Pam Spaulding's Blog, page 90

Peter Sprigg won't address hate group charges but will lie about same-sex households

crossposted on Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters

Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council has yet to address the charges lodged against his group by the Southern Poverty Law Center regarding how they spread propaganda and junk science or misrepresent legitimate science to demonize the lgbt community.

But apparently he isn't too busy to continue misrepresenting legitimate science against the lgbt community.

Yesterday, a piece of his, Federal Report Confirms 'Nuclear Family' Best for Children's Health, was published in The Christian Post.

In this piece, Sprigg claims that nonpartisan groups support theories lodged by himself and FRC regarding the best households to raise children - i.e. the notion that two-parent heterosexual families are the best places to raise children as opposed to same-sex families:

 

During such debates, Family Research Council and other pro-family groups note social science evidence showing children raised by their own mother and father, who are committed to one another in a lifelong marriage, are happier (experience better mental health), healthier (have better physical health), and more prosperous (attain higher socioeconomic status) than children raised in any other household setting. For example, the non-partisan research group Child Trends summarized the evidence this way:

“Research clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage.”

We point to this evidence in support of policies which would discourage divorce, cohabitation, and out-of-wedlock pregnancies, while encouraging sexual abstinence until marriage-as well as in opposing efforts to change the fundamental definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Yet more evidence along these lines can be found in a recently published federal study on “Family Structure and Children’s Health in the United States.” The report compares health outcomes on a variety of measures by family structure. Seven different categories of “families” are identified-“nuclear,” “single-parent,” “unmarried biological or adoptive,” “blended,” “cohabiting,” “extended,” and “other.”

Like with so many other times Sprigg refers to legitimate science to quantify his theories, there are several things wrong with his citations of these studies.

The first study he cited - The Child Trends study - was published in 2002.  And it never even addressed same-sex households.
The second study he cited - The Family Structure and Children's Health in the United States study - looked at  findings from the National Health Interview Survey between the years of 2001 and 2007. And it looked at married familes vs. unmarried families. Same-sex households was not specifically mentioned. The following classifications - seven different categories of “families” are identified-“nuclear,” “single-parent,” “unmarried biological or adoptive,” “blended,” “cohabiting,” “extended,” and “other” - are extremely vague at best in dealing with same-sex households because there is no specificity.

With these two studies, Sprigg seems to be following a pattern very familiar with him, i.e. twisting legitimate science to prove his theories even when said studies don't address his theories or contradict what he is trying to prove.

Last year, he published  The Top Ten Myths About Homosexuality. In this piece, he used the statements of an lgbt health organization to prove that the lgbt orientation itself is indicative of negative behaviors, i.e. depression, alcohol and drug abuse:

Even the pro-homosexual Gay& Lesbian Medical Association (GLMA) acknowledges:

• “Gay men use substances at a higher rate than the general population . . .”
• “Depression and anxiety appear to affect gay men at a higher rate . . . .”
• “ . . . [G]ay men have higher rates of alcohol dependence and abuse . . . .”
• “ . . . [G]ay men use tobacco at much higher rates than straight men . . . .”
• “Problems with body image are more common among gay men . . . and gay men are much more likely to experience an eating disorder . . . .”

The GLMA also confirms that:

• “ . . . [L]esbians may use tobacco and smoking products more often than heterosexual women use them.”
• “Alcohol use and abuse may be higher among lesbians.”
• “ . . . [L]esbians may use illicit drugs more often than heterosexual women.”

Homosexual activists generally attempt to explain these problems as results of “homophobic discrimination.” However, there is a serious problem with that theory—there is no empirical evidence that such psychological problems are greater in areas where disapproval of homosexuality is more intense.

But strange enough, the source which he cited - the Gay & Lesbian Medical Association - said that homophobia is the reason for many of these health problems. Sprigg deliberately omitted information pointing this out:

Sprigg:

“Depression and anxiety appear to affect gay men at a higher rate . . . .”

GMLA:

Depression and anxiety appear to affect gay men at a higher rate than in the general population. The likelihood of depression or anxiety may be greater, and the problem may be more severe for those men who remain in the closet or who do not have adequate social supports. Adolescents and young adults may be at particularly high risk of suicide because of these concerns.

Sprigg:

“ . . . [L]esbians may use illicit drugs more often than heterosexual women.

GMLA:

Research indicates that lesbians may use illicit drugs more often than heterosexual women. This may be due to added stressors in lesbian lives from discrimination. Lesbians need support from each other and from health care providers to find healthy releases, quality recreation, stress reduction, and coping techniques.

What Sprigg is doing now with these two studies regarding households raising children is simply more of the same.

It's worth mentioning that Sprigg is fastly becoming the "point man" who is called in front of state legislative committees to speak against marriage equality.

Pretty soon, the question regarding Sprigg's intentional distortion of scientific work will no longer be "how can he continue to get away with this?"

The question is going to become "how can someone professing to believe in Jesus continue to engage in such blatant deceptions?"

And "how can an organization claiming to stand up for morality and values (the Family Research Council) condone such behavior?"

Related posts:

Family Research Council has yet to come out with 'detailed response' against SPLC charges

Will the Family Research Council ever fulfill its promise and address SPLC's charges?

Same-sex couples can be effective parents, researchers find 
 
Peter Sprigg proves the Family Research Council to be a hate group (again)

Family Research Council defends itself with distorted studies . . . again

SD bill: Murdering abortion providers would become "justifiable homicide"

From HB 1171, submitted to the South Dakota House of Representatives on February 9, 2011 (underlined text would be added to existing law):

FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to expand the definition of justifiable homicide to provide for the protection of certain unborn children.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:

Section 1. That ? 22-16-34 be amended to read as follows:

    22-16-34. Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person while resisting any attempt to murder such person, or to harm the unborn child of such person in a manner and to a degree likely to result in the death of the unborn child, or to commit any felony upon him or her, or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person is.

Section 2. That ? 22-16-35 be amended to read as follows:

   22-16-35. Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person in the lawful defense of such person, or of his or her husband, wife, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant, or the unborn child of any such enumerated person, if there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony, or to do some great personal injury, and imminent danger of such design being

accomplished.

The bill was originally proposed to clarify an existing statute. Then it was "hoghoused" -- a term used in the SD legislature for when a bill is substantially amended and meant to bring to mind the blood and stink of a slaughterhouse -- by right wing extremists to enshrine murder as the law of the land. Apparently, if you cannot get the Supreme Court to change precedent, you can change state law and grab your shotgun.

Mother Jones has a more extensive article about South Dakota's move to legalize the murder of women's health providers.

Update: PPP to Poll Rhode Island Soon

Saturday I posted a call to vote in Public Policy Polling's poll asking which state they should conduct a poll in next. Despite trailing Maine going it, Rhode Island emerged the winner and will be next. Pollster Tom Jensen explains:

Rhode Island received the most votes from distinct individuals in our 'vote on where to poll' this week so that's where we'll go this time around along with North Carolina.

"Distinct individuals" makes it sound like Maine's lead was attributed to a single IP address (aka cheating).

Well done those of you who participated. Our work isn't done. Jensen asks:

What questions should we ask besides the races for President and Senate?

Go over there and tell him to poll "marriage equality." The vote is near and a good result (which is likely) will do a lot to crowd National Organization's nonsense, lies and insanity out of the local paper's headlines, and place the lawmaker's focus on the "will of the people."

Family Research Council has yet to come out with 'detailed response' against SPLC charges

crossposted on Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters

Last night, I asked a very pertinent question on my blog about the Family Research Council.

In December after the Southern Poverty Law Center designated the organization as an anti-gay hate group, Peter Sprigg - one of FRC's spokesman - said that they will be coming out with a more "detailed" response refuting these charges.

It's been almost two months and no detailed response has come out. So I asked when was this report coming out. What's more, I presented my question directly to FRC's webpage.

I wasn't expecting an answer so imagine my surprise when I got one, albeit a standard one:

Dear Mr. Alvin McEwen:

Thank you for your interest in the Family Research Council. As you may be aware, FRC champions marriage and family as the foundation of civilization, the seedbed of virtue, and the wellspring of society. We work to shape public debate and formulate public policy that values human life and upholds the institutions of marriage and the family. Believing that God is the author of life, liberty, and the family, FRC promotes the Judeo-Christian worldview as the basis for a just, free, and stable society.

We appreciate the time you have taken to contact FRC, and the opportunity to address your concerns. A member of FRC's correspondence team will respond to your comments shortly. Once again, thank you for your interest in FRC's work.

Your confirmation number for this activity is 3926862. If any information in this email confirmation is in error, or if you have further questions, please contact us by telephoning 1-800-22 5-4008 Mondays through Fridays between 8:30 AM and 5:30 PM EST. From all of us at FRC, thank you and God bless.

Sincerely,

Family Research Council

Between you and me, I have a feeling that I'm going to be waiting so long for FRC's answer that "my credit will get good again."

But still, it's nice to put their feet to some type of fire.

If you feel the need to, please do the same - respectfully - by going here. Ask them why is it taking so long for them to "refute" SPLC's charges.
 
Related posts:

Family Research Council defends itself with distorted studies . . . again

Family Research Council plans to go on tour against the Southern Poverty Law Center

Family Research Council's 'we are not a hate group' campaign gets destroyed on two fronts

Family Research Council's anti-SPLC campaign places bullseye on the backs of Republican leaders

Family Research Council digging itself deeper in the hole in war against hate group label

The Family Research Council tries to declare war on the Southern Poverty Law Center

Peter LaBarbera's ramblings exposes the Family Research Council's deception

Mike Huckabee tries to defend the Family Research Council from hate group designation and fails miserably

The Family Research Council should be apologizing to the gay community

Family Research Council, American Family Association named as anti-gay hate groups

 

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

An 800-Pound Transgender Elephant Who Doesn't Trust LGBT Congressmembers, Their Congressional Aides, And LGBT Civil Rights Organizations' Policy Teams

Kerry Eleveld recently wrote a piece for Equality Matters -- crossposted to Pam's House Blend -- entitled The False Choice: ENDA v. Marriage Equality. I read it, and had a visceral reaction when I read these paragraphs (no emphasis added):

[A]lthough I have asked a good number of questions about [the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA)] and its prospects for a vote, I still can't tell you why it never happened. Meanwhile, I can recall with decent clarity nearly every twist and turn of the battle to pass "don't ask, don't tell" (DADT) repeal. This is not due to a bias on my part, but is rather indicative of the fact that no one seemed willing to talk with any specificity about what was or wasn't happening with ENDA.

And here is where our community's analysis must begin -- we need to have an honest conversation about our inability to discuss ENDA and transgender issues. Last year, when I asked people in our advocacy groups, staffers on the Hill, and lawmakers about the prospects for passing ENDA, I most commonly got no information or misinformation. As the bill continued to languish and the House committee vote was continually delayed, my questions were increasingly met with indignation and wholesale assurances that all was going according to plan. But ultimately, all I found was a brick wall when it came to identifying the hurdles.

I stopped reading the article when I read that, and just seethed.

My visceral reaction was this: I heard "It's time to open up the discussion again as to whether gender identity should be part of ENDA" when I read the phrase "we need to have an honest conversation about our inability to discuss ENDA and transgender issues." That's my filter; that's my problem.

But let me set the WABAC (pronounced "wayback") Machine back to 2004 to discuss some background history on transgender people and ENDA -- the reason I (and I assume many other transgender people) have that filter. Transgender community history on ENDA starts significantly earlier than that (see Monica Roberts' Transgriot post

This is definitely a sea change. We are now moving forward with a united front, and the LGBT community will no longer be fractured as a result of ENDA.

Then HRC executive director Cheryl Jacques made this statement:

Passing ENDA without gender identity and expression is like passing a copyright law that covers books and television shows but doesn't cover digital music or videos. But ENDA is about people's lives, not MP3s or DVDs. That's why it's so important that we have the strongest and most comprehensive bill possible.

She also stated this:

In early August [2004], HRC's Board of Directors took the historic step of adopting a policy that HRC would not support a version of ENDA that doesn't include gender identity or expression.

This isn't only the right thing to do; it's the pragmatic thing to do. We're supporting a modernized and comprehensive bill that gives full protection to all of our community.

Fast forward to the Southern Comfort Conference in September 14, 2007, and HRC executive director Joe Solmonese made the following comment (emphasis added):

We try to walk a thin line in terms of keeping everything in play, and making sure that we move forward but always being clear that we absolutely do not support and in fact oppose any legislation that is not absolutely inclusive, and we have sent that message loud and clear to the Hill.

Apparently without the HRC Board's approval, Joe Solmonese got ahead of where the HRC was at on ENDA: whereas the HRC's official policy was that they would not support any version of ENDA that didn't include gender identity, Joe Solmonese publicly stated that the HRC would oppose any version of ENDA that didn't include gender identity.

Then on September 27, 2007, House Democrats removed transgender employment protections from the main ENDA bill. On October 1, 2007, the HRC released the following statement:

Last night, the Human Rights Campaign's Board of Directors voted to reaffirm the 2004 policy supporting a fully inclusive version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. Therefore, HRC will not support the newly introduced sexual orientation only bill. The board's position articulates a process for continued dialogue with House leaders about strategies that have been put forth to, in the end, achieve passage of a fully inclusive ENDA.

"We are now faced with definitive Congressional action to move forward a version of the bill stripping gender identity. Though we support a fully inclusive ENDA, we acknowledge the legislative strategy put forth by Congressman Frank and the Democratic leadership to obtain a clear path towards an inclusive bill in the future," said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. "We look forward to working with them to accomplish the goal all of us share - ending workplace discrimination against the entire GLBT community."

"Since 2004, HRC has had in place a policy that supports only a fully inclusive version of ENDA and the Board of Directors voted to reaffirm that position," Solmonese continued. "Therefore, we are not able to support, nor will we encourage Members of Congress to vote against, the newly introduced sexual orientation only bill. And will continue working with our allies in Congress to support a comprehensive, legislative strategy to achieve passage of a fully inclusive ENDA as quickly as possible."

But of course -- as most LGBT activists no doubt remember -- even that position changed. On November 06, 2007, the HRC put out a press release that stated the following it its text:

"Since 2004, HRC has had in place a policy that supports only a fully inclusive version of ENDA and the Board of Directors voted to reaffirm that position," Solmonese [said]. "Therefore, we are not able to support, nor will we encourage Members of Congress to vote against, the newly introduced sexual orientation only bill."

The Leadership Conference On Civil Rights (LCCR) -- the nation's oldest, and largest, and civil and human rights coalition, to which the HRC is a key member organization -- released this statement at roughly the same point in time as the 2007 HRC press release on ENDA. The LCCR statement said this in part:

As civil rights organizations, however, we are no strangers to painful compromise in the quest for equal protection of the law for all Americans. From the Civil Rights Act of 1957 through the almost-passed District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007, legislative progress in the area of civil and human rights has almost always been incremental in nature. With each significant step toward progress, the civil rights community has also faced difficult and sometimes even agonizing tradeoffs. We have always recognized, however, that each legislative breakthrough has paved the way for additional progress in the future. With respect to ENDA, we take the same view.

While we are greatly disappointed that the current version of ENDA is not fully inclusive, our sense of frustration in this case is directed at those who would clearly prefer to see no one from the gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender community protected at all. We know the decision to pursue a narrower strategy was a very difficult one, and we appreciate the steadfast efforts of our Congressional allies over the years to advance the rights of all Americans - even when they are forced at times to make progress that is measured by inches rather than yards.

As such, we urge you to support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and to oppose any floor amendments or motions that would undermine its protections.

And as most of us know, the sexual orientation only version of ENDA passed the House in early 2008, but the Senate never took up the bill -- so ENDA died. ENDA was never sent to President Bush's desk for veto.

