Pam Spaulding's Blog, page 81
March 4, 2011
Visiting Washington state while married: a tragedy waiting to happen
What happens if you're married but the state you are visiting doesn't recognize that marriage in any way, shape or form? Your vacation becomes a nightmare. Washington state recognizes domestic partnerships enacted in other states, but it does not recognize civil marriages validly formed in other states if the married couple is gay or lesbian.
Rep. Laurie Jinkins has sponsored a bill that would prevent these tragedies that stem from non-recognition of our marriages. HB 1649, "Concerning reciprocity and statutory construction with regard to domestic partnerships", would do the following:
Recognize as a valid domestic partnership in Washington state a legal union of two persons, including a marriage, that was validly formed in another jurisdiction and that is substantially equivalent to a Washington state-registered domestic partnership.
Amend the statutory interpretation provision to explicitly state that it applies to any legislation hereafter enacted by the Legislature or by the people unless the legislation expressly states otherwise.
Here is Rep. Jinkins' summation:
The voters have already decided how they want gay and lesbian families to be treated in this state. There are five states in the country and about 10 other countries that allow same-sex marriages. This bill assures that marriages created in other places will be recognized as domestic partnerships when they are traveling in this state. Families travel with a lot of documents, like adoption paperwork, domestic partnership registration cards, and wills, especially if they are going to a state that does not have legal recognition of domestic partnerships. If a couple is traveling and they have a legal marriage recognized in their state, their relationship is currently not recognized in Washington, but a couple traveling here from a state that has domestic partnerships would be protected.
Not a single person signed up to speak in opposition to the bill during the bill's February 16th public hearing in the House Judiciary Committee. That didn't stop anti-gay activists Rep. Matt Shea and Rep. Jay Rodne from proposing amendments to gut the bill, but those amendments failed and the committee voted to send the bill to the House floor. Expect another round of ridiculous bill-gutting amendments from the usual suspects during the floor debate, which may happen as early as today.
Legislators should pass this bill if they respect the electorate (and value Washington's tourism industry). Rep. Jinkins hit the nail on the head when she said, in reference to Washington voters having ratified the domestic partnership law in 2009 via Referendum 71, "The voters have already decided how they want gay and lesbian families to be treated in this state." Now the Legislature needs to respond by bringing state law in line with the wishes of the electorate that gay and lesbian families in Washington be treated fairly, and that their legal relationships be recognized and respected.
Cross-posted at Washblog.
Michigan Republicans Attempt to Strip DP Benefits From Public Employees
cross-posted at Daily Kos.
This is why we need collective bargaining.
The Senate Committee on Reforms, Restructuring and Reinventing approved a resolution Wednesday morning that starts the process to revoke partner benefits for unmarried state workers.The benefit plan was approved by the Michigan Civil Service Commission in January.
Republicans, led by Sen. Rick Jones (R-Grand Ledge), have criticized the plan as being too expensive at a time when the state is facing a nearly $2 billion budget deficit...
The total projected cost of the unmarried partner benefit is approximately .003 percent (three one-thousandths of a percent) of this year’s estimated deficit.
Republicans have tried to claim that this is about fiscal responsibility. It isn't. It's about Republicans trying to prove that they are stronger than the working class, and it's about hating gays.
More below the fold.
More from the Michigan Messenger:
The program is slated to go into effect Oct. 1, the beginning of the state’s new fiscal year. It would be available to an estimated 22,000 members of the United Auto Workers Local 6000 and the Service Employees International Union Local 517M, as well as 13,700 non-union employees.Benefits such as this are considered cash income by the IRS and the state treasury, and are taxed as such. [Jan] Winters [of the Office of State Employer] said she was unsure if the cost offsets from the increased tax revenues from the benefit extension was included in the estimates, but she said the increased tax liability for the state as an employer was factored into the cost. Employers pay a portion of employment taxes.
