally are concerned"? Perhaps to appeal to people's visceral discomfort with gay people? Note that the question does not ask about the proposed law; it asks about values -- "as far as you personally are concerned" -- and how you think the world "should" be.

A more factual based poll actually showed that Marylanders favored gay marriage.

At 3:22, Gallagher says that it's not a good idea to ask young voters what they think about gay marriage. Her exact words were:

On an issue like marriage, it's not a good idea to poll the 18-year-olds and do what they think. I think we need some grownups here.

Of course she said this because a majority of young voters favor marriage equality. Gallagher's comments are spooky in that she echoes an ongoing trend to potentially disenfranchise young voters.

At 3:55, DePuyt point blanks asks her how has gay marriage hurt the institution of marriage in general. It leads to an excellent exchange in which Gallagher makes the case for marriage equality by acknowledging that gay marriage is a relationship between two loving people.

When DePuyt makes her aware of what she has done, Gallagher not only backtracks but implies that gay couples are not monogamous. And then she pulls out the "polygamy" card.

And if that's not enough, she pulls out the "gay marriage will lead to awful consequences for the rights of Christians" card by citing a case in Great Britain of a couple who were told that they could not be foster parents because they would not "affirm" homosexuality.

However, that case(in which some lgbts have actually voiced support for the couple) had nothing to do with gay marriage. According to Robert Piggot of the BBC:

The court discriminated between kinds of Christianity, saying that Christians in general might well make good foster parents, while people with traditionalist Christian views like Mr and Mrs Johns might well not. Such views, said the judges, might conflict with the welfare of children.

In other words, the court was concerned about potentially placing an lgbt child in a home which would not affirm that child.

Then Gallagher brings up a recent situation in Illinois in which the state is investigating whether or not religious groups can turn away gay foster parents. Gallagher terms this as a "result" of the civil unions bill which just passed in that state.

She omits the fact that the state is merely investigating  because these groups are receiving public funds.

In another snippet of the interview,  viewer (a good friend of mine) sent in a question which Gallagher could not answer. It has to do with an infamous claim on a mailer which NOM sent throughout Maryland claiming that gay marriage is being "taught to kindergartners" in Massachusetts.

Gallagher's answer (or non-answer) speaks for itself:

Gallagher claims that "gay marriage advocates" are saying that this claim isn't true, but again she is not being honest.

The original assertion that this claim is untrue came from the Pulitzer-Prize winning site PolitiFact, which said the following:

Bottom line: The National Organization for Marriage mailing says that Massachusetts public schools teach kindergartners about gay marriage. The wording, including the present tense verb, gives the impression this is happening now, in many schools.

But the group’s only evidence is two incidents five years ago. It’s possible that somewhere, in one of the 351 cities and towns in Massachusetts, other kindergartners have been taught about same-sex marriage. But NOM couldn’t cite any other examples. We find its statement False.

Gallagher continues to stumbles through an answer, telling DePuyt that he should ask NOM's president Brian Brown about the claim.

But shouldn't she know the answer? She may not be NOM's president, but she is speaking for the organization and therefore should have considerable knowledge of whatever talking points the organization pulls out to imply about the so-called negative consequences of gay marriage.

And by the way, she doesn't even say what's wrong with children learning about gay marriage or same-sex households (which by the way they do anyway because many of their classmates come from same-sex households).

All in all, Gallagher's interview amounts to lies, fear tactics, and bad hypothetical points.  And like all of the other times, these lies, fear tactics, and bad hypothetical points may yield success for her and NOM. But based on how she stumbled through parts of this interview, Gallagher may soon need to seek a new line of work.

Wouldn't that be nice?

Related posts:

Maggie Gallagher addresses NOM's claim about gay marriage and children

Arora controversy has National Organization for Marriage scrambling for cover

Lgbt community hit with betrayal in Maryland?

National Organization for Marriage continuing to spread false claim about gay marriage and children

PolitiFact catches anti-gay group NOM in a huge lie about gay marriage and children

NOM needs to stop peddling in fantasy and face reality about same-sex families  

Speaker Boehner to Hold DOMA Meeting; GLAD says bring it on

At least that's what Roll Call says (via Americablog). John:

That means Boehner, Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy will instruct the House Counsel to defend DOMA. Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer will be outvoted. So, the U.S. House is going to court to defend an unconstitutional law that discriminates against LGBT Americans. That's so 2004 -- and a sure loser.

