Pam Spaulding's Blog, page 94

DADT repeal news...call for DOD boards to review discharge cases; Navy prepares implementation plan

A few things have popped into the inbox regarding DADT implementation. As you know, all we have to celebrate so far is the legislative repeal. Discharges have not stopped, no policy changes have occurred -- Sec Def Robert Gates and Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mullen, as well as Commander-in-Chief Obama have to sign off on the findings of the Pentagon's DADT repeal "impact" report that was released last year. And, of course, all of the service branches have to have implementation plans ready.

First this release from SLDN:

SLDN calls on Department of Defense to create special boards to help former service members harmed by DADT discharges

Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) sent a letter Monday calling upon Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness Dr. Clifford Stanley to establish Special Boards that would address issues faced by former service members discharged under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) and the prior regulatory ban. Since President Obama signed legislation on December 22, 2010 allowing for the repeal of DADT, SLDN has received hundreds of calls from those fired under the law who wish to see their discharge paperwork changed or who wish to apply for re-accession to the armed services. "Creating these Special Boards will be one of the first important steps the Defense Department can take to help former service members who were harmed by the DADT law," said Aubrey Sarvis, Army veteran and executive director for Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.

The overwhelming majority of former service members who have contacted SLDN in the last few weeks are seeking to change their discharge paperwork to remove the remnants of the "Don't Ask" law, which can subject them to discrimination in civilian life. Many of these same former service members also want to return to the military, either in the positions they were forced to leave or in another capacity of service to their country.

Sarvis went on to say, "Once repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' goes into effect, we expect the military will receive thousands of requests from former service members with questions in one or both of these areas. We propose that the Department of Defense create Special Boards to deal with these issues once repeal becomes effective. Creating these Boards will enable the armed services to determine the proper remedy for each former service member in a fair, uniform, and efficient manner. We are confident Secretary Gates and Dr. Stanley have the authority to take this important step and ensure these Boards are put in place."

There was also news, reported by the Navy Times, that command training or online instruction will be required for all serving. More below the fold, including video.
Navy Times:

The training will be recorded for active-duty sailors and reservists, defense contractors and some Navy civilians, according to NAVADMIN 041/11 released by Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead.

"It is important for our sailors to understand what this change means to them, their families and our Navy," Roughead said in the 1-minute-long video. "This change in the law ensures that qualified citizens can serve based on individual merit, fitness, and capability without regard to sexual orientation. No one is being asked to change their moral or religious beliefs."

In the message, Roughead outlines three levels of training:

? Commanders, executive officers and command master chiefs will be trained by "mobile training teams" of experts and fleet representatives. These leaders, in turn, will be expected to train their commands.

? All hands will receive instruction on the new policy and expectations for personal behavior. In cases in which sailors are assigned to non-Navy units or are unavailable, they will complete the training with their parent command or online.

? Separate training will be provided to those who will enforce or support the new policy, such as recruiters, judge advocates and chaplains.

"The path to repeal of [don't ask, don't tell] requires informed and proactive leadership at every level," Roughead said in the NAVADMIN message. "I am counting on each of you."

And from Outserve , the underground network of LGBTs in active service, has published a communication from the Navy brass regarding implementation of repeal - and a timeline. A snippet (I modified the case for readability; the original is in all caps):

A TIERED APPROACH TO ENSURE PERSONNEL RECEIVE THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF TRAINING. THE CENTRAL MESSAGE OF THIS TRAINING WILL FOCUS ON LEADERSHIP, PROFESSIONALISM, DISCIPLINE, AND RESPECT.

A. LEADERSHIP. This is a major policy change and focused leadership is required to set conditions for success for unit cohesion, readiness, and the effectiveness of a given command. Frontline leaders are tasked with building unit cohesion and maintaining readiness in a diverse force to meet mission requirements. By providing leaders at all levels with accurate information, we enhance our ability to ensure a smooth policy transition with minimal disruption to the force.

B. PROFESSIONALISM. We have taken an oath as military professionals to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and we are committed to our navy core values. Emphasizing these professional obligations in a post-repeal environment will reinforce expectations of personal behavior and will help reduce any impact a policy change may have on our effectiveness.

C. DISCIPLINE. The uniform code of military justice (UCMJ) emains the legal foundation of good order and discipline. The ucmj provides for enforcement of standards of conduct and laws and prohibits harassment, sexual assault, and other violence. Accountability is a cornerstone of good order and discipline and will continue to guide standards of acceptable behavior.

D. RESPECT. As leaders we must focus on our values and Navy traditions as the foundation for maintaining the strength of our force. Central to that strength is treating all people with respect and dignity regardless of sexual orientation.

 

7-year-old donates to L.A. G&L Center because 'gay people are not treated equally'

These activists are getting younger and younger! Stevie St. John of the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center said this in an email:

I wanted to share with you the attached letter we received last week, along with a $70 donation, from a remarkable 7-year-old boy named Malcolm. It brought tears to my eyes, as it did to most of the staff here. His note and generosity really gives us hope for the future.

When we contacted his mom (who had included a note along with his), she gave us permission to share his letter and challenged us to raise $27K in his name.

And now the campaign has been launched:

"What we found in our mailbox has everyone here at the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center buzzing," says Center CEO Lorri L. Jean.

His name is Malcolm, but we call him our "Littlest Champion." On a note that accompanied the check he wrote: 'I am sending you this money because I don't think it's fair that Gay people are not treated equally.'

...Malcolm's gift gave me such hope for our future. A hope that when his generation reaches adulthood,  all of the homophobia, discrimination, and abuse we in the LGBT community face today will no longer exist."

Ronald Reagan becomes homophobes' new 'tool' in attacking lgbts

crossposted on Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters

I haven't weighed on the conservative mass inconization of former President Ronald Reagan because to a degree, it's so amusing.

While many on our side of the spectrum have pointed out flaws in Reagan's policies that should make today's conservatives shiver at the notion of making him their hero, as well as pointing out his lack of attention in the early days of the AIDS crisis, those who are "celebrating Reagan's legacy" are consuming themselves with making him less of a person and more of a marketing commodity.

It all reminds me of the the Adult Swim cartoon series, "The Boondocks" when it featured a "what if" episode starring Martin Luther King, Jr. Apparently according to the episode, King wasn't assassinated in 1968 but put into a coma.

What he finds when he wakes up is a world not geared to listen to his nonviolent philosophy but willing to market his image on everything, include fast food place mats.

A constant refrain of King was that he should somehow get some type of licensing over his image.

Somehow, I think if Reagan were alive, he would be asking the same question.

The ad on the left is from a group boycotting the conservative CPAC conference because they resent having a gay group, GOProud, being one of the sponsors.

Apparently their full page ad is a way of bringing Reagan's legacy on board with their crusade.

The irony is that the ad ( Granted, it's not say that Reagan was the lgbt's community's best friend, so to speak. But the ad, signed by such prominent homophobes as Brian Camenker of Mass Resistance, Robert Knight of the Americans Civil Rights Union, World Net Daily, and Don Wildmon of the American Family Association (i.e. Bryan Fischer) seems to be wanting to exploit Reagan's prominence in the conservative movement while omitting certain incidents which may contradict the ad itself.

Like the 1978 situation regarding the Briggs Amendment in California. The Briggs Amendment would have barred gays and lesbians from teaching in the state's public schools. Reagan came out publicly against the amendment, even writing an editorial to the Los Angeles Herald-Examiner outlining why the Amendment should be defeated. Reagan said in part:

“Whatever else it is, homosexuality is not a contagious disease like the measles. Prevailing scientific opinion is that an individual's sexuality is determined at a very early age and that a child's teachers do not really influence this."

His opposition to the Amendment played a part in its defeat.

So what have we learned here? Nothing about Reagan, really. But more and more about the lack of integrity of those wanting to condemn lgbts to a second class status. And not caring who they exploit to achieve this goal.

Mike Signorile: Rewriting History - false narratives of how DADT repeal came to pass

In the March issue of the Advocate, Michelangelo Signorile's column stirs the pot (in a good way) about some of the interesting false narratives seeping in the the discussion about how DADT was legislatively repealed.

These fantasy narratives, in his view, only serve to hamper future battles to win LGBT rights. I'll list them all here (in the interest of ensuring you click over to read the whole column), and focus on one specific false narrative that pertains to the work of blogs/new media.

Revision number 1:The president really did have a plan for repeal.

Revision number 2: Grassroots activists caused more problems than they solved and were wrong all along.

Revision number 3: Putting repeal in the defense authorization bill was wrong. It should have been crafted as stand-alone legislation all along.

I think we all know that the White House didn't have a plan, unless it was to look like buffoons.

If there were a plan throughout 2010, it would have been quite an elaborate and risky one. Was part of the "plan" for the Democrats to lose the House? To allow Republicans to filibuster the defense authorization bill twice? To then remove DADT repeal from that bill and have Republican senator Susan Collins of Maine and independent senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut forge a stand-alone bill? And then to vote on repeal in the lame-duck session with precious little time, only after an omnibus spending bill was pulled because Republicans dropped their support for it at the last minute?