Michigan was part of the 2004 wave in which voters approved an anti-gay Constitutional amendment, despite already having statutorily banned marriage equality for same-sex couples. Michigan's amendment also precludes any type of civil unions, making it a "super DOMA" state. The only way that people in same-sex partnerships in Michigan can receive partner benefits or protections is through their employer. Much of the time, the only way that can be done is through the collective bargaining power of a union. Don't forget that due to DOMA and anti-gay state Constitutional amendments and statutes, partner benefits can't be considered spousal benefits in most states. Therefore, they are taxed as income rather than be included in an employer's benefits package. Some Fortune 500 companies have begun paying their employees in a same-sex partnership extra money to offset the higher tax. However, this does not appear to be happening in Michigan.
The Michigan Civil Service Commission made this benefits decision and submitted it as part of the budget proposal to begin in October, in Fiscal Year 2012. The Commission determines the pay schedules and benefits for state employees; however, the Legislature can overrule those decisions by a two-thirds vote of both chambers within 60 days of the budget proposal. Republicans have a supermajority in the state Senate, so the resolution will likely pass there. In the House, the GOP has 63 members to 47 Democrats - a majority, but not the required 2/3 majority. 11 Democrats will have to cross the aisle to vote for this disgusting piece of bigotry. This proposed resolution will have the support of Governor Ric Snyder, who, when the benefits package was approved, said he was "frustrated and disappointed" at the additional cost.
The Unions are questioning this move.
In January, the commission extended the benefits to the two unions based on letters of agreement originally drafted in 2004, and then also extended them to the nonunionized employees as a matter of fairness.Ray Holman, legislative liaison for UAW 6000, said he doesn't understand why the Legislature is revisiting the issue when it has rarely overturned the commission's decisions in the past.
"This has already been negotiated," he said. "These kinds of things need to be done at the bargaining table."
So let's review. The Michigan Civil Services Commission, after discussions with public employee unions, agree to an unmarried partner benefits package potentially benefiting almost 36,000 people (the benefits are available to any two unmarried people, helping people who have dependent adults such as sibling living with them, as well). The Republicans, in yet another dick move, attempt to kill that because by cutting benefits to gay people in the name of "fiscal responsibility," they shore themselves up with their base and get another chance to dehumanize LGBT workers.
Michigan ranks #2 in the number of young people who leave the state after graduation. I can't imagine why.
Lgbt community hit with betrayal in Maryland? UPDATE: Arora to vote yes
crossposted on Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters
UPDATE: Arora has flipped yet again. From an email his office sent this morning:
I have heard from constituents, friends, and advocates from across the spectrum of views and have thought about the issue of same-sex marriage extensively. I understand their concern—this is a very serious issue, and one that many people feel passionately about. As the vote drew nearer, I wrestled with this issue in a way I never had before, which led me to realize that I had some concerns about the bill. While I personally believe that Maryland should extend civil rights to same-sex couples through civil unions, I have come to the conclusion that this issue has such impact on the people of Maryland that they should have a direct say. I will vote to send the bill to the floor because it deserves an up-or-down vote. On the floor, I will vote to send the bill to the governor so that Marylanders can ultimately decide this issue at the polls. I think that is appropriate.Sincerely,
Sam Arora
So when do we get to vote on HIS marriage?
This is Sam Arora, a Maryland delegate who campaigned on the fact that he would vote for gay marriage.
He knocked on doors, sat down with same-sex families, and accepted donations (a list is here) while expressly saying that he supports marriage equality.
And now after he is in office, he is planning on changing his vote.
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 are furious.
And some are asking for their donations back.
Now Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage is claiming that lgbt anger is strictly racism because, according to her, the lgbt community is ignoring another delegate who may switch votes.
She also claims that Arora is changing his vote because of, as she puts it, IMMENSE pressure from folks opposed to bringing gay marriage to Maine.
Arora has not given a reason why he is changing his mind. And based on NOM's past actions and statements, folks should take what Gallagher says with a grain of salt - i.e. every word dripping from her mouth is a lie including the words "and" and "the."
However, if the situation with Arora is true, this is a huge setback and betrayal.
Seems to me that if you campaign specifically on an issue and folks - along with their families - sit down and talk with you about how important the issue is, and they get a promise of support from you, then you should follow through with that promise.
It's just basic decency.
Now if Gallagher and company want to mark basic decency as one of the qualities they are willing to step over in pursuit of their goals, that is their prerogative.
However, Mr. Arora should aspire to something better.
This issue is not about racism. It's about lies, broken promises, and betrayals of constituents and their families.
Jonathan Capehart of The Washington Post said it best:
The outrage directed at Arora is understandable. As is the sense of betrayal. He raised money from gays and lesbians based on his support for marriage equality. He secured the endorsements of Progressive Maryland and of Equality Maryland because of it. In fact, get a load of what he wrote as an addendum to his questionnaire for Equality Maryland:
I am a former law clerk to Attorney General Doug Gansler. I publicly supported his decision to recognize out-of-state marriage licenses for same-sex couples and immediately put out a release praising his findings. For me, it's simply a matter of equal rights under the law.
If this situation turns out the way it's trending, then NOM and Maggie Gallagher will have a lot to crow about. No doubt the spin will be how Arora "fought with himself" and "fought the slings and arrows of the radical homosexual movement to protect marriage."
I don't think that spin will work this time. There are some situations so ugly, so starkly monstrous that all of the spin in the world can't clean them up.
This looks like one of those times.
Folks, if you are going to write to Arora, Gallagher, or even vent, please be aware that this is one of those situations where Gallagher and company stalk pro-lgbt blogs looking for the ugliest comments they can pull to use against us. Don't let your anger allow you to be played.
Lgbt community hit with betrayal in Maryland?
crossposted on Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters
This is Sam Arora, a Maryland delegate who campaigned on the fact that he would vote for gay marriage.He knocked on doors, sat down with same-sex families, and accepted donations (a list is here) while expressly saying that he supports marriage equality.
And now after he is in office, he is planning on changing his vote.
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 are furious.
And some are asking for their donations back.
Now Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage is claiming that lgbt anger is strictly racism because, according to her, the lgbt community is ignoring another delegate who may switch votes.
She also claims that Arora is changing his vote because of, as she puts it, IMMENSE pressure from folks opposed to bringing gay marriage to Maine.
Arora has not given a reason why he is changing his mind. And based on NOM's past actions and statements, folks should take what Gallagher says with a grain of salt - i.e. every word dripping from her mouth is a lie including the words "and" and "the."
However, if the situation with Arora is true, this is a huge setback and betrayal.
Seems to me that if you campaign specifically on an issue and folks - along with their families - sit down and talk with you about how important the issue is, and they get a promise of support from you, then you should follow through with that promise.
It's just basic decency.
Now if Gallagher and company want to mark basic decency as one of the qualities they are willing to step over in pursuit of their goals, that is their prerogative.
However, Mr. Arora should aspire to something better.
This issue is not about racism. It's about lies, broken promises, and betrayals of constituents and their families.
Jonathan Capehart of The Washington Post said it best:
The outrage directed at Arora is understandable. As is the sense of betrayal. He raised money from gays and lesbians based on his support for marriage equality. He secured the endorsements of Progressive Maryland and of Equality Maryland because of it. In fact, get a load of what he wrote as an addendum to his questionnaire for Equality Maryland:
I am a former law clerk to Attorney General Doug Gansler. I publicly supported his decision to recognize out-of-state marriage licenses for same-sex couples and immediately put out a release praising his findings. For me, it's simply a matter of equal rights under the law.
If this situation turns out the way it's trending, then NOM and Maggie Gallagher will have a lot to crow about. No doubt the spin will be how Arora "fought with himself" and "fought the slings and arrows of the radical homosexual movement to protect marriage."
I don't think that spin will work this time. There are some situations so ugly, so starkly monstrous that all of the spin in the world can't clean them up.
This looks like one of those times.
Folks, if you are going to write to Arora, Gallagher, or even vent, please be aware that this is one of those situations where Gallagher and company stalk pro-lgbt blogs looking for the ugliest comments they can pull to use against us. Don't let your anger allow you to be played.
March 3, 2011
CNN: "The bible really does condemn homosexuality" - me: "so what?"
I think they handed out the god pills at CNN today - for whatever reason the very newsworthy article "My Take: The Bible really does condemn homosexuality" made it to the headlines.
[image error]
I would be wondering ...
... what this is doing on CNN's homepage - did they get hacked by Wingnut News?... when they will feature an article about the bible's POV on women, slaves and shellfish... when they will feature a piece about the fact that the constitution (still) mandates the separation of church and stateI couldn't help myself and had to reply to it ... see below the fold
(Flora claimed in her post that Atheists are Atheists even after reading the bible, since they were all looking for black and white solutions - translations: every non-christian is stupid) so here's my reply: @Flora: funny that you would say that Atheists are looking for black and white solutions, since (mostly monotheistic) religions are based on the idea of good and evil - which was a great way of exercising power over people in medieval times... But that's exactly the problem with people focused on religion: they ignore historical context and facts as well as every other philosophy.
Other than that I'd agree with the other commenters: why the heck is this piece featured at the most valuable real estate on cnn.com?! And then: why does it matter that some theologist tells us that the bible really condemns homosexuality? Expecting the next piece that tells us that the bible really condemns eating shellfish.
What I would really like to see featured equally prominent is an article about the fact that the constitution really mandates the separation of church and state!
Prop 8's human impact - video: 'I'm dying, and I can't wait anymore'
Ed penned an open letter to the 9th Circuit, begging them to lift the stay. He also agreed to be in the amicus curiae letter we're submitting to the 9th Circuit.Yesterday I found out the California Supreme Court denied a motion to speed up the Prop 8 trial. They're going to take their summer recess and come back in around 6 months or so. It must be nice for them.
Thing is, I am 78 years old, and I have Alzheimer's disease. I have been with my partner, Derence, for over 40 years. And if the courts drag this out for months and months, I fear I will, God forbid, lose the ability to recognize my beloved Derence when he gets on his knee to propose to me.
I can't afford that, and Derence deserves better. That's why I agreed to be named in Courage Campaign's amicus curiae letter to the 9th Circuit, asking that the stay be lifted so I can at least have my dignity on our wedding day.
You can co-sign his letter to the 9th Circuit, asking them to lift the stay.
Video break: Janet Porter presents 'fetus testimony' during hearing in OH legislature
National Organization for Marriage continuing to push false claim about gay marriage and children
crossposted on Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters
It is obvious that in its zeal to stop gay marriage in Maryland, the National Organization for Marriage is going full throttle for the jugular even at the expense of truth.
According to The Washington Blade:
The National Organization for Marriage has launched a series of attack mailers in Maryland, as a House committee gears up for a key vote on a measure to legalize same-sex marriage.
Several mailers target Sen. Jim Brochin, a Baltimore County Democrat and member of the Judicial Proceedings Committee, which approved the bill last month. Brochin initially supported civil unions instead of marriage equality. But he said he changed his position and supported the bill, in part, because of the harsh and intolerant-sounding testimony against the measure by some of its opponents at a public hearing in Annapolis on Feb. 8. NOM’s Maggie Gallagher testified at that hearing.
One of the mailers is as follows:
One of the claim on the mailer reads:
Massachusetts public schools teach kid as young as kindergartners about gay marriage. Parents have no legal right to object!
However according to the Pulitzer Prize-winning news site PolitiFact, this claim is misleading.
During an investigation of the claim earlier this year, PolitiFact talked to:
Christopher C. Plante, executive director of the Rhode Island Chapter of NOM,Kris Mineau, executive director of the Massachusetts Family Institute,Jonathan Considine of the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, the Massachusetts Comprehensive Health Curriculum, the Massachusetts Teachers Association, and Thomas Gosnell, president of the American Federation of Teachers Massachusetts.
PolitiFact's conclusion about NOM's claim of kindergartners being taught gay marriage in Massachusetts is as follows:
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.
Clearly the NOM is following the same game plan it played in California and Maine, i.e. spooking people by claiming that "the gays are coming for their children."
If the organization's efforts bear success, expect NOM leaders Maggie Gallagher and Brian Brown to step on the mantle of self-righteousness and falsely claim that they are helping people "stand up for marriage, when in reality they are getting them to cower in fear at the thought of fictional gay boogeymen.
Related post:
Yes Maggie Gallagher, you are bigoted and NOM is homophobic. Here's why.
National for Marriage continuing to spread false claim about gay marriage and children
crossposted on Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters
It is obvious that in its zeal to stop gay marriage in Maryland, the National Organization for Marriage is going full throttle for the jugular even at the expense of truth.
According to The Washington Blade:
The National Organization for Marriage has launched a series of attack mailers in Maryland, as a House committee gears up for a key vote on a measure to legalize same-sex marriage.
Several mailers target Sen. Jim Brochin, a Baltimore County Democrat and member of the Judicial Proceedings Committee, which approved the bill last month. Brochin initially supported civil unions instead of marriage equality. But he said he changed his position and supported the bill, in part, because of the harsh and intolerant-sounding testimony against the measure by some of its opponents at a public hearing in Annapolis on Feb. 8. NOM’s Maggie Gallagher testified at that hearing.
One of the mailers is as follows:
One of the claim on the mailer reads:
Massachusetts public schools teach kid as young as kindergartners about gay marriage. Parents have no legal right to object!
However according to the Pulitzer Prize-winning news site PolitiFact, this claim is misleading.
During an investigation of the claim earlier this year, PolitiFact talked to:
Christopher C. Plante, executive director of the Rhode Island Chapter of NOM,Kris Mineau, executive director of the Massachusetts Family Institute,Jonathan Considine of the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, the Massachusetts Comprehensive Health Curriculum, the Massachusetts Teachers Association, and Thomas Gosnell, president of the American Federation of Teachers Massachusetts.
PolitiFact's conclusion about NOM's claim of kindergartners being taught gay marriage in Massachusetts is as follows:
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.
Clearly the NOM is following the same game plan it played in California and Maine, i.e. spooking people by claiming that "the gays are coming for their children."
If the organization's efforts bear success, expect NOM leaders Maggie Gallagher and Brian Brown to step on the mantle of self-righteousness and falsely claim that they are helping people "stand up for marriage, when in reality they are getting them to cower in fear at the thought of fictional gay boogeymen.
Related post:
Yes Maggie Gallagher, you are bigoted and NOM is homophobic. Here's why.
Senator Rich Madaleno's Statement On HB 235 - The Gender Identity Civil Rights Bill
Maryland State Senator Rich Madaleno (D-Montgomery County) -- the only lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community member in the Maryland State Senate -- released a statement on the HB 235: Human Relations - Sexual Orientation And Gender Identity - Antidiscrimination Bill:FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEContact: Adam Fogel
(301) 858-3137
afogel@senate.state.md.us
March 3, 2011Senator Rich Madaleno's statement on HB 235: Human Relations - Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity - Antidiscrimination
I have been the lead sponsor or lead cosponsor of the Gender Identity Antidiscrimination Act for the past four years. In advance of the 2011 Session, I had a bill drafted that is identical to the bill I had introduced previously. This draft prohibited discrimination based on gender identity in employment, housing, and public accommodations. However, our advocacy coalition asked me to not introduce the bill, preferring a strategy of pursuing a House bill alone. This approach has not diminished my commitment to enacting these much needed protections, and I urge the House of Delegates to pass HB 235, with an amendment that prohibits discrimination against transgender individuals regarding public accommodations.
