Maryland Likely To Legalize Marriage Equality

Maryland is starting to garner mainstream attention as the next state which marriage equality advocates are predicting will be the one to enact a law ending discrimination.

Maryland is poised to become the sixth state to recognize same-sex marriage as proponents say they believe they have enough support to pass such a measure in the upcoming legislative session.

The expansion of gay rights appears to have gained significant traction as Maryland's General Assembly begins its 90-day session Wednesday. Not only are Democrats optimistic about their chances of approving same-sex marriage, but a leading Republican, sensing momentum on the issue, has instead countered with a proposal to grant civil unions to gay couples.

Democratic Gov. Martin O'Malley has publicly stated that he would sign a marriage bill into law. Maryland then would join Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont and Washington, D.C., in sanctioning same-sex marriages.

Interestingly, the top Republican in the State Senate has now proffered a civil unions bill which would provide all the state-sanctioned rights and responsibilities of marriage except for the word marriage and call that relationship a civil union, in response to the momentum for full marriage equality.

"Civil unions would grant the same rights as marriage, but just shift the role of something that is viewed as a religious institution to something more secular," [State Senator Allan] Kittleman said. "I just really believe, it is more the libertarian in me, that government needs to be out of something that is religious. The disagreement we have in society on gay marriage is from the religious aspects of it."

Calling same-sex relationships anything other than marriage is a nonstarter for gay rights advocates.

[...]

Six states -- California, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon and Washington -- currently grant same-sex couples all the same rights as marriages, short of the designation. Four other states -- Colorado, Hawaii, Maine and Wisconsin -- offer lesser levels of protections for gay couples.

[...]

Even if same-sex marriage eventually becomes law in Maryland, opponents could collect 55,000 signatures and force a referendum on the subject in 2012.

Equality Maryland and its allies are expecting such a referendum to be held and said they are hopeful that it will be the first time that a same-sex marriage law is approved in a statewide popular vote.

Proposition 8 Take 2 in 2012, perhaps in a state where up to 30% of the population is African-American. Should be interesting. Maryland also has the largest number of openly gay or lesbian elected officials, at least two of whom are also Black.

EQCA Laws Going Into Effect 1/1/11

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 31, 2010

CONTACT: Vaishalee Raja, Equality California
PHONE: (916) 284-9187 EMAIL: vaishalee@eqca.org

Four Equality California Sponsored Bills go into Effect Tomorrow
Legislation expands fundamental protections and freedoms for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Californians

Sacramento – On January 1, four new Equality California sponsored bills will go into effect, advancing key rights and protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Californians.

“Each of these bills brings us closer to realizing our goal of achieving full equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Californians,” said Jim Carroll, Equality California Managing Director. “In 2011, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Californians, especially LGBT and questioning youth will enjoy important new protections with greater equality and dignity under the law.”

The following legislation takes effect tomorrow:

Mental Health Services for At-Risk Youth (SB 543), authored by Senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), enables at-risk youth to access mental health services without parental consent, which will help young people get the care they need before they are in crisis. Current parental consent requirements for mental health services create a barrier to treatment that is especially harmful to LGBT youth who may be put at risk of emotional or physical abuse by coming out to their parents prematurely or without support. 

Repeal of Discriminatory Code, (AB 2199) authored by Assemblymember Bonnie Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) calls for the repeal of a section of the California Welfare and Institutions code that instructs the State Department of Mental Health to conduct research into the “causes and cures of homosexuality,” with the implication that lesbian, gay, and bisexual Californians are sexual deviants, potential sex offenders and a threat to children. The code, which was originally authored in the 1950s, implies that lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals can and should be cured, in direct contradiction with an enormous body of research that demonstrates otherwise.