Someone should write this up as a sitcom script; it would surely be more entertaining than most of the crap on TV. And on Revision number 3, that was its own mess of scrambling to get something done, and even that was drama-laden -- there was no plan.

But Revision 2 is by far the most damaging aspect of the revisionist history narrative; it's the attempt to make some of the Beltway players appear competent, successful and, of course, powerful, all while diminishing the efforts, political savvy and will of outside forces - the grassroots.

You'll recall that HRC always said there was "a plan" being worked on with the White House, and as the slow-walking and dodges on questions by Press Sec Robert Gibbs about strategy became, again, almost epic comedy that we chronicled here on the Blend, there was no momentum. There were apologies for the lack of movement as the clock ticked away. The President simply wasn't using any of his considerable powers of persuasion or the bully pulpit to get movement on The Hill. Mike affirmed the role of the blogs in continuing the pressure to make repeal happen, as well as the high-profile actions by activists:

HRC's ineptitude was further amplified when the direct action group GetEqual came onto the scene last spring. The actions of Robin McGehee, Lt. Dan Choi, Autumn Sandeen, and other GetEqual activists arrested for chaining themselves to the White House gates, among other protests, sent a message to the administration and Congress that patience was no virtue to those demanding an end to "don't ask, don't tell." According to media reports, Obama grew angry at the actions of these activists, who also disrupted his speeches at fund-raisers for Dems facing tough reelection bids. But that was a good thing; the pressure needed to be on him. The same was true of Senate majority leader Harry Reid, whom GetEqual targeted when members shut down the Las Vegas Strip in protest during the annual Netroots Nation convention in July (Reid was also later confronted onstage by Choi).

The claim that these actions were counterproductive is ludicrous. These grassroots players became the very people that the White House and Reid ultimately responded to, and they were later invited to the repeal signing ceremony in December. Had they not engaged in civil disobedience, repeal would have stalled further.

So what does this tell us? The more important question is why the seeming need to revise history? Belittling the role of outside forces in order to puff up egos and "the system" makes little sense as there are myriad battles ahead. We all sense that the balance of influence has shifted with the addition of new media paired with direction to the picture; to what degree that affects those with the actual power is still hard to discern. But the shift need not be erased or denigrated as a defensive posture.

In order to win legislative gains at all levels, there needs to be better communication between all forces that work for equality; this isn't some turf battle. I can only speak for myself - I don't want or need a Beltway activist job, I do what I do because I care about equality, and live where I know there is official inequality 24/7 and I hear about it from all over the country. I don't need a reminder. That's all the motivation I need to blog, or engage in offline activism, most of the time for nothing.

Perhaps that's the issue -- an unhealthy level of self-interest in conflict with mission. And whether it be fears about re-election, kissing enough booty for access, or fear of loss of donor support, or just fear of change, there is no need to paper it over. Adapt, acknowledge and move on -- we have more challenges ahead that require all of us putting thinking caps on, not building barracades to protect one's turf.

Two peas in a pod -- Newt and Haggard

These two headlines say it all:

The Advocate: Is This a Face You Can Trust? (Ted Haggard).

"I've had the thoughts and the desires sometimes - but never something compulsive since," he says. Probe further, and Haggard retreats a bit. He has firm talking points about Grant Haas, the former New Life volunteer who came forward as the Haggards were doing press interviews for The Trials of Ted Haggard in 2009. Ted had sent "inappropriate" text messages to the young man and masturbated in a Cripple Creek, Colo., hotel room that they shared during a field trip. "I'd appreciate it," he says, "if you remember that there was never any sexual contact between us, nor was their any contemplation of sexual contact on either of our parts." The sexual details of his life are now a matter between him and his wife, he says. He prompts a final scowl from the couple behind him when he adds that his marital intimacy is "vibrant, very satisfying.

and

TPM: Newt Gingrich's Second Wife Dishes Hard To Esquire: His Money Woes, His Philandering, His Meltdown.

Although I have to say, in spite of wanting to gag at Haggard's nonsense, it's Newt that takes the cake. It's below the fold.
You may want to sanitize your keyboard after reading this...

Gingrich, like several of his colleagues, were not immune from charges of infidelity.