Fast-forwarding yet again -- this time to late March of 2009 -- the HRC released a one more statement regarding the ENDA -- this time in reference to the last Congress:

HRC Board ENDA Policy

It's the policy of HRC that the organization will only support an inclusive ENDA. In 2007 House leadership informed us that there were insufficient votes to pass an inclusive bill, so they decided to vote on a sexual orientation only bill. We made a one time exception to our policy in 2007 because we strongly believed that supporting this vote would do more to advance inclusive legislation. We will not support such a strategy again. We look forward to Congress sending President Obama a fully inclusive ENDA for his signature.

Let's be honest. Not very many trans people believe that March 2009 statement -- it reads like unadulterated spin.

And too, let's be very clear here on substance: in comparison to the statements of other LGBT civil rights non-profits on ENDA, the HRC's policy statement is designed to be more weakly worded. Other LGBT civil rights non-profits have stated they'd oppose ENDA without the inclusion of gender identity or expression language while the HRC's language of not support means that the HRC will theoretically be neutral on any ENDA that doesn't include gender identity and expression language -- not opposed opposed to any version of ENDA that isn't fully inclusive.

The return to the HRC's 2004-to-2007 ENDA policy, verses their 2007/2008 ENDA policy, certainly was an improvement. But, going back to the 2004-to-2007 policy really isn't exactly a great place to start honest dialog about ENDA and transgender issues. And, their big presence on LGBT issues is touted on their About Us webpage:

The Human Rights Campaign is America's largest civil rights organization working to achieve lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) equality. By inspiring and engaging all Americans, HRC strives to end discrimination against LGBT citizens and realize a nation that achieves fundamental fairness and equality for all.

And too, there is the matter of the HRC's flawed scorecard for the 110th Congress.

It matters that the organization is still sending the message that issues regarding gender identity and gender expression are not equal to issues to that of sexual orientation. And since the HRC is still a sizable presence in the beltway backrooms where discussions with legislators and legislative staff on ENDA occurs...well, for many reasons, including their transgender fail on ENDA 2007/2008, means that the vast majority of transgender community activists don't trust the HRC to be an honest broker for transgender people and issues. In fact, many consider the HRC -- and especially Joe Solmonese -- to be a liar.

And beyond the HRC, the transgender community still stings over John Aravosis' commentary on AmericaBlog regarding ENDA 2007/2008. Aravosis compared LGBT community organizations that opposed removal of gender identity from ENDA 2007/2008 to religious right bigots in his piece House Committee Passes ENDA, 27-21:

This is a historic vote (this is the GLB ENDA, the one we actually have the votes for, the one we've been working on for 30 years). All Republican amendments were defeated. Four Dems sided with Pat Robertson and the men at the Concerned Women for America and voted no (including Kucinich, Holt, Clark and Sanchez - ostensibly because they feel we should hold 25 million gays and lesbians hostage until America is ready to pass civil rights laws for somewhere between tens of thousands and a few hundred thousand transgender people), and three Rs voted yes (Castle, Biggert and Platts).

That wasn't an single, isolated comment. For example, another statement that repeated this comparison is found in JUST IN: Pelosi agrees to hold vote on trans-inclusive ENDA when it has the votes, will move ahead with GLB ENDA next week:

What remains to be seen is whether the NGLTF and its allies will join James Dobson, Tony Perkins, Lou Sheldon and Pat Robertson in trying to kill ENDA.

Here we have a gay blogger with readership in the tens of thousands who argued -- in loaded language -- against transgender inclusion in ENDA.

And too, it's not as if our gay representatives in Congress have been kind to transgender people. Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) hasn't engendered the trust of transgender community regarding ENDA over the years either.

Rep. Frank made this telephone statement for that Gay City News article referenced above prior to the HRC announcing its 2004 change of policy:

[ENDA] will never pass with trans-inclusive language while the Republicans are in control of Congress. They always scare people with stories about people with penises going into women's showers."

Peter LaBarbera of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality quoted Barney Frank as stating this in his piece Homosexual-Transgender Alliance Tested as 'Trans'-Inclusive ENDA Falters on Capitol Hill:

There are workplace situations -- communal showers, for example -- when the demands of the transgender community fly in the face of conventional norms and therefore would not pass in any Congress. I've talked with transgender activists and what they want -- and what we will be forced to defend -- is for people with penises who identify as women to be able to shower with other women.

Rep. Frank gave people on the religious right, such as Peter LaBarbera, quotables regarding transgender people and public restrooms/public showers.

In the Just Out article Frankly Speaking (subtitled U.S. Rep. Barney Frank to trans community: Get your own train, May 2, 2008), Representative Barney Frank spoke about ENDA 2007/2008. One of his "stir the pot" comments from the article was:

Part of the problem, I have to say, is this: I've never seen a worse job of lobbying done by the transgender community. They seem to think that all they had to do was to get the gay and lesbian community to say "OK." I think they thought that this was a train, and that they were a car on the train. I said to them, "You've got to work this, you've got to lobby people." They did a terrible job of lobbying, and so we didn't have the votes.

I've talked to my transgender peers and other activists over during 2007 and 2008, and no activist had ever reported that Rep. Frank gave any such warning to him, her, or hir -- the only ones I'm aware of who sounded any alarm to the transgender community regarding ENDA/hate crimes legislation was the National Transgender Advocacy Coalition (NTAC). In May of 2007 -- during their NTAC Transgender Lobby Days of May, 2007 -- in some of the congressional offices had lobbied in they heard rumors that had apparently been floating around the Beltway since April, 2007: NTAC heard that gender identity and expression was going to be dropped from the main ENDA/hate crimes legislation bill . NTAC in turn mentioned that possibility to some transgender community e-groups that same month.

Rep. Frank also stated in that Just Out piece:

I understand the problem of having [transgender protections] put in the bill and taking it out. It would have been better not to have put it in the bill in the first place and to have two separate bills in the beginning.... Unfortunately, people in the trans community and their allies didn't want to accept reality.

And...

Was it a mistake not to push for gay rights in the '50s and '60s? No, it just hadn't occurred to people. Movements take time. There was not a lot of self-awareness of people being transgender in the '80s and '90s. You can't artificially create these things; they come up. The transgender community organized and came forward, but it's only been less than 10 years.

Let me make a note here: transgender people were in large part thrown out of the gay liberation movement in the early seventies by people of Rep. Frank's generation. From History Professor Susan Stryker's Know Your Transgender History:

1973 was a watershed year. Sentiments against transgender people participating in gay and feminist work reached a fever pitch. Sylvia Rivera was physically prevented from speaking at the Stonewall commemoration in New York. Beth Elliot, a lesbian transsexual woman who had once been vice president of the San Francisco chapter of the Daughters of Bilitis lesbian organization in San Francisco was ejected from the West Coast Lesbian Conference in Los Angeles, by vehemently anti-transgender feminist Robin Morgan, who divided the crowd on the transgender issue in much the same way that the issue is threatening to divide the LGBT community today. With the war in Viet Nam winding down for the United States, the androgynous hippy style of the "Freakin' Fag Revolution" was replaced with the new macho of the "clone look." With the successful removal of homosexuality as a psychopathology list in the psychiatric bible, The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, gender-normative gay and lesbian people could say that they were healthy and transgender people were sick. And repression continued from the outside, too. Police planted narcotics in the office of the National Transsexual Counseling Unit, framed them, and sent some of them to jail. It was a perfect storm, in which many progressive-minded people, self-righteously thinking they were being so advanced in their condemnation of transgender people, unwittingly marched in lock step with truly reactionary social forces.

Thirty years of advancing gay and feminist causes through solidarity with conservative definitions of gender and by trashing transgender people is what produces the seeming paradox of the right-wing Christian hate groups like Americans For Truth About Homosexuality actually quoting Barney Frank's phobic attitudes about transgender people on the front page of their website.

You can watch highlights of Rep. Frank's comments about transgender inclusion in his October 10, 2007 ENDA/Transgender Press Conference:

With his commentary on transgender people and ENDA made in May of 2008 and earlier, it was literally no surprise to me to read statements by Rep. Frank in Chris Geidner's Metro Weekly piece Employment bill started strong, but is barely breathing at the close of the 111th Congress. Rep. Frank put the burden of the unpassed ENDA 2009/2010 bill on the backs of transgender people:

...Frank had a message for LGBT advocates, saying, ''In the interim what the community needs to do is educate on the transgender issue.''

The point was echoed by the Democratic leadership aide, who said ''there has not been the work done by the community in the Senate'' to ensure the passage of an inclusive ENDA.

As Frank said, ''I would point out to you that they still have not been able to get transgender protections in liberal places. If you can't do it in Massachusetts, New York and Maryland, it doesn't get easier when you add in South Dakota, Oklahoma and Utah.''

Frankly, after so many promises by Rep. Frank and other congressmembers in 2009 and 2010 about how ENDA was going to be marked up "soon," at the end of the month, next February (2010) -- well, you can read about the long history of broken promises on ENDA here. It didn't appear to be an issue that would definitely kill the bill until the postmortem at the end of the 111th Congress., unless you consider this comment from Rep. Frank found in a January 13, 2010 piece in The Advocate:

"There continues to be concerns on the part of many members about the transgender issue, particularly about the question of places where people are without their clothes -- showers, bathrooms, locker rooms, etc.," said Frank. "We still have this issue about what happens when people who present themselves as one sex but have the physical characteristics of the other sex, what rules govern what happens in locker rooms, showers, etc."

*Sigh.* Always the bathrooms; always the locker room showers.

And by the way, Representative Jared Polis (D-CO) hasn't exactly been a superior ENDA friend to transgender people either. Just after GetEQUAL protested last April 21st in an attempt to highlight that ENDA 2009/2010 hadn't as yet been marked up in the House Health Education and Labor Committee, Rep. Polis gave the GetEQUAL protesters -- including GetEQUAL executive director Robin McGehee -- a false choice argument. In the hallway outside the room where the committee was meeting, Rep. Polis told the protesters if they wanted ENDA marked up then it would be without gender identity protections -- and then asked if that's what the GetEQUAL activists wanted.

Which leads me back to the quote from by Kerry Eleveld I highlighted at the beginning of this piece:

[A]lthough I have asked a good number of questions about [the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA)] and its prospects for a vote, I still can't tell you why it never happened. Meanwhile, I can recall with decent clarity nearly every twist and turn of the battle to pass "don't ask, don't tell" (DADT) repeal. This is not due to a bias on my part, but is rather indicative of the fact that no one seemed willing to talk with any specificity about what was or wasn't happening with ENDA.

And here is where our community's analysis must begin -- we need to have an honest conversation about our inability to discuss ENDA and transgender issues. Last year, when I asked people in our advocacy groups, staffers on the Hill, and lawmakers about the prospects for passing ENDA, I most commonly got no information or misinformation. As the bill continued to languish and the House committee vote was continually delayed, my questions were increasingly met with indignation and wholesale assurances that all was going according to plan. But ultimately, all I found was a brick wall when it came to identifying the hurdles.

Transgender people don't trust that an honest conversation about ENDA can occur with the people who work on policy that are currently in place in congressional offices and LGBT civil rights non-profits. The HRC's executive director Joe Solmonese has zero credibility with transgender community activists after ENDA 2007/2008, but he's still the HRC's executive director. Rep. Barney Frank is the lead sponsor for ENDA, and he has a history of saying problematic things about transgender community members, and legislation that includes transgender community members.

And because of the issues with the leaders who work on LGBT policy within the beltway, many in transgender community feel gender identity and gender expression are not treated as equal issues -- The "T" in "LGBT" is perceived by a majority of transgender community members as being a small "t" to congressmembers, congressmember office staffers and the people who work on policy at LGBT civil rights non-profits. Transgender community members perceive they've been lied to, and perceive they've been frequently scapegoated by lesbian and gay community members in positions of power.

The feeling of many in transgender community is that this perceived lying and this perceived scapegoating is ongoing issue. If transgender community leaders were to agree to an honest conversation beginning on ENDA and transgender people, I know I'm not alone in feeling that we transgender community members are again going to hear that question posed regarding whether or not transgender people should even being included in ENDA. Many of us in transgender community are tired of having that discussion about whether or not we should be included in ENDA over and over again -- especially when we know, after ENDA 2007/2008, that it's not tenable for congress or LGBT civil rights non-profits to drop gender identity from ENDA.

Transgender people just want our friends to actually be our friends.

My reaction was to those paragraphs written by Kerry Eleveld were visceral. I heard "It's time to open up the discussion again as to whether gender identity should be part of ENDA" when I read the phrase "we need to have an honest conversation about our inability to discuss ENDA and transgender issues" in her piece. That's my filter; that's my problem.

And, I'm sorry lesbian and gay people seem to all get painted with a broad brush. Transgender community members often feel so angry about those who in LGBT community who treat them badly that lashing out at almost all non-transgender people in LGBT community is an almost instinctive response. That almost instictive anger is often directed at any in community who are even moderately insensitive -- or thosw who unintentionally use inappropriate language to describe us.

Transgender community members have many, many lesbian and gay intra-community allies, and I actually knew beforehand that Kerry Eleveld was one of them. But unfortunately, sometimes anger is that reflexive response -- and sadly, that reflexive anger is often justified.

And, that reflexive anger no doubt will impact  any honest conversation LGBT community will engage in regarding transgender people and ENDA.

I emailed back and forth a bit with Pam about this, and she wrote this response back:

I think what [Kerry Eleveld] is doing is stating the obvious - LGBs simply have done what often happens with race - if you can't comfortably discuss it for fear of defensive backlash, the larger community will ignore, dodge, avoid or be silent.

Yup -- I couldn't agree more.

So all that said, community history between the lesbian and gay subcommunity members of the LGBT community and the transgender subcommunity members of the LGBT community is a significant reason for why honest conversation on ENDA and transgender people.

But, lesbian and gay people in LGBT community are going to need to have a discussion about community history with transgender people if we want to move forward together on ENDA. It's going to be an extremely difficult conversation to have when there is such credibility related and scapegoating issues that have yet to be adequately addressed; when there is so much heat and anger that transgender people feel about how they've been treated within LGBT community.

I have some suggestions on some immediate action items regarding the HRC though: the HRC Board needs to look at its executive director and its senior staff, as well as look at its policy statement on ENDA. They need to make some weighty, possibly painful decisions. If the HRC wishes to appear credible to the transgender community (an LGBT subcommunity that they state they work on behalf of), they need to focus like a laser beam on how to appear to be honest brokers regarding ENDA and full inclusion.

Transgender community members are going to have a difficult time entering into honest discussions about ENDA if the HRC Board doesn't meaningfully address the organization's past transgender fails -- very directly, and very publicly.

And, that's just a starting point for for discussion with the 800-pound transgender elephant -- with issues -- in the room. We also need to begin a discussion about bathrooms.

~~

Follow-up article coming soon: ENDA: An 800-Pound Transgender Elephant - With Issues - In The Public Restroom

.

Washington state legislators send a Valentine to gay and lesbian families

What better day to unveil a marriage equality bill (SB 5793) than Valentine's Day?

OLYMPIA - Lawmakers have chosen today - the day that millions across the country celebrate the bonds of affection shared between two people in love - as the day to introduce major legislation that would no longer restrict gays and lesbians from their right to marry.

Today is not the first time the issue of marriage equality for gays and lesbians and the Valentine's Day holiday have crossed paths.

In early February of 1998, in what has proven to be the darkest of Valentine's for gay and lesbian families in our state, the Legislature enshrined discrimination as the law of the land in Washington by overriding the veto of then-Gov. Gary Locke to approve the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act."

This Valentine's Day, Rep. Jim Moeller, D-Vancouver, and Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, said the night is darkest just before the dawn.