Separation Equity Act, (AB 2700), authored by Assemblymember Fiona Ma (D-San Francisco) will amend the state's family code, allowing for couples who first registered as domestic partners and who legally married thereafter to dissolve both contracts through a single, uniform procedure. The current system forces couples to go through a separate process for each, which can take an extra one to two years for each case to be resolved and unnecessarily burdens the judicial system. 

Unemployment Benefits Act (AB 2055), authored by Assemblymember Hector De La Torre (D-South Gate), ensures that same-sex couples in California have access to unemployment benefits. Currently, couples who are engaged to be married are eligible for unemployment benefits if one of the partners must leave his or her job in order to move closer to his or her future spouse. This bill would extend the same rights to couples who plan on entering into a domestic partnership. The bill is especially beneficial for same-sex couples because they are prohibited from legally marrying and therefore unable to receive these benefits.

Equality California (EQCA) is the largest statewide lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights advocacy organization in California. Over the past decade, Equality California has strategically moved California from a state with extremely limited legal protections for LGBT individuals to a state with some of the most comprehensive civil rights protections in the nation. Equality California has passed more than 70 pieces of legislation and continues to advance equality through legislative advocacy, electoral work, public education and community empowerment.www.eqca.org 

-30

Jesse Jackson Endorses Marriage Equality!

Reverend Jesse Jackson endorse marriage equality for same-sex couples in a fiery speech on Monday morning before the assembled crowd to hear the oral arguments in Perry v Schwarzenegger.

Here is the text of the former presidential candidate's speech:

Many years ago in the late 1970s’, I visited South Africa, then deep in the throes of apartheid.  I was asked by the media what I thought of the situation, and I said,  “I believe in human rights for all human beings.   We must measure human rights by one yardstick.”  That principle – our moral center - still applies.  Everything flows from this perspective.

We stand together today as equal members of the human family…. as consistent principled advocates for human rights for all people.  We stand together today to uphold the principles of due process, of equal protection under the law, of fighting against discrimination against any and all people based on race, religion, gender or sexual orientation.

We stand with you today to support Marriage Equality, and to declare that Proposition 8 must be struck down as unconstitutional.  Peoples’ right to self-expression, self-determination be respected and affirmed.  It’s time to challenge ignorance, a time to break the silence and the chains of hatred, of divisive and discriminatory bigotry.   Marriage is based on love and commitment – not on sexual orientation.  I support the right for any person to marry the person of their choosing.

If Dr. King and our civil rights movement has taught us anything, it’s the fundamental principle of that all people deserve Equal protection under the law.   LGBT people deserve equal rights – including marriage equality – and equal protection under the law. Discrimination against one group of people is discrimination against all of us.   The State – and the Courts - should not sanction discrimination.

To those that believe in and fought for civil rights, that marched to end discrimination and win equality, you must not become that which you hated. It’s past time to exist in hypocrisy and ignorance, and time to come out of the shadows and darkness to support unequivocally, equality for all people. Those that support civil and human rights cannot, must not, become perpetrators of discrimination against others based upon race, religion, culture, sexual orientation.

African Americans know too well the sting of legal, state sanctioned, constitutionally driven “second class” citizenship – from centuries of legal slavery and Jim Crow segregation, to classified as 3/5 of a human being in the U.S. Constitution, to facing anti-miscegenation laws that prevented Blacks from marrying whites. 

We cannot not sit idly by while Prop. 8 seeks to target gays and lesbians for a disfavored legal status, as America’s newest “second-class citizens.”  Our legal scholars have cited fourteen times where the Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals.   That principle must be upheld today – for Blacks and Whites, for straight and gay, for ALL Americans.  No group of people should be denied their fundamental constitutional liberties, like equal protection under the law, simply because of who they are.

So today, we do not stand alone.  It’s time to go forward by hope and not backward by fear, to stand up with courage, hope and strength and send a shout out for equality.  Stiff winds of resistance seek a return to intolerance, bigotry and state sanctioned discrimination – whether against immigrants in New Mexico or against marriage equality in California.   It should only strengthen our resolve to defend equal protection under the law, equality for all Americans, and the forging of a One Big Tent America.

Keep Hope Alive

Nine Utah Cities and Counties Now Ban Anti-LGBT Bias

There is progress to report on ending discrimination based on sexual orientation and/or gender identity in the state of Utah. Recently, the city councils of Moab, UT and Murray, UT unanimously have enacted local ordinances prohibiting discrimination in housing or employment against LGBT people.

The Salt Lake Tribune reports:

There are now nine cities and counties in Utah with such ordinances. Equality Utah hopes the number will reach 10 before the start of the next session of the Utah Legislature, where the group has pushed for a statewide anti-discrimination law.

In addition to Moab and Murray, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Park City, Summit County, Logan, West Valley City and Taylorsville ban housing and employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

This means that Equality Utah is just one city away from having reached its goal of having 10 local jurisdictions enact "gay rights laws" before the Utah legislature convenes again and considers a similar statewide measure.

Of course these piecemeal efforts would not be necessary if the 111th United States Congress has passed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act--although even then that legislation would just ban employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression and not address discriminations in housing, public accommodations, credit, education and government services. All of these are areas which are protected under California state law, for example.

There is almost no chance that under Republican control the 112th Congress will pass ENDA, or frankly any LGBT-supportive legislation.

Hat/tip to Trans Griot.

Mississippi Black Corrections Officer Fired For Being Gay

André Cooley, a corrections officer in Forrest County, Mississippi, was fired recently after his employer discovered he was gay. 


The Clarion-Ledger reports on a lawsuit filed by the ACLU on behalf of Cooley against the Sheriff's Department, Sheriff Billy McGee and other jail employees.

The incidents pertinent to the lawsuit began with a 911 call placed by Cooley on June 14, requesting help in a domestic disturbance.

A Hattiesburg Police Department report lists Cooley as the victim and describes his male companion as the assailant. The complaint states Bolton also responded to the call and ordered Cooley to report to his immediate supervisor before returning to work after learning of the two men's relationship.

McGee on Monday said he stood by the decision to fire Cooley.

"He got in a fight with his boyfriend, and the police were called to his house for a domestic disturbance," McGee said. "Those kinds of incidents don't speak well for people in law enforcement." 

[...]  

According to the complaint, Cooley obtained a copy of the police report on June 15, saw he was listed as a victim acting in self-defense and began trying to reach Bolton. He instead reached Brannon, and Brannon told him he was to be terminated because of the "type of situation" in which he was involved.

The complaint also states Brannon told Cooley he was fired because of his sexual orientation, and that Brannon later told Cooley's former co-workers that he was fired because he "turned out to be a faggot," according to the lawsuit, which represents one side of a legal dispute.

The Sheriff's Department also contested Cooley's application for unemployment benefits. A decision from the Mississippi Department of Employment Security dated July 21 says Cooley "displayed inappropriate conduct and behavior while off-duty, unacceptable for any officer."

[...].

"What makes things particularly difficult in Mississippi is that there's no federal or state law forbidding discrimination (on grounds of sexual orientation)," [Cooley's lawyer] Atwood said.

Here is a video of an interview with Coooley discussing the lawsuit.

WATCH: Stop8.org Dismantles NOM Arguments

Watch Matt Baume of Stop8.org do an excellent job of dismantling  the arguments in a National Organization for Marriage (NOM) radio ad. Baume usess NOM's own words an explains how misleading, wrong and "catty" they are.

Palm Springs Police Caught Trying To "Bag A F*g"

In many areas of the country, there has long been an antagonistic relationship between law enforcement and the gay community; in fact resistance to a police action in New York City in 1969 is widely regarded as the beginning of the modern gay rights movement. This antagonism has typically not been present in Palm Springs, California, but apparently that is changing. Palm Springs is now considered to be the "gayest city" per capita in California, with an estimated 30 to 40 percent of its population openly gay and lesbian. It has had multiple openly gay Mayors and current has a majority city councilmembers who are gay pr lesbian.

But recently there have been increased tensions between the police and the gay community thanks to a sting operation which resulted in the arrest of more than 2 dozen gay men for "indecent exposure" and "lewd conduct."

The San Francisco Chronicle reported on Sunday:

Last summer, Palm Springs police used undercover officers to arrest 24 men in a gay neighborhood for allegedly trying to engage the officers in sex. While few in the gay community defend anyone having public sex - whether gay or straight - the anger is over the unusual charges in the case: The men are charged under Section 290(c) of the California Penal Code, making those who are convicted register as sex offenders for life, their names added to a police database.

That charge is essentially a life sentence, defense lawyers say, and has never been used against straight couples arrested for similar activity in Palm Springs.

Adding fuel to the community anger is surveillance tape shot inside a patrol car during the sting. One officer can be heard using an anti-gay slur, while another officer laughs.

The San Diego Gay and Lesbian Times broke this story more than two months ago:

All 24 men were charged with violations of Penal Code sections 314 and 647(a).

According to the defense, the Riverside County District Attorney’s Office will only accept a guilty plea from the defendants, and even then, only to a 314 violation with its sex offender designation.

Herein lies a huge issue that is being alleged in court documents. More on that in a moment.

What is the difference between the 314 and 647(a) misdemeanors?

Penal Code section 314 - California's "indecent exposure" law - has remained virtually unchanged since its enactment in 1872, despite the fact that community moral standards have changed drastically in the 138 years that have passed since that enactment.

This law prohibits publicly "exposing" a person’s naked body or genitals with lewd intent. Typically, a conviction of "simple" misdemeanor indecent exposure under this code brings a sentence of up to six months in a county jail, a maximum fine of $1,000 and a lifetime requirement to register as a sex offender, pursuant to Penal Code 290.

Section 647(a) defines "lewd conduct" as the touching or displaying of the genitals, buttocks or female breasts with the intent of achieving sexual arousal or gratification. These acts are deemed illegal under this code when done in a lewd or lascivious manner in a public place - where a third party may be offended by its viewing. Unless there are overriding circumstances, a 647(a) conviction typically does not come with a sex offender designation.

The sex offender designation, however, can cause dire consequences for a lifetime. Those convicted have trouble keeping or finding jobs and homes, and those with green cards are usually deported.

Major allegations are being raised

The Riverside County Public Defender’s Office thinks something smells fishy about this undercover sting. As a result, court documents show that the defense is making some serious allegations:

 The Palm Springs Police Department (PSPD) exclusively targeted gay men in undercover sex stings.

 Heterosexual couples get a free pass on public sex in Palm Springs and throughout Riverside County.

 A backroom deal was struck with the Riverside County District Attorney’s Office to force those arrested in the sting operations to plead to a harsher charge, requiring lifetime registration as a sex offender.

These contentions are being raised in a Riverside County discrimination motion going before a Superior Court judge in Indio on June 14.

On May 4, Deputy Public Defender Roger Tansey, who is the attorney for the defendants, and Public Defender Gary Windom, filed numerous documents related to this case.

Tansey told SDGLN in an exclusive interview that he believes this case is about “homophobia” and that the Palm Springs police are out to “get the gay guys.”

I believe this is known as "bag a f*g" in the police world, and is absolutely unacceptable. SDGLN has even more evidence showing the discriminatory nature of the proceedings:

SDGLN has obtained a copy of the court document from Thomas Hughes, who was a Deputy District Attorney for Riverside County from 2007 to 2009 and who was assigned to the Indio branch. The document – which the DA is trying to get excluded from the trial -- provides an insider glimpse into how Palm Springs initiated its 2009 undercover sting operation.