In 1998, Salon reported that, much like his first marriage, Newt was dogged with rumors about alleged infidelities. In addition to rumors swirling around the Hill in 1997 and 1998, Gingrich faced accusations that he conducted an affair in 1977 based on his ability to deny that he'd "had sex" with a woman. From the 1995 Vanity Fair profile:

In the spring of 1977, [Anne Manning, who admitted to a relationship with Gingrich that started during his 1976 campaign] was in Washington to attend a census-bureaus workshop when Gingrich took her to dinner at a Vietnamese restaurant. He met her back at her modest hotel room. "We had oral sex," she says. "He prefers that modus operandi because then he can say, "I never slept with her." Indeed, before Gingrich left that evening, she says, he threatened her: "If you ever tell anybody about this, I'll say you're lying."

A neighbor of his first wife, Jackie's, said he, too, saw Gingrich engaging in extramarital oral sex.

Kip Carter, who lived a few doors down from the couple, saw more than he wanted to. "We had been out working a football game --I think it was the Bowdon game-- and we would split up. It was a Friday night. I had Newt's daughters, Jackie Sue and Kathy, with me. We were all supposed to meet back at this professor's house. It was a milk-and-cookies kind of shakedown thing, buck up the troops. I was cutting across the yard to go up the driveway. There was a car there. As I got to the car, I saw Newt in the passenger seat and one of the guys' wives with her head in his lap going up and down. Newt kind of turned and gave me his little-boy smile. Fortunately, Jackie Sue and Kathy were a lot younger and shorter then.

That article came out, of course, before the sordid details of Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky and his artfully worded denials were public.

GLSEN's nod to your blogmistress for Black History Month; the power of GSAs

When you're having a lousy health day (I've figure out that this has to be another fibro flare; I haven't had one in a while), news like this is like a small ray of sunshine.

The Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, known widely because of its Day of Silence campaign in schools each year, works to educate teachers, students and the public at large about the damaging effects of homophobia and heterosexism on students and adults alike. It also supports and laid the groundwork for Gay-Straight Alliances (GSAs) in schools around the country, with over 4,000 GSAs registered today.

GLSEN features a series of posts on its blog this month, "Black History Month Heroes," and was kind enough to include me (see graphic) I'm humbled.

GLSEN is proud to honor Black History Month by celebrating the contributions of the African American community to the LGBT and safe schools movements. Throughout February we will be recognizing the African American heroes who have made significant contributions to the LGBT and safe schools movements.

You can tweet your heroes to @DayofSilence using the #GLSENBHM hash tag. Visit GLSEN's page on Facebook for more information.

One of most interesting experiences I've had working with a local GSA was when I went to young people a couple of years ago at Chapel Hill High School.

Some of the GSA members are fully out as gay, lesbian, bisexual or allies (no transfolk are in the group at this time, which has had as many as 50 members show up), some are out to siblings, but not all family members. Quite a few come from religious families where they know it would cause a great deal of strife to come out at this time.

After the GSA meeting, senior Kat Gipson didn't have a class right away, so she took time to sit with me and discuss the group, life in school for LGBT young men and women, what her plans are for the future (being out in college, and on the job one day), and what it's like to be LGBT and in her faith community. I'm still editing that long segment, but I wanted to put this other clip out there because it is powerful -- Kat shares her personal story of being gay-bashed in school; it forced her out of the closet to her parents, and spurred her to join the GSA.

See her video, and an update below the fold.
I'm happy to report that since this video, North Carolina passed an anti-bullying law that included orientation and gender expression. (Let's hope the newly minted GOP-led legislature doesn't try to undo it).

Pam Spaulding: Tell me now, what was the incident that made you want to join the GSA?

Kat Gipson: When I was in tenth grade, I had a girlfriend and we had been dating for about 3 months. It was fine until, in the hallway I started getting comments- I would just hear them over my shoulder- quick words like, you know, like "effing lesbian", or "we don't need people like you at our school" or "you need to, like...". Just random things regarding my sexuality and threats.

I actually got a death threat at one point, right in front of the administrator's office, so every time I would turn around really quickly and no one would be there. Because it would be like, in a crowded hall of students, and I just wouldn't see anybody. Or I would see people walking away. And... so... this went on for awhile, about 2 weeks, and there were several incidents.

And then there was one day that I left a class early because I asked if I could go to the bathroom and my teacher said, "Just take your stuff and just go ahead" so it was right before the bell rang. And I was coming out of my bathroom, the bathroom, and I was walking this way. And as I was turning, I saw out of the corner of my eye, just figures, I mean they all had their hoods up and I was like, "Whatever"...

Pam Spaulding: The sweat hoodies?

Kat Gipson: "They're just coming out of class; it's not a big deal."

I turned and started walking down the hall and then I started hearing footsteps, like RUNNING, and I turned around really quick, and someone grabbed the side of my face, and slammed me into a locker, and I had a group of people around me, just pushing me, like continuously into a locker, saying stuff like, "Fag", "Lesbian", like, "Get out of our school", all these different things like...