From the inbox, a press release from Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), that basically says "bring it on."

"It is now perfectly clear that U.S. House leaders plan to intervene in the pending cases," said Mary L. Bonauto, co-lead attorney in GLAD's two cases Gill et al. v. Office of Personnel Management, and Pedersen et al. v. Office of Personnel Management. "We are ready to address any defense of DOMA's double standard for how the federal government deals with legally married couples," she added.

In the two cases, GLAD represents couples and widowers who have been denied legal protections normally available to married persons. Widowers have been unable to collect survivor pensions, spouses have been unable to provide each other health insurance; federal employees have been unable to take leave to care for their ill spouses; and couples have paid thousands of dollars extra each year because they can't file their federal taxes as married.

There are also three other pending lawsuits challenging DOMA's constitutionality.

On March 4, House Speaker John Boehner announced that he would convene the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group "for the purpose of initiating action by the House" to defend DOMA against the litigation. Speaker Boehner is a member of the group, along with House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy. Cantor and McCarthy have also issued statements recently supporting the continued defense of DOMA by Congress. The group, which has the power to direct House General Counsel to defend DOMA or appoint special counsel to do so, is supposed to meet this week. Boehner's announcement follows the Obama Administration's decision to stop defending the law because the president believes it to be unconstitutional.

"DOMA damages families," added Bonauto. Even though these couples are married, pay their taxes, and play by the rules, DOMA has separated spouses, taken money from children's college funds, and denied widows assistance at the worst time of people's lives."

GLAD won a victory in Gill in July 2010 when Federal District Court Judge Joseph L. Tauro ruled that DOMA is unconstitutional. Pedersen was filed by GLAD in November 2011; briefing is underway.

Why the Washington state Senate must pass the out-of-state marriage recognition bill

Last week the Washington state House passed by a wide margin a bill that would require the state to recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages as domestic partnerships in Washington state.  The state already recognizes out-of-state domestic partnerships and civil unions as domestic partnerships.  The bill, HB 1649, is now under consideration by the Senate.

The very scenario that the bill seeks to prevent happened recently to a married couple from Iowa.  Shortly after William Schulte and his husband Rob moved from Iowa to Colorado, Rob passed away.  In Colorado their marriage received no legal recognition and their 10 years together meant nothing to authorities when William most needed his family to be legally recognized.  Onto the grief of loss was added the grief of denial of his family.

You can listen to William tell his story here.  A partial transcript is below.  A video of William's testimony before the Iowa Legislature is below the fold.

His Mom and Dad were very supportive and helped me, but I had to go through his Mom.  Simple fact that I couldn't even get my own husband's coroner report back was just horrible.  I was able to talk to the coroner the morning of, but I couldn't get a coroner's report because I wasn't married in Colorado.

And then it took 2 weeks to get his body back into Iowa.  He was cremated and for a week and a half we didn't know where he was.  He was lost in the mail without a tracking number and I couldn't do anything about it.  I couldn't deal with the mortuary, his parents had to.

Throughout all this horrible tragedy I kept feeling like I was  hounding his mom too much about it.  And she told me she'd always call me and let me know exactly what's going on, I'd be the first one to be called.  And she did.  But she didn't need that at the time even though I know I wasn't hounding her.  But that's just one more emotion to go through throughout all this grieving.  

It was just really obnoxious, because if he would have passed away in Iowa I would have had total control.  But that wasn't the case.  It was the worst experience of my life, and having to go through his mom for everything just made it worse.  Not that she wasn't horribly supportive and she loves me and we're family, but it's stuff I should have been doing for myself.  

I was very lucky in having both sides of my family and all my friends there, but for some people they aren't, and they don't even have the government to back them.

Washington state Senators must join their colleagues in the House in passing HB 1649.  Washington voters were very clear when they approved the domestic partnership law in 2009 via Referendum 71 that they expect all families in Washington, including gay and lesbian families, to be respected.  Nobody wants what happened to William Schulte in Colorado to happen in Washington state.

Related:

* Visiting Washington state while married: a tragedy waiting to happen
William Schulte tells his story during the public hearing on House Joint Resolution 6, which proposes an Iowa state constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman.