Pam Spaulding's Blog, page 93

GLAAD: Ignorance of Transgender Issues Apparent in Media

The following is a crossposted glaadblog entry on transgender depiction in media of late. A San Diego News 10 video piece on transgender veterans that mostly highlighted me (filmed before my tooth extration) is mentioned heavily in the piece.

February 8, 2011

Aaron McQuade, GLAAD's Associate Director of National News

I’ve learned a lot these last nine days.

 

By now, everyone is familiar with the Saturday Night Live sketch mocking transgender women who are transitioning. That ran last Saturday. We spent last Sunday thinking about it, Monday reacting to it, and Tuesday reacting to the reactions to our reaction. (I know.) 

 

On Thursday, San Diego’s Channel 10 ran a story about nationally-known transgender activist and blogger Autumn Sandeen, focusing on her history of military service and on how transgender people will still be denied the chance to serve their country even when “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is repealed.

 

While the story was largely respectful and the reporter’s tone was very fair – right in the middle of the segment, as the reporter was talking about military regulations, the station showed what looked like home video footage of a woman in a red dress posing provocatively. This footage had absolutely nothing to do with what the segment was talking about.  The woman in the video was not Sandeen, and the footage was never explained.

 

Autumn called me on Friday morning to talk about the segment.  Later that night, this showed up courtesy of the Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson.  (Interestingly, that show also featured openly gay British actor/comedian Matt Lucas.)

(The video in this clip is a bit stuttery – if you would rather watch from the show’s homepage, the sketch starts around 14 minutes in.)

Then two days later, viewers who had tuned into the Super Bowl pregame saw this ad for Living Social.

So what are we to think about all of this?

First, the fact that all four of these occurred within days of each other is pure coincidence. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t something bigger at work here.

In all four of these cases, especially the latter three, you can easily point to the fact that people simply do not know what it means to be transgender.

Why would a producer at Channel 10 in San Diego run clips of a woman in a red dress posing provocatively in a story that otherwise had no “provocative” undertones whatsoever? Sure, it could have been someone deliberately trying to confuse the issue or make viewers uncomfortable, and the station doesn’t have the greatest track record when it comes to transgender issues. But it seems equally likely that a producer simply needed b-roll, googled a keyword or two, and popped in whatever came up on YouTube.

 

Either way, the station owes its viewers a better understanding of the issues – and it most definitely owes Autumn an apology.

Craig Ferguson gave us a very different problem, but with the exact same root. I don’t watch the Late Late Show, but from what I’ve been able to piece together, this actor who played Ferguson’s ugly half-sister usually plays Ferguson’s ugly brother (or half-brother, the accounts vary.)  And the joke is probably MEANT to be on Ferguson and his family – not on transgender people in general.  Does it come off that way? That depends on who you talk to. Were some people offended? Very much.

That brings us to the Living Social ad, which presents a character’s journey – from presenting himself as a burly and scruffy ‘man’s man’ to presenting herself as a woman. In fact, the ad uses this journey as a selling point for the Living Social service, sort-of a “hey, what a nice surprise!” and the character in the commercial is portrayed as clearly being very happy with the trajectory of the ad’s plot. Still, there’s a shock/laugh value at play, and it does portray an inaccurate journey through becoming more “cultured,” to being gay, and eventually to presenting as a woman. Did some people, including many LGBT activists, like the spot? Yes.  Were some people offended? You bet. Is there room for improvement? Absolutely.

And that brings us to the common thread here, which is also the catch-22.  The media’s main problem – and its biggest responsibility – both come from the fact that IT delivers the vast majority of the messages the public receives about what it actually means to be transgender. As bad as that SNL sketch was, there’s no doubt that many viewers had no idea before watching it that there even was such a thing as hormone therapy. So those people actually learned a little something from the sketch. Of course, they also learned that SNL wants you to laugh at images of transitioning women.

I wrote about this in great detail last year on the Transgender Day of Remembrance. The simple fact is that an overwhelming majority of Americans simply don’t know any transgender people. According to a study we commissioned in 2008, only eight percent of Americans said they knew someone who was transgender. And of those, almost half said that person was an “acquaintance” or a “non-immediate family member” – not a friend or a close relative.

That leaves about four or five percent of us with a transgender person close enough to us that we can learn about the lives of transgender people – from transgender people themselves. For the other 95%-96% of us, we rely on the media to teach us what it means to be transgender and to tell us their stories. 

Here’s what I learned this week, watching these incidents rolling in – one after another, after another, after another. They are symptoms of the root problem, not the problem itself. You see, those 95%-96% of us? They’re not just watching these shows, they are writing for Craig Ferguson, or working at Channel 10 in San Diego. They’re learning from problematic coverage, then turning around and creating more problematic coverage.

Autumn told me she specifically pointed the reporter from Channel 10 to our resource guide on how to report about transgender issues. But that guide might not have made it all the way to whoever edited the final product. And besides, nowhere in our guide does it say “don’t use inappropriately provocative b-roll.” Sure, that seemed like it should go without saying. But I learned over these last nine days that while it SHOULD go without saying, it doesn’t.

We have a lot of work to do – all of us – when it comes to educating each other about what it means to be transgender. These past nine days should be an important reminder of how much of that work is still undone.