Providing transgender individuals with basic protections against discrimination is long overdue. Although much of the media attention this legislative session has centered on marriage equality, we cannot let that debate overshadow efforts to enact these essential protections. Protection against discrimination, including gender identity discrimination, is a basic human right. Our state laws must reflect the values of equality and equal opportunity - values that are central to who we are as Americans.
Now is the time for Maryland to join thirteen other states, Washington, D.C., Montgomery County, and Baltimore City in protecting individuals from discrimination on the basis of gender identity. In 2007, Governor O'Malley signed an executive order adding protections against discrimination to our state personnel policies. We now must pass a statewide law that protects transgender individuals from discrimination when seeking employment, housing, and public accommodations.
The "ask" for the caucus of seven LGBT community legislators I put forward at Pam's House Blend in the essay Maryland's Seven LGBT Legislators Need To Speak Out As A Caucus For Transgender Equality was for a joint statement that resembled something like this:
We, as the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Caucus of Maryland's legislative branch, strongly support passage of the Human Relations - Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity - Antidiscrimination bill (HB 235) before the Maryland State Legislature -- the bill that bans gender identity based discrimination in employment and housing. We will work with our colleagues in the state legislature to do whatever it takes to get the votes needed for HB 235 to be passed in both the House of Delegates and the Senate.We know that members of the transgender subcommunity of the LGBT community aren't happy that public accommodation protections are not in the current version of this year's Human Relations - Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity - Antidiscrimination bill. Should the current Human Relations - Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity - Antidiscrimination bill become law this year, the LGBT Caucus is committing itself to submitting -- and working with our colleagues in the state legislature to do whatever it takes to get the votes needed for -- a bill that would ban gender identity based discrimination in public accommodations. We will submit and to do whatever it takes to get the votes needed for such a bill passed into law, and we will do this every year until such a bill passes into law.
Should the current Human Relations - Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity - Antidiscrimination bill not become law this year, the LGBT Caucus is committing itself to submitting -- and working with our colleagues in the state legislature to do whatever it takes to get the votes needed for -- a bill that would ban gender identity based discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations. We will submit and to do whatever it takes to get the votes needed for such a bill passed into law, and we will do this every year until such a bill passes into law.
So, what Sen. Madaleno didn't include in his statement were words to this effect:
"If the gender identity bill passes into law this year, I am committing myself to submitting a bill that would ban gender identity based discrimination in public accommodations next year, and every year until such a bill passes into law. I also commit to working with my colleagues in the state legislature to do whatever it takes to get the votes needed for that bill to pass into law; I commit to doing this every year until such a bill passes into law." "If the gender identity bill does not pass into law this year, I am committing myself to submitting a bill that would ban gender identity based discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations next year, and every year until such a bill passes into law. I also commit to working with my colleagues in the state legislature to do whatever it takes to get the votes needed for that bill to pass into law; I commit to doing this every year until such a bill passes into law."
For Sen. Madaleno, it's an easy ask. He's a senator who doesn't belong to the House of Delegates, and his stating that public accommodation should be put back into HB 235 is an impuissant ask. He knows his ask will not be seriously contemplated by the majority of the members of the Maryland House of Delegates' Health and Government Operations committee -- the committee that is holding a hearing on the bill on March 9th.
Dana Beyer, a former board member of Equality Maryland, and a past candidate for the House of Delegates in Montgomery County, knows a little bit about Maryland politics. She made the following statement in Pam's House Blend comment thread (links added):
The ask has been made that the gay caucus and EqMD commit to promoting and passing a [public accommodation] bill next year. There won't be a friendly amendment this year.The immediate problem is the hostility on bathrooms and showers in the Health and Government Operations committee. They will not support a comprehensive bill this year. Those delegates will need to be personally lobbied, effectively lobbied, once the session ends. EqMD will have to work it hard, and, more importantly, the gay legislators will need to apply muscle.