Hughes describes a 2008 sting operation conducted by the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department, which provides police services to the city of Rancho Mirage. As with the Palm Springs operation, the Rancho Mirage sting was directed at men who have public sex with men, not at heterosexual couples.

Hughes said the county prosecutors settled a majority of the 2008 cases for violations of Penal Code sections 647(a) or 415. Those are much less serious misdemeanor charges than Penal Code 314, which requires lifetime registration as a sex offender.

In his document, Hughes states that he was informed that the Palm Springs Police Department (PSPD) wanted to ensure ahead of the sting operation that their cases would only settle for violations of the more serious Penal Code 314.

“I have been informed and thereon believe that during spring or summer of 2009, a meeting was therefore set up between the PSPD and the District Attorney’s Office,” Hughes states in the document.

“The DA’s Office was represented by Trisha Fransdahl, a Supervising Deputy District Attorney, who met with members of the PSPD. This meeting occurred before the sting operation took place and before anyone was arrested. At that meeting, it was agreed that all of those arrested would be charged with violations of Penal Code sections 314 and 647(a). It was also agreed that Defendants would only be allowed to plead to the 314 count. Based on my experience at the District Attorney’s Office, such a meeting, before anyone is even arrested, is unusual.”

Hughes also states that the DA’s Office decided that the Palm Springs sting cases would not be subject to negotiations or plea deals.

Bolstering the discrimination claim is this statement by Hughes: “I was also in my office when I personally heard Linda Dunn, head of the Eastern Division of the District Attorney’s Office and the supervisor of Ms. Frandahl, make homophobic remarks. This occurred when I overheard Lee Roberts, one of the District Attorneys on the Palm Springs cases, express a desire to Ms. Dunn to visit the scene of the sting.

“Several times I heard Ms. Dunn make disparaging remarks about ‘those people’ as she laughingly expressed concern for Mr. Roberts’s safety if he were to visit Palm Springs. Ms. Dunn did not want Mr. Roberts to go, stating that, ‘I don’t want you around ‘those’ people, we don’t know what they’re capable of doing. If you go, be safe.'”

Unbelievable! In 2009, the Riverside District Attorney and the Palm Springs Police Department thinks they can get away with this? In a city that is 40% gay?

SCOTUS Rules Against Christian Legal Society

In the second most important case of the 2009-2010 Supreme Court term for LGBT people (last Thursday's Doe v. Reed 8-1 ruling that ballot proposition signers have no implicit right to anonymity was probably the most important) the court has ruled 5-4 in favor of the University of California Hastings Law School and against the Christian Legal Society to preserve the principle that a public university's discrimination policy that includes sexual orientation, gender identity and religion can compel any student group that wants official recognition and funding to abide by that nondiscrimination policy.

The Chronicle of Higher Education wrote:

The Supreme Court's decision, by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, found that the law school's policy was "a reasonable, viewpoint-neutral condition on access" that did not raise First Amendment issues in the way the Christian Legal Society argued.

The opinion explicitly rejects the argument of the Christian Legal Society that a public university has no business limiting its ability to be recognized and to apply its own rules to membership. "CLS’s analytical error lies in focusing on the benefits it must forgo while ignoring the interests of those it seeks to fence out: Exclusion, after all, has two sides," the decision says. "Hastings, caught in the crossfire between a group’s desire to exclude and students’ demand for equal access, may reasonably draw a line in the sand permitting all organizations to express what they wish but no groupto discriminate in membership."

A dissent, by Justice Samuel Alito, blasted the decision, saying that it set principle of "no freedom for expression that offends prevailing standards of political correctness in our country’s institutions of higher learning."

Many public colleges and universities have anti-bias policies similar to those of Hastings, so a ruling for the Christian Legal Society would have forced changes at many institutions. The issue has been particularly intense at public law schools (where the Christian Legal Society has sought recognition) and at undergraduate institutions with Greek systems (when Christian fraternities have sought recognition). Some public colleges and universities – faced with legal threats by supporters of the Christian Legal Society – have changed their policies to exempt religious groups, and those institutions could conceivably now reconsider.