Why conservative power attorney Cleta Mitchell bashes GOProud while her firm embraces diversity

Little birdies from all over the internets have been singing interesting music into my ear as the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, put on by the American Conservative Union, convenes this week.

What's been notable about the conference from the LGBT point of view has been the drama about the participation of the gay conservative GOProud and the myriad social conservatives bailing out because of TEH GAY. It's been quite hysterical for me (honestly, if I could have attended I would for the spectacle); following the songbirds' trail of information about one of the movers and shakers that behind the trashing of GOProud as a participant at CPAC has been quite revealing about the possible motivation for the epic homophobia.

Most of you may not be too familiar with the name Cleta Mitchell. She moves in the highest circles of influence in the conservative sphere. As a partner in the powerful firm of Foley & Lardner, Mitchell has among her client base in DC social conservative Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC), who is one of the wingers boycotting CPAC because GOProud is there. She's referred to by the Wall Street Journal as "the consigliere" when it comes to campaign finance law, embraced by "virtually all of the tea party candidates.

The campaign-finance lawyer is an Oklahoma transplant, Republican convert, and attack attorney of choice for tea-party stars, including Sharron Angle in Nevada; Christine O'Donnell in Delaware; Joe Miller in Alaska; Sen. Jim DeMint in South Carolina; Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania; Marco Rubio in Florida; and Kelly Ayotte in New Hampshire.

...In a time when a federal campaign can't be run without a lawyer, "I think you could argue she is the most important Washington conservative not in public office," said conservative commentator George Will, a friend of Ms. Mitchell's and frequent critic of campaign-finance law. "She's armed and zealous."

...Ms. Mitchell protects client files and won't discuss her cases in front of the other partners at her law firm, Foley & Lardner LLP, some of whom have complained to the firm's management about her causes, said Scott Fredericksen, D.C. managing partner at Foley. He said the clashes were "not surprising."

"I'm of the view that diversity means diversity," he said.

More on that statement bolded above in a bit.

Cleta Mitchell has worked hard behind the scenes to make CPAC unwelcome for GOProud (as we all know, the hypocrites in the the conservative movement love the tortured, closeted homosexuals):

Social conservatives, including the National Organization for Marriage among others, staged a walk-out at a meeting of board members of the Conservative Political Action Conference, according to multiple board members, to protest CPAC's decision to allow GOProud to join the event as more than just a vendor organization.

Those groups put enough pressure on the American Conservative Union, which runs CPAC, that officials put GOProud's fate, along with that of the ultra-conservative John Birch Society, up for a vote. Results made available to board members on Wednesday showed the board voted to allow both groups to continue their affiliation with CPAC.

That could send socially conservative groups packing and cause a rift in the CPAC board. GOProud has its enemies on the board of directors. Board member Cleta Mitchell is stridently opposed to allowing the gay group to participate and has led the charge to kick them out of the event, according to other board members.

Why Cleta has a problem with TEH GAY.

Why is Mitchell so strident about this? Why the fixation on GOProud's participation in CPAC? Well, the public record reveals, ahem, a possible factor and motivation in Mitchell's crusade. Back in the 80s, she was known as State Rep. Cleta Deatherage (D-Norman). She married a gentleman named Duane Draper and they later divorced.

State Rep. Cleta Deatherage, D-Norman , has been granted a divorce from her husband of nine years, Duane Draper . Cleveland County District Judge Mike McDanel approved the divorce petition July 13, the day it was filed, allowing the couple to waive the normal 10-day waiting period for divorces involving only property settlement. Deatherage cited incompatibility as grounds for the divorce.

There was a reason for that incompatibility - Draper was gay .

How do we know this? Draper went on to become director of AIDS programming at the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, where he was well-known and when he passed away in February of 1991, his partner was mentioned in the obituary in the Boston Globe.

Duane Draper, director of AIDS programs for the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, died of AIDS Monday night at his home in Brookline. He was 43.

A former prosecutor in his native Oklahoma, Mr. Draper left a teaching fellowship at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government in 1987 to become AIDS policy coordinator for the state's Executive Office of Human Services. A year later he moved to the public health AIDS job.

His performance prompted the AIDS Action Committee of Massachusetts to give Mr. Draper its 1991 recognition award.

...He leaves his parents, Ellsworth and Clairene Draper of Washington, Okla.; two brothers, Conrad of Yelm, Wash., and Craig of Norman; a sister, Renee Wiggins of Norman; and his companion, Gary Leuschner of Brookline.

I don't really have a dog in this hunt other than to say that this bit of information is just another reminder that the personal issues of the closet wreak havoc on people; it can turn and twist average people into believing that the entire LGBT community should be punished when a marriage didn't work out because of someone discovering they are gay. Mitchell, in her private thoughts and memories has obviously suffered from that time; no one deserves to be hurt by the closet -- however, it is truly sad that all she sees is red when GOProud is invited to the table at CPAC.

And, in light of this information, what's truly unseemly about Mitchell's views about the participation of a gay organization at CPAC is that she is a partner in a law firm, Foley & Lardner, that has an outstanding diversity policy.

Foley is fully invested in establishing an environment that attracts and sustains diversity of gender, ethnicity, and religion, and is supportive of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) attorneys.

Because a strong and effective diversity program is one of the highest priorities of our firm, our Chairman and CEO named a Chief Diversity Partner to help further our efforts and our success. Our Chief Diversity Partner, Maureen McGinnity, personifies the importance we place on our diversity initiative. Maureen brings the highest level of respect and authority to our diversity initiative, and will serve as a catalyst for and a leader in improving our diversity.

Maureen, in conjunction with our firm's management, has defined our diversity mission as follows:

To be the law firm that is open and inclusive to, provides mentoring and training opportunities for, and maintains a barrier-free workplace that supports the bias-free promotion of all individuals.

Why would Foley & Lardner want to associate itself with such strident, biased views on diversity?  It's mind-boggling that Mitchell's very public anti-gay fervor is tolerated at Foley & Lardner, but I suppose that's not a matter they'd prefer to discuss. And I'm sure Cleta isn't interested in talking about it either.

Bad Bad Bad: Harvard Campus Dems Appear To Lean Towards Support Of ROTC Return

I'm a pretty disappointed in Harvard College Democrats. From the Harvard Crimson's Dems Open to ROTC Return:

Members of the Harvard College Democrats gathered last night to discuss whether the exclusion of trans-identified individuals from the military should prevent the return of the Reserve Officers' Training Corps program to campus. Though the organization did not take a formal vote on the matter, those who spoke at the meeting by and large said that ROTC should be welcomed back to Harvard, despite objections over trans exclusion.

Given the National Center For Transgender Equality (NCTE), the Transgender American Veterans Association (TAVA - position statement here), and the school's own Harvard Trans Task Force being against ROTC programs returning to the university campus -- where colleges and universities, such as Harvard, have antidiscrimination policies that include gender identity -- to many trans people that decision would be definitely appear wrongheaded. No doubt a vote favoring the return of an ROTC program at Harvard would be on the wrong side of history -- as much as the 1993 congressional Don't Ask, Don't Tell vote was on the wrong side of history.

Citing a transgender person he knows at Harvard who was disqualified from joining the military because of his sexual identity, Jia Hui Lee '12, a presenter from Harvard Trans Task Force, told the members about an ongoing petition reaffirming Harvard's commitment to non-discrimination policy regardless of an individual's gender identity.

According to Lee, other countries in the world, including Thailand and Australia, allow transgender individuals to join the military.

And even minus the trans issue, there is the matter of the Pentagon not planning on including an antidiscrimination policy when lesbian, gay, and bisexual members are allowed to serve openly, and that the same-sex partners of lesbian, gay, and bisexual servicemembers will be not eligable for any benefits from the military -- as the married spouses of heterosexual couples will be -- are reason enough to to approve of ROTC return to college campuses.

And too, the vote would be very premature: lesbian, gay, and bisexual people are still not allowed as yet to serve openly.

If the Harvard College Democrats vote to come on the wrong, antitransgender and anti-LGB equality side of this issue, there will no doubt be consequences for that official position.

Bad, bad, bad. Harvard College Democrats, don't do it.

Matt Barber continues to gloat about circumstances surrounding murder of David Kato

crossposted on Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters

Some members of the religious right are slowly firing back against the plain truth that the rhetoric they espouse led the murder of Ugandan lgbt activist David Kato:

A litigation organization dedicated to advancing the family says claims that conservatives and Christians are to blame for the death of a homosexual activist in Uganda are false.

Liberals and homosexuals are speaking out in response to Ugandan police reports about homosexual activist David Kato being bludgeoned to death at his home in a country where government leaders have called for the death penalty against homosexuals. According to Matt Barber, director of cultural affairs for Liberty Counsel, the news fits a pattern.

"Somewhere in the world, violence occurs, [and] liberals rush to blame conservative and Christians' -- quote -- 'incendiary rhetoric' for the violence," he reports. "And then later, that rhetoric is proven to be irrelevant, and the left ends up kind of playing the fool with egg all over their face."

He says that is the case in Uganda, where police have arrested a man who lived with Kato and has confessed to murdering him for not paying for sexual favors. So Barber decides the narrative that hate and anti-homosexual rhetoric were somehow responsible for the cruel murder has crumbled around liberals.

Is it just me or is Barber's manner hateful and totally insensitive. And not to mention less than truthful.

Please note how Barber conveniently omitted that:

 

Uganda has a history of persecuting lgbts. So why should we believe officials from the country when they claim that the brutal murder of one of these lgbts - who just happened to be speaking out against said persecution - was the possible result of a "lover's quarrel."

Kato had just won a huge judgment against a Ugandan tabloid which put his picture - and that of several other Ugandan lgbts -  on its cover, telling readers to kill them,

Due to the homophobic climate, Kato expressed serious fears for his life,

President Obama and Secretary of State Hilary Clinton spoke out against Kato's murder and the climate which caused it, and

Lastly, please note the basic dishonesty with Barber's claim. He makes it seem that us "liberals," without provocation, began blaming those on his side of the spectrum for Kato's murder. Where in the hell was Barber the past year and a half  when so-called conservative Christians like Scott Lively went to Uganda and dropped that  self-described "nuclear bomb" against gay rights?

But of course this is Matt Barber, a man who can probably give the nation of Uganda a run for its money in the homophobia department. He is, after all, a man  who not only defends countries which persecute lgbts, describes gay relationships as “one man violently cramming his penis into another man’s lower intestine and calling it ‘love," but also makes it a point to encourage people to focus more on the “ick factor” of gay sex.

But in talking about Kato's murder, Barber takes his homophobia up a notch.

He is clearly practising the kind of Christianity which allowed for whites to look away while other whites were pulling black men out of their homes and lynching them in the South.

Just pretend you don't see or pretend you don't know more than you actually do and things will be fine.

It's sad that someone actually puts this man up as the best Christianity has to offer.

Was Torquemada busy?

Shame And Guilt

As I think about Black History Month, Martin Luther King Jr., and the value of direct action, I look at the lesson MLK Jr. taught about shame and guilt.

Here is a video of Martin Luther King Jr. being interviewed by Dr. Kenneth Clark regarding comments that Malcolm X had made about King. I've copied some excerpted text of the interview on love, shame, and guilt, and included it below the video.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr: Well, I don't think of love...as emotional bosh. I don't think of it as a weak force. But I think of love as something strong, and that organizes itself into powerful direct action. This is what I try to teach in the struggle in the South. That we are not engaged in a struggle that means we sit down and do nothing.

There's a great deal of difference between non-resistance to evil and non-violent resistance. Non-resistance leaves you in a state of stagnant passivity and dead-end complacency. Wherein non-violent resistance means you do resist in a very strong and determined manner. And I think some of the criticisms of non-violence, or some of the critics, fail to realize that we are talking about something very strong, and they confuse non-resistance with non-violent resistance.

Dr. Kenneth Clark: He goes beyond that, in some of the things I've heard him say, to say that this is deliberately -- your philosophy of love of the oppressor, which he identifies completely with the non-violent movement -- he says, this philosophy and this movement are actually encouraged by whites because it makes them comfortable, makes them believe that Negroes are meek, supine creatures.

King: Well, I don't think that's true. If anyone has ever lived with a non-violent movement in the South, from Montgomery on through the Freedom Rides and through the sit-in movement and the recent Birmingham movement, and seen the reactions of many of the extremists and reactionaries in the white community, he wouldn't say that this movement makes, this philosophy makes them comfortable. I think it arouses a sense of shame within them often, in many instances, I think it does something to touch the conscience and establish a sense of guilt. Now so often people respond to guilt by engaging more in the guilt-evoking act in an attempt to drown the sense of guilt. But this approach certainly doesn't make the white man feel comfortable. I think it does the other thing. It disturbs this conscience and it disturbs this sense of contentment he's had.

There are many lessons that the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community's civil rights movement can take from the Black Civil Rights Movement. The value of non-violent resistance and shaming -- of creating a sense of guilt -- is one powerful lesson that LGBT community civil rights activists could learn from the Black Civil Rights Movement.

Our poll finds Delaware supports marriage equality!

Hello again Pam's House Blend readers!
Thanks again so much for your support last month, when we approached the pro-equality blogosphere for help in funding a public opinion poll on marriage equality in Delaware. And now on to the big results: From our press release to the traditional media:

New Poll Finds Delaware Supports Marriage Equality
NEWARK, DE: FEBRUARY 09, 2011 - A new Public Policy Polling survey commissioned by Delaware Right to Marry has found that a near-majority of Delawareans now support marriage equality. The statewide poll of 605 registered voters found that a plurality (48%) of respondents favor "Delaware allowing gay and lesbian couples to enter into same-sex marriages," while an additional 5% were "not sure." Just 16% were "somewhat opposed," with a further 31% "strongly opposed." More Delawareans support same-sex marriage than oppose it.










"This breakdown of those who are 'somewhat' versus 'strongly' opposed is important as the experiences of other states, such as Massachusetts and Vermont, have shown," says Bill Humphrey, Delaware Right to Marry's statewide director and a Massachusetts native. "In those states, opposition to marriage equality dropped dramatically among those who were 'somewhat opposed' beforehand, once they saw first-hand that marriage equality really has no negative impact on their own lives...or really any impact at all. It's time the Delaware legislature embraces equal marriage rights for all its citizens."










The proposal that Delaware Right to Marry has put forth is based on the conservative legislation passed in New Hampshire in 2009, which provides very strong religious freedom protections for churches and other religious organization. Based on the experiences of other states that have ensured such protections, we can expect opposition to marriage equality legislation to decline as Delawareans become more familiar with the specific proposal under consideration.



Other recent polls across the region have also found similar levels of support for marriage equality in nearby states. Next-door neighbor Maryland supports marriage equality for gay couples by a margin of 51-44, according to a new poll by Gonzales Research & Marketing Strategies released a few days before the Delaware survey. With Maryland's legislature poised to pass a marriage equality bill this spring, Delaware businesses stand to lose current and potential future employees to our neighbor if we do not update our own marriage statutes. Additionally, Delaware's lucrative weddings industry along our beautiful beaches will miss a huge opportunity the longer our legislature delays.



The poll was conducted by telephone, with a sample of 605 registered voters statewide, from January 26-28. To ensure a random sample, the poll results were weighted according to standard Public Policy Polling practice to match established demographic statistics for the Delaware population on gender, race, and age. The margin of error on the poll was +/-4%. Public Policy Polling, the North Carolina-based pollster that correctly predicted the result of Delaware's Republican Senate primary in 2010 before other pollsters, uses pre-recorded calls and a push-button response system.

Even though we were hoping for an outright majority, this result was very encouraging all the same and exceeded many predictions I heard over the last several months from skeptics of our effort. This poll was taken at the end of January of this year, and in April 2009, stats wizard Nate Silver projected that if Delaware were to vote on a (hypothetical) marriage equality ban proposal, we would be ready to vote it down by November 2011. We're just a hair's breadth away from majority support for marriage equality now, according to this poll, so it looks like he was right on track.
We hope that these results will convince legislators to start signing on to our moderate and reasonable proposal so we can try to get our bill passed before the end of the session. In the mean time, our small team is working on a plan to move forward on this issue (with or without the legislature) this spring, and we'll be keeping everyone in the loop on that once we announce more details in the coming weeks. Next month, for example, we hope to hold a big rally for marriage equality at the University of Delaware campus in Newark DE with some of the student groups there.


Thanks as usual to jpmassar and clarknt67 for their invaluable help here and across the pro-equality blogosphere. I'll be checking in on the comments here periodically throughout the day.
--Bill Humphrey  Statewide Director  Delaware Right to Marry




PS: If you haven't donated to our cause yet and want to or if you are able to donate more, we could still use your help...we're pretty sure the out-of-state-group-who-shall-not-be-named will be rolling in later this year to oppose equality. Any amount helps us get prepared, as we are a very small operation, but we're also in a small state, which means we can really make the dollars stretch (as long as we don't run TV ads in Philly!). Thanks again for your support.

Guest column by Tony Varona - The Beltway Four: Suburban Washington's Openly Gay Mayors

The Beltway Four: Suburban Washington's Openly Gay Mayors

By Tony Varona

It was only in April of 1974 that Kathy Kozachenko became the first openly gay official to win a race for public elective office in the United States. She won a seat on the Ann Arbor, MI city council. In the ensuing 35 years, many LGBT Americans followed in Kozachenko's footsteps by winning races for county and city council offices throughout the nation. Very few, however, have succeeded at winning the highest ranking and most visible and influential office in local government - that of mayor.

It was with good reason, then, that we celebrated Kenneth Reeves's election as the first openly gay (and African-American) mayor of Cambridge, MA in 1992; Neil Giuliano's election as mayor of Tempe, AZ in 1994; David Cicilline's (now Congressman Cicilline's) election as the first openly gay mayor of an American state capital - Providence, RI - in 2002; Sam Adams's election as mayor of Portland, OR in 2008; Denise Simmons's 2008 election as the first African-American lesbian mayor of Cambridge, MA; and Stu Rasmussen's election in 2008 as the first openly transgender mayor of any American municipality (Silverton, OR). The last two Election Days brought big news with Annise Parker's 2009 election to the mayoralty of Houston, the fourth largest city in the nation, and Lexington, KY's 2010 election of Jim Gray as mayor.

What has not drawn the community and media attention it deserves is the fact that the mayors of four of the most important of Washington, DC's suburbs - all in Maryland either bordering or a few miles north of the DC border - also are openly gay. Mayor Bruce Williams of Takoma Park, Mayor David Lublin of Chevy Chase, Mayor Peter Fosselman of Kensington, and Mayor Jeffrey Slavin of Somerset, serve as the chief executives of towns that are home to some of the most influential members of the Washington elite, including the Chief Justice of the United States, senior members of the President's Administration, diplomats, top association executives and lobbyists, key Congressional staffers, and high-profile print and electronic news media personalities.

In preparing this post, I reached out to and asked each of these four mayors how they think their being openly gay affects their constituents' perspectives, how it has informed their work, and what they think the future holds for LGBT Americans interested in elective office.

More below the fold.

Mayor of Takoma Park since 2007, Bruce Williams was the first openly gay local elected official in Maryland and metropolitan Washington when he was elected to the Takoma Park City Council in 1993. In response to my questions, he said in part:

For those who might not have been as far along as their neighbors, my partner and I have provided an example of how we are really very much like them. We have the same concerns about making sure that our family (including our two children and two grandchildren), along with our community, get the opportunity to live our lives in a supportive and caring environment. [...] Being gay has made it possible for me to have a deeper and more personal understanding of the plight of other minorities, and this has made me more open and sympathetic to the concerns of people in a much broader way. I think that LGBT Americans interested in elective office can see that just about anything is possible. If we bring our concerns to the table, understand the concerns of others, and work to build partnerships with others across a broad spectrum of issues, we can gain and hold elective office.

Chevy Chase's David Lublin has served as mayor since May 2010. (David is a government professor and a colleague of mine at American University, and - I am proud to say - is my own mayor.) He was first elected to the Chevy Chase Town Council in 2008. He said:

[My being openly gay] doesn't come up a lot in discussions of snow removal, sector plans, and power outages. When the power goes out, no one really cares if the person in charge is gay or straight - they just want it turned on again! On the other hand, I think it provides one more example of the normalcy of LGBT people and our lives. Thinking about where we were 20 years ago, it's amazing that there are so many open and out officials in Montgomery County and Maryland. When the extraordinary becomes ordinary, that's progress. I think it does sensitize people to the need to include all classes of people when issues such as benefits and equal treatment come up.

[Being gay] has accentuated my belief that government needs to go the extra mile to include people on the outside and I hope more awareness of people whose voices are not always heard. Being LGBT is pretty much a non-issue for most voters in Montgomery County today. This reflects that our county is at the forefront of a trend which is becoming more and more common around America. LGBT candidates will increasingly feel free to run for office and then win or lose based on voter assessments of their abilities and issue positions - the next step in moving towards a society that judges people by the "content of their character" in the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Mayor Pete Fosselman of Kensington echoed some of Mayor Lublin's remarks:

My being gay - at least in Kensington - has no effect with my constituents; as the Town is clearly a socially liberal community (and we are 38% Republican) and residents don't think twice about it. They have elected me three times [first in 2006] to run the Town and revitalize it. Gay or straight has no bearing. Part of this may be that we are small in comparison to, say, Takoma Park or even much larger - Baltimore, where social issues may have more relevance. With reference to the future for LGBT leaders? I think more people are adopting Kensington-like attitudes about being gay or straight. They don't care. If you can get the job done, then you are a good leader. However, organizations like Equality Maryland, the Victory Fund and the HRC and fearless individuals have opened a tremendous number of doors that were locked for years to all of us in the LGBT community. I sometimes feel that I'm coasting on their work, considering what politicians before my time had to navigate just to serve the public, and be recognized as equals.

Mayor Jeffrey Slavin of Somerset, first elected mayor in 2008, shared these interesting and thought-provoking answers:

I live in a Town where I would call the overwhelming majority of residents "progressive." I think they actually like having someone from our LGBT community as mayor because it makes a statement to the world on their behalves. I think that most of my constituents are generally supportive of ENDA, marriage equality and gays in the military, for example. Being gay has helped me to be more sensitive to and give respect to all voices and opinions and to protect those in the minority on issues even when I disagree. As the next generations advance in age and in their careers, more LGBT Americans than ever will hold elective office because young people today are indifferent to or understand the irrelevance of sexuality for office holders as far as ability to do the job. And I actually predict that one day we will be overrepresented in elective office in the same way that we are overrepresented in hairdressing, floristry and in Hollywood.

As several of them noted, Mayors Williams, Lublin, Fosselman and Slavin were elected to office in municipalities known for being home to large numbers of progressive residents. But this reality should neither diminish the significance of their respective elections, nor minimize the effect their visible leadership has on public perceptions concerning LGBT rights causes. All four mayors, no doubt, serve some very powerful constituents whose influence is felt far beyond the borders of these small towns, but whose views on LGBT equality are unsupportive or, at best, evolving. Seeing these mayors lead local government - skillfully administering town finances, personnel and public institutions - helps change many hearts and minds towards acceptance, understanding and, ultimately, support. For some of these residents, in fact, the mayor and his partner may be the only openly gay people with whom they relate on a regular basis.

The mere presence of an openly gay chief executive in government can catalyze efforts towards marriage equality and statutory nondiscrimination protections. As an especially striking example of this dynamic, Iceland's 2009 election of the first openly gay head of state in the world, Johanna Sigurdardottir, preceded the unanimous adoption in June 2010 of a national law granting full marriage equality to same-sex couples. With passage of Maryland's marriage equality bill within striking distance in the state legislature, and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) again under consideration approximately 6 miles to the south on Capitol Hill, the high-profile and effective leadership of the openly gay mayors of Washington's Maryland suburbs has never been so important.

Tony Varona is a law professor and academic dean at the American University Washington College of Law. He is on the board of directors of GLAAD and is the former general counsel/legal director for HRC & HRC Foundation.

Hawaii House Judiciary Committee Sends Civil Unions to Floor

Good morning and big Aloha, Blenders!!! Yesterday the Hawaii House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on SB232, a Bill for Civil Unions. As you may recall, last week the State Senate passed SB232 by a vote of 19-6, and sent it to the House for consideration. The House Judiciary Committee, after hearing testimony in a packed auditorium, passed SB232 out of committee by a vote of 11-2 (3 excused). The votes were as follows (tally courtesy of Mike Golojuch, Chair, Honolulu Pride Parade):

Voting YES : Rep. Gilbert S.C. Keith-Agaran, Chair, Rep. Karl Rhoads, Vice Chair, Rep. Tom Brower, Rep. Hermina M. Morita, Rep. Blake K. Oshiro, Rep. Robert N. Herkes, Rep. Clift Tsuji, Rep. Ken Ito, Rep. Sylvia Luke, Rep. Barbara C. Marumoto, Rep. Cynthia Thielen

Voting NO: Rep. Joseph M. Souki, Rep. George R. Fontaine

Excused: Rep. Rida T.R.  Cabanilla, Rep. Mele Carroll, Rep. Angus L.K. McKelvey

SB232 isn't the only bill being considered by the legislature regarding relationship recognition. From KITV:

House Bill 1453 is the most extensive of the proposals, with more than 400 pages dedicated to making scores of changes to states civil and criminal laws wherever they reference marriage rights and responsibilities, including details about how a civil union would be terminated in family court. The bill would also allow only same-sex couples access to civil unions.

The third bill, introduced by civil unions opponent Rep. Joe Souki, would protect clergy and religious organizations from being forced to provide any services to a couple united by a civil union.

I am currently unable to find the bill introduced by Rep. Joe Souki on the Hawaii State Legislature page, so I will refrain from commenting on its content. 

SB232 now goes to the full House floor, where it will go through a second and third reading.

 

 

Presbyterian minister Rev. Jean Southard acquitted in marriage equality trial

On March 1, 2008 retired Presbyterian Church (USA) minister Rev. Jean Southard officiated at the marriage ceremony of two of her parishoners, Jen and Sara.  The ceremony was conducted at First Presbyterian Church in Waltham, Massachusetts.

Marriage equality was already the law of the land in Massachusetts in 2008, but PC(USA)'s ecclesiastical law remains unsettled on the question.  A disciplinary complaint was filed against Rev. Southard within the PC(USA).

Today the PC(USA)'s highest judicial body, the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission, ruled that Rev. Southard will not be censured.

This verdict doesn't remove the risk of censure for other PC(USA) ministers wishing to conduct marriages for gay & lesbian couples.  Only a change in the PC(USA) constitution (the Book of Order) can do that.  Encouragingly however, five of the fourteen commissioners called the church constitution "contradictory," and eleven of the fourteen called on the church's legislative body to take action.

In a concurring opinion, five commissioners said:

While we agree with the constitutional interpretation of the majority, we are intensely troubled by the underlying issue - the marginalization of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people by the constitution of the Presbyterian Church (PCUSA).  This issue is larger than the PC(USA).  It is a human rights issue.

The PCUSA is reformed and always being reformed.  The constitution is contradictory in its language regarding the acceptance of our gay, lesbian, and bisexual brothers and sisters into the full fellowship of the church.

In a separate concurring opinion, another six commissioners noted that:

...The church needs a sharper degree of clarification and guidance that precisely defines how it understands marriage, especially in light of the high financial and personal burden involved. Given the contention regarding the nature and practice of Christian marriage in our time, it would be important and valuable for the Church to state its definition in clearer and more precise legislation.

"What's clear from the commissioners' concurring opinions is that there are still contradictions in our church constitution that need to be resolved," said Sara Taylor, of Rev. Southard's legal defense team. "The refusal of the church to ecclesiastically support these marriages is in direct contradiction to its calls for inclusiveness and oneness in the body of Christ.  I'm pleased to see that these commissioners recognized this and that eleven of the fourteen are clear that the church leadership must take a stand and resolve these contradictions."

Rev. Southard said in a statement today:

The Presbyterian Church (USA) is as deeply divided over same-gender marriage as the country is.  In the five states and the District of Columbia where marriage is inclusive of same-gender couples, ministers are being called upon by members of their churches to bless their vows and solemnize their marriages, but until now the church has given no guidance on whether ministers may do them.

Through our church's legislative process there have been attempts to make law that the church will recognize marriage only between a man and a woman, and attempts to change the definition of marriage to a civil contract between two persons, leaving out the gender.  Neither of these efforts has succeeded.

This has left Presbyterian ministers in marriage-inclusive jurisdictions in a difficult position.  Any pastor who provides pastoral care for a member couple by officiating at their same-gender marriage runs the risk of being prosecuted by those who disagree. [snip]

I didn't set out to bring about change in the church.  My only intent was to do what is faithful to the call of Jesus to love all our neighbors without exception.  When Sara and Jen asked me to marry them, there was no question in my mind that to discriminate against them would be to fracture the body of Christ.  To say yes to them was to say yes to all that I hold dear in our faith.

Read Rev. Southard's full statement below the fold.

Related:

* Conversation with a straight Presbyterian Ally

* Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) lifts ban on noncelibate gay clergy but dodges the marriage question

Statement to the press by Rev. Jean Southard on conclusion of church trial

February 8, 2011

Rev. Jean Southard, a retired Presbyterian minister who was put on trial for officiating at the legal marriage of a same-gender couple in Massachusetts, issued the following statement today following the conclusion of the trial:

"My name is Jean Southard.  I became a Presbyterian in 1968, a few months after the death of Martin Luther King Jr.  The local Presbyterians had taken a costly stand for civil rights and I was drawn to both their inclusiveness and the integrity the church showed within the community.

"I have remained a Presbyterian for over 40 years - and an ordained minister for 22 of them - partly for love of our egalitarian polity, but primarily because social justice has been an important theme in our common ministry.

"When my home state of Massachusetts expanded our civil laws to embrace the unions of same-gender couples as legal marriages, one of our church's most devoted and faithful couples - Sara and Jen - came to me.  "Will you marry us?" they asked.

"As with any other request for marriage, I proceeded with premarital counseling and used my pastoral discretion to determine whether Sara and Jen were ready to take this next step on their journey together in life.

"I knew that my church's highest authority - the teaching of Jesus Christ -called on me to embrace love and inclusion.  Respecting loving relationships and shepherding them into faithful partnerships is a critical role for us all as followers of Jesus' ministry.

"I also knew my church's legal authority, our Book of Order, is full of affirming statements not just calling on, but requiring the inclusion of all God's children in the church.

"With the authority given to me by both the church and the state, in addition to the unanimous support of our local church leaders, I happily agreed to solemnize the marriage of this faithful couple. It was a truly beautiful moment, and one I know that embodied the teachings of Jesus.

"The Presbyterian Church (USA) is as deeply divided over same-gender marriage as the country is.  In the five states and the District of Columbia where marriage is inclusive of same-gender couples, ministers are being called upon by members of their churches to bless their vows and solemnize their marriages, but until now the church has given no guidance on whether ministers may do them.