I just curled up in a ball and covered up my head, because at that point I just didn't care who it was, right then. I was just like, "Don't hurt me". And then the bell rang. And they all just got up and ran down the hall.

And at that moment I was so terrified that I was shaking and I got my stuff- I got up and I went to my teacher, who I trusted alot, and told her. She took me immediately to Mr. Herseburger, and he took us directly to the security. The administrator didn't do anything, um, throughout the entire time, nothing-

Pam Spaudling: Did your parents speak to them?

Kat Gipson: My parents spoke to them; they came in and this was when I was, when I had to come out to my parents, because it was a legal issue. And so um, I did have to tell them, you know, "So, hi guys... A- I got beat up at school and B- I'm gay, by the way, that's why".

And so they came in- we had this huge conference, with like my counselors and the security guard. We looked over the surveillance tapes, um, we couldn't actually see- there wasn't a tape of them beating up, but we could see behind me in the hallways. And I would turn around really quickly. And I'd say, "Right there. Right there. That's the person." But we never caught their faces.

So this went on for 2 weeks, maybe, with people like reviewing tapes, and, but during this time my parents wrote several letters to the administration, came in several different times to talk to our head principal, who is no longer our principal, and um, nothing happened regarding that.

And after a little while, they had a police (officer) following me to my classrooms, at a distance, um, just to see if it happened again and it didn't. So after that, it just kinda faded away into nothing.

Pam Spaulding: And no one came forward to say that they did it, no one identified who had...

Kat Gipson: Nope, nope.

Pam Spaudling: And the investigation went nowhere.

And for folks out there, this is why we need an anti-bullying bill passed in this state.

Kat Gipson: Yes, yes.

Pam Spaulding: Thanks!

Kat showed natural leadership skills that day, and I recently received an email just last week from Kat, who now attends a local college in the area. She has invited me to speak during her school's conference event, Color NC with Pride, where they will discuss the fact that students at other colleges have been unable to set up a similar Spectrum clubs and have met resistence due to hesitant advisers and faculty. Clearly that wall needs to come down.

She noted that out of the 56 community colleges in NC, only 2 of them have clubs equivalent to HS GSA's -- Durham Tech and Guilford Tech are those two enlightened schools.

These relationships are why I enjoy speaking to young people -- they are living with these issues; blogging about them is important to share stories with as many people as possible, but meeting them and hearing their stories is as gratifying as anything I could say in virtual space.

***

Unrelated, but I just received a little funny message from my brother Tim, who said Mr. E., my nephew, is about to see his little brother, Mr. C., come home today. He did meet him for the first time in the hospital. This is how it went...

E. has been excited about C. coming home. We'll see how long the excitement will last. The two met each other in the hospital. E. was very into C., stroking his hair and talking to him. After about 20 minutes he said "that's enough, can we go home now?"

Real life brings you down to earth quickly.

Daily Caller Calls Me Out.

I was delighted to have my attention called to this. I'm mentioned in a column on today's Daily Caller right wing website. Completely mischaracterizing me in the article, Civility Advocates bash the late President on his birthday, author Laura Donovan is in full pearl-clutch mode that any, anyone could say some bad about Saint Ronnie. She moans:

Pres. Ronald Reagan’s birthday did not go unremarked upon by civility advocates on the Left.

Now, for the record, I've never considered myself a "civility advocate." I'm not sure where she got that idea. I'm much more of the Alan Grayson school of "Let's not be afraid to talk about things in the same tone as the GOP." I do draw the line at violent rhetoric, so you won't find me encouraging anyone to "reload" or find insinuations that could be construed as a call to violence, like "second amendment remedies."

But unapologetic expressions of my honest feelings? Not a problem.

 At issue is a tweet I posted Sunday:

 More gay people DIED under #Reagan than any other President. Is that why #GOP loves and reveres him so? #LGBT #tcot #p2 #HIV #AIDS

Like Glenn Beck is found of say, "I'm just asking a question here!"

She also shocked--shocked!--by title of my post at Daily Kos: "Screw Reagan." I do appreciate her linking to it. People who follow the link will find a very clear-eyed assessment of five years of the Reagan administration demonstrating nothing but apathy while tens of thousands of Americans died of AIDS.

It also clearly demonstrates that yes, many of Reagan's key supporters and friends considered AIDS a God send that shouldn't be interupted by any big government interference. Like prevention or education programs, or granting money to look for treatments or cures, because it was "killing all the right people."