"Over the past several years, the Legislature and the public together have been steadily building a bridge to equality for gay and lesbian families," said Moeller. He noted the passage of civil rights legislation in 2006 protecting gays and lesbians from discrimination in employment, housing, and financial transactions, and then three successive years of securing broader and broader domestic partnership rights -- which included successfully withstanding a hostile referendum challenge at the ballot in 2009.

"We've made tremendous progress since 1998," Murray said. "Gay and lesbian families in Washington now enjoy the same state spousal rights that their married straight friends enjoy - except for the name 'marriage'. The recognition that their loving, lifelong commitment is no different from the loving, lifelong commitment of straight couples is the final step to achieving full equality. I believe the Legislature and the public are both ready to take that final step."

Please sign the Marriage Equality petition today and ask friends to do the same.
The pro-equality vote in Washington state has been rising steadily for the past five years.  With a concerted effort, we can put the numbers over the top in 2012.  Recall that in 2009 the Washington electorate was the first in the nation to ratify a same-sex relationship recognition law at the polls, 52.6% to 27.4%.

As Equal Rights Washington reminds us, "The most important thing you can do in support of marriage equality is to talk to your friends, family, neighbors and coworkers about why marriage equality matters to you and people you love. Nothing is more powerful than personal stories.  So let's keep the conversation going."

Another way to "get engaged" and help make marriage equality a reality in Washington state by participating in the Equality Day 2011 in Olympia on March 22, 2011.

Equality Day 2011 is your opportunity to engage with your legislators in person. On March 22 you can educate your legislators about your lives. Tell them how the decisions they make help you contribute fully as a member of the community, promote your freedom to love who you love, and live healthy productive lives.  We have many opportunities this year to support our families by creating protections for children and parents in the Uniform Parentage Act, creating a safe and supportive educational environment for our students, promoting awareness of HIV/AIDS and good public health, and making progress toward marriage equality.

Your legislators have their hands on the levers of power, but they need your help to know which way to pull them.

Help Spread the Word! Print and Post an Equality Day 2011 flyer on bulletin boards inside LGBT friendly establishments in your community.

Click here for more information on Equality Day 2011.

British government ready to implement full marriage equality in the UK

They already had civil partnerships, but our mates across the pond are ready to leave the U.S. in the cultural dust again.

The British government is expected to announce full marriage equality for gays and lesbians under reforms to marriage laws expected to be announced later this week by the Liberal Democrat equality minister, Lynne Featherstone.

The announcement will also include the time table for civil partnerships to be held in religious buildings. The reported move will end the final major legal discrimination against gays and lesbians in Britain.

The reaction from faith groups:

The Quakers and Liberal Judaism have already stated that they wish to conduct same sex marriages.

Although the Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, gave the reports a guarded welcome telling the BBC that he "believes in a liberal democracy, and actually wants equality with everybody," the Church of England does not support the introduction of gay marriages or civil partnerships being held in churches. A spokesman said: "Given the Church's view on the nature of marriage, the House of Bishops has consistently been clear that the Church of England should not provide services of blessing for those who register civil partnerships."

The spokesman said the change will "lead to inconsistencies with civil marriage, have unexplored impacts, and lead to confusion, with a number of difficult and unintended consequences for churches and faiths".

"Any change could therefore only be brought after proper and careful consideration of all the issues involved, to ensure that the intended freedom for all denominations over these matters is genuinely secured."

The Catholic Church and those representing the Muslim faith are also opposed to gay marriage and holding religious civil partnerships.

Elaine Donnelly: searching hard for relevancy, still beating the DADT drum

The disgraced doyenne of DADT discrimination was belching a lot of hot air at CPAC, try to find some way to keep herself relevant and in the public eye. (Washington Blade):

Donnelly urged for greater deliberation before enacting "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal during a panel titled "How Political Correctness Is Harming America's Military" at the 2011 Conservative Political Action Conference in D.C.

During her CPAC panel appearance, Donnelly denounced the law allowing for repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" that President Obama signed in December, which she said was "rushed through recklessly" in the lame-duck session of the 111th Congress.

"It's supposed to be a non-discrimination policy," she said. "But instead of calling it 'Not "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," ... let's give it a name. We call it the 'Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Law for the Military' - 'LGBT Law' for short. We have to start thinking about it in terms of what it would do."

Among Donnelly's pursed-lip concerns:

how will the armed forces "train people to be less sensitive to sexual privacy and modesty."whether there will be tolerance training in schools on military bases.her old-school lies: military chaplains would have to endorse homosexuality if they had to preach to openly gay people in the military.the fact that this is a slippery slope of equality that will lead to transgender people serving in the military. Well, yes, it is:

Mara Keisling, executive director for the National Transgender Center for Equality, said Donnelly was raising the issue of transgender people in the U.S. military to draw attention to "her last shrill efforts to try to stop "Don't Ask, Don't Tell' repeal," but added she's right that trans people shouldn't be excluded.

"There is no more reason to exclude trans people from service than there is to exclude women, or anybody, African Americans or gay people," Keisling said. "It's just all based on old stereotypes that people like Elaine Donnelly use to advance their own causes."

Today, Love Doesn't Matter

Not for Anton Tanumihardja and his partner, Brian Andersen. Not to the United States Government. Anton and Brian are among the 30,000 LGBT binational couples struggling to stay together, while the Department of Homeland Security works to tear them apart.