This case has been closely watched by law professor friends of mine like Nan Hunter of Georgetown Law School and Art Leonard of New York Law School.

Human Rights Campaign issued a statement:

“Today, the Court upheld an important principle for all Americans, that government should not be forced to subsidize discrimination,” said HRC President Joe Solmonese. “UC Hastings and schools like it all over the country have worked hard to create welcoming spaces for all students, including those who are lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender. Today’s decision bolsters those efforts, while recognizing that Christian Legal Society, and groups like it, are free exclude whomever they want – without the financial support of their fellow students or taxpayers.”

Amazingly, Justice Ginsburg, who wrote the majority opinion (joined by Stevens, Kennedy, Sotomayor and Breyer), read parts of her opinion before the Court aloud, the day after her husband of 56 years(!) died. Thank you Justice Ginsburg for your service to our country. May you enjoy serving on a supreme court (for at least one year) that is one-third female!

UPDATED 06/28/2010 11:38AM PDT

MadProfessah friend and openly gay USC Law Professor David Cruz weighs in with his thoughts on CLS v. Martinez, and Lambda Legal releases a statement:

"We're extremely pleased the Court has found that discrimination is discrimination, however you try to package it," said Jon Davidson, Legal Director of Lambda Legal. "CLS was attempting to draw a distinction between status and conduct. But when an organization has a membership requirement that one must believe conduct central to one's identity is immoral, that's the same thing as excluding people for who they are. It's wrong of CLS to expect students to fund a group that wouldn't have them as a member. The Court wisely rejected CLS's attempt to obtain what the Court recognized as 'preferential, not equal treatment' under the school's rules applicable to all other recognized clubs." Registration as a student organization at Hastings gives groups the right to use Hastings' name and logo, access to a university email address, limited use of facilities, and modest university funds for travel and other expenses. CLS sued in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, arguing that, by not allowing it to become a supported student group, Hastings had violated CLS's rights of free speech, association and religious freedom under the U.S. Constitution. The group maintained it did not bar membership to gays, but rather to those who engaged in homosexual conduct. The District Court rejected these claims and found in Hastings' favor, as did the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals last year.

The Task Force's Rea Carey said:

“The Supreme Court ruled correctly in rejecting the challenge from the Christian Legal Society, which sought school funding and recognition despite being in clear violation of the college’s nondiscrimination policy. The court rightly found that the First Amendment rights of association, free speech and free exercise were not violated by Hastings’ decision. It simply said the college did not have to fund a group that violated the school policy requiring all recognized student groups to be open to every student. Schools all across the country are working to create welcoming environments for all students. This ruling supports that important effort. No school group or organization should be given public money to discriminate against other students.”

Logan Utah Adopts LGBT Rights Ordinance!

The city of Logan, Utah (where Utah State University is located) became the second city in the Mormon-dominated, religiously conservative state to enact an ordinance banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in employment and housing on Tuesday night.

According to the Salt lake Tribune:

In one motion, the Logan City Council on Tuesday night mandated that employers and landlords cannot discriminate against gays, lesbians or transgendered people in the city limits.

Modeled after anti-discrimination laws recently adopted in Salt Lake City, Logan's housing and employment ordinances passed with four votes and one abstention, by Councilman Dean Quayle. A crowd, which filled the City Council Chambers halls and an overflow room, was mostly subdued throughout a one-hour public hearing. Following the tally though, the crowd erupted in applause and rewarded the council with a standing ovation.

In the days leading up to Tuesday's meeting, Council Chairman Jay Monson said he received more than 250 calls and e-mails "for" and only 10 "against" the ordinances, all from Logan residents and business owners.

[...]