Dead or not, Reagan's legacy is still up for debate. The mainstream media may be helpfully airbrushing out any unflattering mentions of his epic failure to address AIDS. But I feel no such compunction and will not be intimidated by Ms. Donovan's concern trolling about "civility." My post was perfectly civil, beyond it's first two words, which are open to debate.

The headline? Not my classiest work, for sure. But it was the most diplomatic term I could come up with to describe my own feelings toward "Saint Ronnie." And in the 400 plus comments I received, there were many people, most especially from the gay community, that commended me for my restraint.

In fact, "Screw Reagan" seemed a very appropriate response to the GOP's attempt to canonize him. The move to elevate Reagan from a historical figure whose legacy we can debate, into a revered saint that is immune to all critique, is movement Ms. Donovan is clearly enthusiastically on board.

I, however, am not.

ACLU Argues For Rights of Transgender Inmates in Federal Court

The American Civil Liberties Union continues to distinguish themselves as the squeakiest wheel in the cog fighting for the equality of LGBT Americans.

They've fought for marriage equality in multiple lawsuits, Florida's ban on gay's right to adopt, equitable pay for gay and lesbian servicemembers, and the partners of civil servants.

Word comes today they argued before a Federal Appeals Court on behalf of perhaps the most marginalized population in America: transgender prison inmates.

In 2005, Wisconsin passed the "Inmate Sex Change Prevention Act." The law forbid prison doctors from prescribing hormone treatments to incarcerated transgendered people. It was struck down in District Court as "cruel and unusal punishment."

I can't imagine a more egregious example of animus-driven legislation than to single this population out for denial of medical care. The ACLU argued doctors, not legislators, should make medical decisions. Funny how that "Keep Big Government out of our lives" never applies to LGBT Americans does it? May ACLU's arguments fall on reasonable ears. Shame on the State of Wisconsin for even bothering to appeal.

Press release after the fold.

Federal Court Hears Arguments In Case Defending Transgender People’s Right To Access Medical Treatment in Prison

ACLU And Lambda Legal Argue That Doctors, Not Legislators, Should Determine Medical Treatment

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 7, 2011

CHICAGO– The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit heard oral arguments today in a case defending the right of transgender people to receive medical care while they are incarcerated. Under Wisconsin law, prison doctors are prohibited from prescribing hormone treatment to transgender inmates. The law is being challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Wisconsin and Lambda Legal.

“The district court correctly struck down a discriminatory law that denied transgender people, and no one else, crucial care for a serious medical condition,” said John Knight, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Project. “We hope that the court of appeals affirms this ruling and recognizes that medical treatment decisions must be based on medical, rather than political, justifications.”

In 2005, the state of Wisconsin passed a law that barred prison doctors from providing transgender inmates medically necessary hormone therapy or sex reassignment surgery while in state custody. The ACLU, the ACLU of Wisconsin and Lambda Legal sued the state on behalf of transgender inmates, some of whom had been receiving hormone treatment in Wisconsin prisons for years. An injunction was granted to continue hormone treatment until a ruling was made. In April 2010, after a full trial, a federal district court struck down the so-called “Inmate Sex Change Prevention Act.”

“The trial court ruled that it is cruel and unusual punishment to deny medical treatment to transgender prisoners for a serious medical need,” said Dru Levasseur, Lambda Legal’s Transgender Rights attorney. “We hope this court will affirm the principle that is so important to all of us – doctors, and not legislators, should decide what medical treatment is critical for their patients.”

The clients in this case were represented by Knight of the ACLU LGBT Project, Levasseur of Lambda Legal, Larry Dupuis of the ACLU of Wisconsin, Erik Guenther of Hurley, Burish & Stanton and Jonathan Baum and Alyx Pattison of the Chicago firm Katten Muchin Rosenman.

More information on this case, Fields v. Smith, can be found on the American Civil Liberties Union case profile page at: www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights_hiv-aids/sundstrom-v-frank-case-profile or on Lambda Legal’s case page at: www.lambdalegal.org/in-court/cases/fields-v-smith.html

Iowa group stooping to junk science and hate groups to smear lgbts

crossposted on Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters

A religious right group in Iowa, The Family Leader, is on a tear about homosexuality.

And the organization is going not the "we just want to protect morals and traditional values" route.

Rather for them, it's the classic  "homosexuals are a disgusting health risk" routine.

Jeremy Hooper from Goodasyou.org has made a video about it:
 

Think Progress gives more details:

Hooper discovered, a slight alternation of the organization’s website reveals SecondHandEffects.com, a site which describes homosexuality as a public health crisis akin to smoking and endorses discredited ex-gay reversal therapies.