Crossposted at Daily Kos. Please rec if you can.
Anton and Brian's story came to my attention via Newsworks yesterday. There's is a common story I hear in my immigration advocacy. Visitor comes to America, finds a life, find love, options run out, faces deportation. In Anton's case, he came from Indonesia, and that makes his imminent return especially dangerous. He's applied for asylum, but has not yet had it granted and the clock is ticking down. From Newsworks:

"He is triply vulnerable as a gay man who is ethnically Chinese and non-Muslim, he's less likely to be able to get any kind of protection from police or any authorities, all of whom are members of the dominant ethnicity and dominant religion," says Soloway, who noted that Anton has no criminal record.

The simple solution for a heterosexual couple is get married, start the paperwork. That's not an option for Anton and Brian or any gay people. Even if they got married in a state that allows it, the Federal Government will not respect that marriage as valid. They remain, in the eyes of the law, strangers.

Not every country is eligible for LGBT asylum applications as Indonesia is, and even among those countries who are DHS can be stingy about granting them. For many gay immigrants there are few legal options. A comprehensive look at the legal options can be found here.

His Representative Bob Brady has sent a letter of support to immigration services. These cases sometimes find relief in extraordinary measures, as when Senator Kerry went to bat for a couple in Massachusetts and obtained a stay. But usually, they do not. Most couples do not have the means or the connections to fight. So many must give up. So many American LGBT cititzens bid farewell to their home country.

Ironically, many can find themselves welcomed in other countries as the gay partner of a citizen, another example of the US's lagging behind other western nations in recognizing gay rights. This is the case with Glenn Greenwald, who cannot bring his partner here, but would find himself, as a gay partner, welcomed by Brazil. Glenn was recently hospitalized and my first thought was, "And if he's in the US right now, his partner can't even come up to visit." I was struck by a profound sadness imagining they were thousands of miles from each other at a time a crisis. This are times you want, need and crave the love and support of your partner.

My friend at Daily Kos, SmellyBeast, faces such a choice. She has chronicled her own struggle with this issue, here: "Desperate Measures" and "Planning my Ta-Ta For Now Tour." She is making the difficult choice between love and country.

Which brings us back to our title. Love doesn't matter to these individuals. Love doesn't conquer all. State marriage certificates don't matter. The United States Government turns a blind eye to both love and marriage. The partner you may have shared years with, raised children with, shared a home, is legally a stranger, and has no right to petition for your residency in this country.

But of course, outside DC's bubble where the sole seems to be to mandate serve the corporations, love does matter. It matters above all else to every one of these 30,000 couple struggling to keep their families intact. LGBT relationships do matter and it's past time our Government caught up to that reality. It isn't OK for it to keep continuing doing this because, well, that's the way it is, that's the way it's always been.

Send a Valentine to Congress today. Immigration Equality makes it easy, if your rep isn't on your speed dial.

Tell them the love that binds LGBT families is no different than the love that binds every family. Get rid of the Defense of Marriage Act that forbids the DHS to recognize these couples, some lawfully wedded. Pass Uniting American Families Act that would allow LGBT citizens to petition for residency status for their partners.

The blog Stop the Deportations is an excellent source for keeping tabs on this and other stories as well.

Also: Help us out, by taking just 120 seconds to Click This Link and vote for Rhode Island to be the next state polled by Public Policy Polling. We could use some good news coming out of a reputable pollster right now about marriage equality, just as they are about to vote. Ask your friends to do so too. We're behind Maine, but not by much.

"It is a terrible thing to see and have no vision." --Helen Keller

"Family" group sacrifices child security on the altar of anti-gay animus

The Washington state Legislature is currently considering a bill (HB 1267) that would update the Uniform Parentage Act of 2002 by "clarifying and expanding the rights and obligations of state registered domestic partners and other couples related to parentage".  Here's a proposed addition to the Act:

Sec. 4.  (2) The provisions in this chapter apply to persons in a domestic partnership to the same extent they apply to persons in a marriage, and apply to persons of the same sex who have children together to the same extent they apply to persons of the opposite sex who have children together.

The bill would put gay and lesbian parents on the same legal footing as straight parents.  This sticks in the craw of the so-called Family Policy Institute of Washington (FPIW), a local affiliate of Focus on the Family and Family Research Council.  FPIW's latest e-mail tries to drum up opposition to the bill by warning:

HB 1267 would change rules regarding presumptions of parentage. Currently, if a married woman gives birth to a child, her husband is legally presumed to be the father of that child. HB 1267 would extend this presumption to same-sex relationships, so that a child could be legally presumed to have a second mother, for example, if the mother is in a domestic partnership with another woman.

Anti-child activist Joseph Backholm, E.D. of FPIW

FPIW was a major player in the 2009 effort to repeal Washington's domestic partnership law via Referendum 71.  That mean-spirited effort failed, and the Washington electorate became the first in the nation to ratify a same-sex relationship recognition law at the polls.

So blinded are they by their anti-gay animus that FPIW would rather put a child at risk than sanction legal recognition of the second parent when the parents are gay or lesbian.  Children with only one legal parent are half as secure as children with two legal parents.  FPIW is punishing children who happen to have gay or lesbian parents by advocating against the legal status of both parents as parents.

This anti-child, anti-family activism comes from an organization that claims that it "believes strong families are the foundation of a strong and healthy state" and is not only "fully committed to promoting public policy that encourages families to form, grow, and endure," but also "advocates for ...parental rights".