"The [LDS] church supports nondiscrimination ordinances, period. Certainly, I was told that this applies to Logan as much as any other place in the world," Monson said Tuesday before calling for the vote. "They do and I do and I agree that this is not the answer for everything ... But it is a step in the right direction and it is long overdue in my thinking

However, as I have blogged about before, there are plenty of examples of ignorance in this monochromatic state about the nature of civil rights:

Logan resident James Gibson, a business owner and landlord, disagreed saying the City Council is overstepping its bounds.

"I don't feel that it is the place of the government to step in and say who I can and can't hire," Gibson said, adding that, if anything, it should be a state matter. "If anybody feels like they've been discriminated against on behalf of any landlord or business owner, that becomes a civil matter. "

Joshua Frazier added, "The problem is a lack of compassion, not a lack of laws. You cannot legislate compassion and attempting to do so only creates resentment."

Frazier said the ordinances are unconstitutional because employment and property rentals feature a private contract.

"It's wrong for governments to interfere with contracts between individuals," Frazier said. "I see this as the government forcing moral decisions on private individuals. I do not want the government determining and defining what is moral and what is not."

Of course, he is saying that as a white, Mormon man who is currently protected under federal, state and local ordinances which prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, gender and religion.
How would he feel if it were legal to say "No Mormons Need Apply!" in his rental property or place of employment?

It's simply stunning to me how some people can not see past their own privilege.

FDA To Review Ban on Gay Blood Donors

There is news about the irrational ban on men who have had sex with another man since 1997 from donating blood.

Federal health officials announced Friday that they would reexamine a 27-year-old set of restrictions on blood donations by gay men. 

The restrictions, enacted in the early years of the AIDS epidemic in the United States, impose a lifetime ban on men donating blood if they've had sex with another man at any time since 1977.

In recent years, the American Red Cross, the American Assn. of Blood Banks and America's Blood Centers, which collectively represent almost all blood banks in the country, have recommended loosening the restrictions to allow men who have abstained from gay sex for one year to donate blood.

The American Medical Assn. also has proposed revising the policy but recommended a five-year instead of a one-year waiting period.

Gay rights groups also have pushed for a change in the donor policy, arguing that it stigmatizes gay men and does not adequately address threats to blood safety posed by high-risk heterosexual behaviors.

Recently, a letter was written by 2004 Democratic Presidential nominee John Kerry (and signed by 18 United States Senators) to FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg which cogently deconstructed the purported rationales for the gay blood ban policy.

See for yourself:

Dear Commissioner Hamburg:

We write today to express our concerns regarding outdated, medically and scientifically unsound deferral criteria for prospective blood donors.  With hospitals and emergency rooms across the country in constant and urgent need of blood products, we believe certain blood donor deferral policies should be reviewed and appropriately modified and modernized while ensuring the blood supply meets the highest possible standards that we all expect in America.

The American Red Cross, America’s Blood Centers, and AABB reported before an FDA-sponsored workshop on March 9, 2006 that the ban on men who have had sex with other men (MSM), even once, since 1977 from ever donating blood “is medically and scientifically unwarranted.”  Then in 2008, the Council on Science and Public Health at the American Medical Association also advocated modifying the lifetime deferral requirement for MSM.   We all recognize the practical and well-intentioned origins of this ban, first established in 1983 at the height of the HIV/AIDS crisis when modern screening procedures and advanced testing methods for HIV were yet to be developed.  Standards and selectivity is of course necessary to protect the blood supply.

We live in a very different country than we did in 1983.  Today, the high-risk behaviors associated with HIV contraction are more fully understood and dramatic technological improvements have been made in HIV detection.  Collecting facilities now screen all donors for history of certain high-risk behaviors, and FDA regulations determine that all donated blood be analyzed by two highly accurate screening tests; one for antibodies to HIV-1/2 and HIV-1 Group O variants, and the other for the actual sequences of the virus using molecular technologies.  As a result, the blood banking community believes that the lifetime deferral is no longer necessary to protect the integrity of the blood banks.