These so-called facts include the notions that homosexuality has a short life span, lgbt relationships are extremely abusive and that lgbts can change their sexual orientation.

Now supposedly these facts are backed with citations. HOWEVER, the citations are to non-objective right-wing sites which have a history of distortion

For example, take all of these claims about the supposed dangers of homosexuality in public schools:

Months after the ruling in MA, school teachers were instructing middle school students “lesbians can have vaginal intercourse using sex toys.”

A parent was jailed in 2005 when he insisted on being notified when homosexuality was discussed.

 Federal judges ruled schools have the “duty to normalize homosexual relationships to children, and that schools have no obligation to notify parents...”

These claims all come from a Massachusetts organization by the name of Mass Resistance who supposedly works to fight the alleged "gay agenda" in the state. For its efforts, Mass Resistance was named an official anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

This is because Mass Resistance and its leader, Brian Camenker, has a long history of demonizing the lgbt community and even stooping to coordinating phony moral panics, including:

Manufacturing a phony panic about "schools teaching children about homosexuality,"

Claiming in 2005 on Comedy Central's Daily Show that if given time, Camenker would be able to connect gay marriage in Massachusetts to the "reduction" of the quality of life in the state, a spike in homelessness rates, or and a lowering the quality of the air in the state, or

Making a claim in 2006 that "gays were trying to get legislation passed to allow sex with animals" in Massachusetts

But that's not the only bit of inaccurate information peddled by the Family Leader.

That claim above about how homosexuals can change is cited from an article entitled:


Byrd , A. Dean, Ph.D, MBA, MPH, "Homosexuality Is Not Hardwired," Concludes Dr. Francis S. Collins, Head Of The Human Genome Project, February 2008.

There is just one problem with the article Collins never said that. In fact, he has gone on record numerous times complaining about this.

But the best way in showing just how distorted the Family Leader's information is when it pertains to lgbts is to the name of its site - SecondHandEffects.

The inference is that homosexuality is as dangerous as smoking.

It's a bad inference and it's not original as the following 2007 article published by Lifesite News - the  web page supplying many citations for the Family Leader's site:

Studies have shown that years of smoking shortens the lifespan of the smoker from 1 to 7 years. Recent analysis of the age of death in Norway and Denmark for gays who are legally married suggests that engaging in homosexual behavior reduces lifespan by 24 years!

So reported Drs. Paul and Kirk Cameron at the annual convention of the Eastern Psychological Association on March 23.

"What justification is there for condemning smoking and endorsing homosexuality?" asked Dr. Paul Cameron, of the Family Research Institute, a Colorado-based think tank. "Today, all across the Western world, school children are being taught the acceptability of homosexuality and the wrongness of smoking.

That's right. The Family Leader is channeling information from our old friend, Paul Cameron, the discredited researcher who has been rebuked, censured, and dismissed from several medical organizations due to his bad research techniques and tendency to spread awful lies about lgbts - such as we wallow in feces or that we castrate children.

Even the name of The Family Leader's site - SecondHandEffects - is an inference to junk science, i.e. Cameron's work.

It may help to mention that Cameron's group, the Family Research Institute, is also listed as an anti-gay hate group by SPLC. Cameron himself is chronicled on a huge page of SPLC's web site.

This entire situation would be hilarious if it weren't so scary. As Hooper's video relates, potential presidential candidates Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, and Tim Pawlenty, as well as a myriad of other national leaders, have either spoken to this organization or will be a part of their lecture series.

This ain't good, folks. The Family Leader's goal is to repeal marriage equality in Iowa. God help us as to what else it wants to accomplish.

 

Halle Berry's ex: 'Don't call my daughter black' - and other color-aroused assumptions

This man has issues. According to TMZ, Gabriel Aubry, the former husband of Acadamy Award-winning actress Halle Berry, apparently believes in wishful thinking and a utopian world.

Sources connected with the former couple tell TMZ ... whenever Gabriel would read a story about Nahla that referred to her as "black," he would go off, insisting his baby was white. We're told Gabriel would tell Halle and others they should demand a "retraction" when such references were made regarding his daughter.

As TMZ previously reported, sources tell us Gabriel has called Halle the "N" word -- and one woman previously involved with him referred to him as a "borderline racist."

Bwahahahaha -- please someone explain to me what is a "borderline" racist? Nevermind. The word racist has become so toxic that people now invent euphemistic precursors. To be an actual racist, perhaps one has to be a member of the KKK or Stormfront, or the men who tied James Byrd to the back of a truck and dragged him to death.