"Through our church's legislative process there have been attempts to make law that the church will recognize marriage only between a man and a woman, and attempts to change the definition of marriage to a civil contract between two persons, leaving out the gender.  Neither of these efforts has succeeded.

"This has left Presbyterian ministers in marriage-inclusive jurisdictions in a difficult position.  Any pastor who provides pastoral care for a member couple by officiating at their same-gender marriage runs the risk of being prosecuted by those who disagree.

"I have seen this case before the GAPJC as one of ecclesiastical rights, similar to the civil rights cases that came before the United States Supreme Court.  It is generally up to the courts to decide for inclusiveness when the legislature is unable to.

"I didn't set out to bring about change in the church.  My only intent was to do what is faithful to the call of Jesus to love all our neighbors without exception.  When Sara and Jen asked me to marry them, there was no question in my mind that to discriminate against them would be to fracture the body of Christ.  To say yes to them was to say yes to all that I hold dear in our faith.

"I am grateful to the Permanent Judicial Commission for finding that I should not be censured for the marriage I performed. I am saddened that this verdict does not make it possible for ministers to do the good and loving thing for their parishioners without the fear that someone will accuse them of violating church law."

###

From More Light Presbyterians

The decision by the General Assembly's Permanent Judicial Commission in the Rev. Jean Southard marriage case was released today. Charges had been brought against Rev. Southard who officiated at the wedding of two women at First Presbyterian Church, Waltham, MA, a welcoming and affirming More Light church in a state where same sex marriage is legal. The charges in the disciplinary case against Rev. Jean Southard have been dismissed by the GAPJC.

We encourage you to read the entire GAPJC findings to understand the nuances of Presbyterian polity and procedures and the basis for their decision.

Jean K. Southard v. Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)

through Presbytery of Boston, Appellee (Complainant)

We also urge you to read the two concurrences from members of the GAPJC that follow the decision. One concurrence raises the question as to whether or not W-4.9001 "provides an effective and unambiguous definition of Christian marriage." The other concurrence calls marriage equality a "human rights issue" and calls upon the General Assembly to amend the constitution to allow for marriage of same sex couples in the PCUSA.

We give thanks to God for the faithful ministry of Rev. Jean Southard. We are grateful that charges against Rev. Southard have been dismissed by our Church's highest court. We are grateful that the concurrences that accompany this GAPJC decision recognize that marriage equality is a human rights issue and call upon the General Assembly to amend the constitution to allow for marriage equality.

More Light Presbyterians is wholeheartedly committed to spiritual equality, ordination equality and marriage equality in the life, ministry and witness of the Presbyterian Church (USA). This GAPJC decision and its concurrences are important steps toward the achievement of marriage equality.

with hope and gratitude,

Michael

Michael J. Adee, Executive Director & Field Organizer, More Light Presbyterians

Killings Of Six Honduran Transgender Women In A Span Of Two Months

I missed this story while I was feeling particularly ill from my my tooth removal, but it's important enough story that even late as it is to highlight this story, the story still needs highlighting.

From Pink News' Six trans women killed in Honduras in two months:

LGBT campaigners are calling on Honduran authorities to fully investigate the murders of six transgender women in just 60 days.

According to Human Rights Watch, the first death was on November 29th and the latest took place on January 17th.

The women were murdered on the streets or in their homes in the capital, Tegucigalpa, and in the cities of Comayag?ela and San Pedro Sula.

The attacks ranged from gunshots to setting the victims on fire.

Human Rights Watch stated on January 31st that there's been zero arrests -- they are calling on Honduras to investigate murders of the transgender women.

Blabberando reported that United States to assist in investigation of transgender killings in Honduras. Blabberando earlier reported that U.S. Ambassador to Honduras, Hugo Lllorens, had made the Honduran authorities responsible for the proper investigation of these crimes:

[T]he United States Embassy in Honduras has taken the highly unusual step of releasing an official statement asking the Honduran government and it's authorities to investigate a number of recent murders committed against members of the LGBT community in Honduras.

Hugo Llorens (pictured), the U.S. Ambassador to Honduras, sat down to talk yesterday with La Prensa and was asked about the murders and the official statement from his office. Here is what he said:

"The gay community in many countries, including mine, is very vulnerable to discrimination and harassment. It's not an unique problem to Honduras, but it is worrisome that the five murders have occurred within a period of a little month than a month.  That's why we have asked the authorities in charge to apply the extent of the law [and] to see the situation as a threat to human rights."

Blabberando also added, in personal commentary:

[I]n my years covering LGBT rights in Latin America, I could not remember the last time an U.S. ambassador had spoken up specifically on the issue of human rights violations against a Latin American country's LGBT population.

Well, tonight, add the voice of a sitting United States president to that list. And words do matter.

...As for Honduras: Following today's statement by United States President Barack Obama, the Honduran president Porfirio Lobo Sosa held a press conference today and announced that the United States Department of State had committed to send trained personnel to investigate the recent number of transgender murders, even as he took the opportunity to play down the number of transgender murders.

Words do matter, as well as the lives of the six Honduran transgender women. I'm sad at the losses of those women, and heartened by the U.S. response these women's killings.

The unsolved killings of six transgender women -- killed over just a two-month span -- cannot be acceptable as a final outcome. The homicides need to be solved.