This requires leadership, particularly when our opposition has made the issue controversial. Suffice it to say there has been plenty on marriage, and only [Del. Joseline A. Pena-Melnyk] on gender. She cannot do it alone.
From what I've heard, it's going to be State Sen. Raskin who actually is going to be sponsoring and shepherding HB 235 through the Senate, and not Sen. Madaleno. It will be interesting to see whether or not that actually is the case.
Let's be clear here: Sen. Madaleno states he listened to an advocacy coalition that asked him not introduce a gender identity bill this year, and the bill that was introduced didn't include public accommodation protections. Metro Weekly, in their article Maryland Considering Transgender Protections, add this:
Still, the bill has garnered the support of Sen. Rich Madaleno (D-Montgomery), the only out gay member of Maryland's Senate, who says he was asked by Equality Maryland hold off introducing a Senate version for strategic reasons.''They believe it is an important strategic decision to have the House act first on this legislation,'' Madaleno explained in a statement released by his office. ''I have and continue to be the leading advocate for gender identity anti-discrimination in the Maryland Senate. When the House passes this bill, I will lead the effort in the Senate to pass it in our chamber and move it to Gov. O'Malley's desk for his signature.''
The homicide of 25-year-old Tyra Trent, a transgender woman, brought a sense of urgency to the legislation. Trent was found dead from asphyxiation in her Baltimore apartment on Feb. 19. Police are still investigating the homicide.
The gender identity civil rights bill that was introduced in the Maryland House of Delegates didn't include public accommodation protections -- the seven legislators who are part of the LGBT community shouldn't have allowed to that happen without an uproar. Sen. Madaleno should have been vocal about the omission of public accommodation protections when the version of form this legislation was being considered in December.
But we are where we are now.
If HB 235 becomes this year, then Sen. Madaleno need to commit to doing whatever it takes to see a gender identity specific public accommodation antidiscrimination bill passed into law. If HB 235 doesn't become this year, then Sen. Madaleno cannot let an omission of public accommodation protections in a gender identity civil rights bill ever happen again. Senator Madaleno needs to publicly commit to doing whatever it takes to make sure it never happens again, and publicly commit to doing whatever it takes to see such an antidiscrimination bill passed into law.
And, let's also be clear about something else too: Sen. Madaleno isn't promising in his statement above to apply muscle this year; Sen. Madaleno isn't promising to apply muscle in years to come. In other words, Sen. Madaleno hasn't made the promise to do whatever it takes to pass into law antidiscrimination legislation that bans housing, employment, and public accommodation description based on gender identity in his home state.
Sen. Madaleno's failure in his statement to promise to do whatever it takes to gain ordinary equality for transgender people in his home state is just unacceptable. For a legislator who belongs to the LGBT community do less is to cede the battlespace to those who wish to oppress transgender people; to do less is to allow a minority population in his community to live without ordinary equality.
Now is the time for Sen. Madaleno to promise he will do whatever it takes to gain ordinary equality for transgender people in his home state, now is the time to promise to do whatever it takes -- for as long as it takes -- to achieve ordinary equality.
There are many reasons for why a man does what de does. To be himself he must be able to give it all. If a leader cannot give it all, he cannot expect his people to give anything.~Cesar Chavez
Is Sen. Madaleno a leader who can give it his all for the ordinary equality of his broader LGBT community, or is he not? That really is the question we in LGBT community need to ask; that really is the question we need answer for ourselves.
And, I believe that well before the end of this legislative session in Maryland, we'll know what the answer to that question is.
~~~~~
Related:
* 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
.
Pam Spaulding's Blog
- Pam Spaulding's profile
- 1 follower