Anyway, as the racial melting pot continues to fill, with more and more kids born to parents who are themselves mixed race (Berry has a white mother and black father), the issue of what these blend-o-licious children will identify as is an interesting matter for Americans to adjust to. Obviously, Gabriel Aubry's vigorous denial of his own little girl's heritage is disturbing, reflecting his own judgment that black=bad.

Halle Berry's own take, via Wikipedia:

"After having many talks with my mother about the issue, she reinforced what she had always taught me. She said that even though you are half black and half white, you will be discriminated against in this country as a black person. People will not know when they see you that you have a white mother unless you wear a sign on your forehead. And, even if they did, so many people believe that if you have an ounce of black blood in you then you are black. So, therefore, I decided to let folks categorize me however they needed to."

My family on both sides haven't any white parentage going back a long way, but some of my relatives could pass for something else (and they knew other people at the time in their neighborhood who did); they chose to identify as black.

What others see, for right or wrong, really determines who you are. Ask our biracial President if he sees himself as anything other than black in this society. I think we saw enough of the toxic, racist McCain/Palin supporters in 2008 to confirm how a good slice of America felt about background -- and feared it.

I discussed another irony of racial classification last year that's relevant.

Another oddity of the census, something that my wife Kate, who is Lebanese and white has noticed, is why those of Arab descent are officially counted as "white," unless the self-identify otherwise. This clearly this seems bizarre, given many Lebanese-Americans are darker than I am, and certainly the KKK wouldn't classify them as white either, but when it comes to race, so much doesn't make sense. The history behind it.:

Among the great ironies of Arab life in the US is that Arabs and other Middle Easterners are legally white in the eyes of government categorization. The reasons for this are complicated; basically, first wave Syrian/Lebanese Christian immigrants who arrived as part of the great wave of Southern and Eastern European immigrants in the late 19th and early 20th century successfully lobbied to be considered white under naturalization law, which only allowed for free white persons to become US citizens. (This was during the period of the Asian Exclusion Act; not a good time to be ambivalently white.) Because the folks in question were Christian, phenotypically no darker than other European immigrants of the time, and generally working their way into the middle class, their petition to become white folks was accepted. Fast forward seventy years to the 1990s. Arabs and Muslims are highly stigmatized in pop culture and politics: they're the terrorist bad guys in every movie, their campaign contributions get returned, their political opinions go unheard. Classifying Arab Americans as white, and leaving them ineligible for protection and benefits under federal guidelines, seems vaguely insulting in this context. Worse, for scholars of the community, this means that information on Arab ancestry was only collected on the long form, which structurally undercounts small groups like Arab Americans. (This year, in fact, the long form has been eliminated entirely.) This is when the campaign to add an 'Arab' or 'Middle Eastern' origin question, parallel to the Hispanic origin question, began.

It's also noted that many people read: Arab = Muslim, which is of course, ludicrous. Many Arabs are Christian, and many Muslims are white. Kate's family happens to be Maronite Catholic. It seems a huge detriment that the census doesn't break some of these numbers down so that we get a more accurate picture of the browning and seasoning of our country over time -- and how they perceive themselves racially.

When I compare my heritage to that of Obama's, I often wonder how being officially identified as biracial is perceived in this country today in comparison to someone who is a fair-skinned black who is not biracial. When you start breaking it down like this it all begins to sound absurd, but the political reality is that claiming your racial identity, one way or the other, has social consequences, a fork in the road, as it were, because other people want to be able to put you in a box they can easily identify.

So while it's easy to toss off Gabriel Aubry's defensive racial posturing as ignorant, racist or both, it does open the door to discussions about racial self-identification as the country continues to brown. Or is it blending into a variety of shades that are harder to identify and classify? As human beings we like to organize things in our mind in those tidy boxes and we're running out of boxes -- or at least running out of ways to label them and are uncomfortable with those labels.

Check out the post by Monica Roberts, Um Gabriel, Your Daughter's Black:

We are not even close to being a post-racial society as much as people would wish it to be so. The election of our biracial president who white Americans long ago let know they didn't consider him anything but Black and have treated him that way since November 4, 2008.

But those same white Americans had a cow when he checked off African-American only on his census form.

So Gabriel, get used to something we call the 'one drop rule' and get used to your daughter for the rest of her life being considered a Black woman.

Related:

* Here we go - now I'm a 'half-breed' for criticizing the admin

* CNN does Black in America 101

* The browning of Top 10 surnames

* Bigoted Louisiana Justice of the Peace: 'I'm not racist, I let blacks use my bathroom'