It is our understanding that there is a window period of up to three weeks following a person’s initial exposure to HIV during which infection may be missed by the blood tests.  It is this window period that rightfully serves as the scientific basis for a deferral period for prospective donors deemed to be of high-risk for HIV.  Similar approaches and deferral periods are used to prevent window-period transmission of Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C by blood transfusion.  However, there is a clear and unscientific double standard embedded in the current deferral rules for potential exposure to HIV.

Reflecting the dangers associated with the window period, prospective donors who have engaged in heterosexual sexual activity with a person known to have HIV are deferred for one year.  At the same time, male donors who engaged in protected homosexual sexual activity with a monogamous partner 26 years ago are deferred for life.  The FDA-imposed lifetime ban for men who have sex with men does not fall in line with the one-year deferral required for high-risk heterosexual behavior, nor does it correspond in any way to the window period.  The ban also does not distinguish between safe and unprotected sexual activity.  As a result, healthy blood donors are turned away every day due to an antiquated policy and our blood supply is not necessarily any safer for it.

With the safety of the blood supply as our top concern, our examination of the deferral process has brought to our attention a second issue that we believe requires your consideration.  It is our understanding that there are rapidly rising rates of new HIV infections among certain segments of the heterosexual population.  While the screening and testing procedures are rigorous for certain high-risk behaviors, there is no expressed concern with unprotected heterosexual sex during the window period in which the administered HIV tests are unreliable.  Unprotected sexual activity, whether homosexual or heterosexual, is recognized as a significantly higher risk behavior for HIV transmission than protected sexual activity.  We urge you to take this important distinction into consideration when reexamining possible changes to deferral policies.

The safety, availability, and integrity of our nation’s blood supply are vital.  For these reasons, we agree with the American Red Cross, America’s Blood Centers, AABB, and others that the time has come for the FDA to modify the lifetime deferral for MSM to be consistent with sensible health and safety policy and with FDA deferral guidelines for high-risk heterosexual behavior.  We request that you initiate a review of the lifetime deferral requirement for men who have sex with men wishing to donate blood and that you reexamine the deferral criteria for all blood donors to ensure all high-risk behaviors are appropriately addressed.

Thank you for your leadership in promoting public health and safety.  We look forward to working with you on this issue.

Sincerely,

           

John Kerry                             
United States Senator

Kirstin Gillibrand                   
United States Senator

Dick Durbin

United States Senator              

Daniel Akaka
United States Senator                         

Sheldon Whitehouse              
United States Senator

Sherrod Brown

United States Senator
 
Frank Lautenberg                   
United States Senator

Bob Casey                              
United States Senator

Bernie Sanders

United States Senator
 

Russ Feingold                        
United States Senator

Mark Udall                             
United States Senator

Al Franken

United States Senator

Maria Cantwell                      
United States Senator

Carl Levin                              
United States Senator

Tom Harkin 

United States Senator
 

Mark Begich                          
United States Senator

Rolland Burris                        
United States Senator

Michael Bennet

United States Senator

It should be interesting how  big a story this becomes in June when the commission meets to review the policy. Last time I blogged about this story in May 2007 there was not much outcry when the Bush administration's FDA refused to modify the policy.

VA GOV Issues Legally Meaningless Gay Nondiscrimination Directive

There is mass confusion in Virginia (and the traditional media and the blogosphere) about the status of LGBT citizens' civil rights to employment, public accommodations, housing and education thanks to the recent actions by its recently elected Governor and Attorney General.

Thanksfully, legal eagle Chris Geidner can clear it all up for us, in an article entitled "No, Virginia, There Is No Nondiscrimination Policy":

On Wednesday, March 10, Gov. McDonnell issued an ''Executive Directive'' regarding the ''Standard of Conduct'' for state supervisors and employees ''Concerning Employment Discrimination.''

In it, he suggests a pronouncement on the state's position on sexual orientation nondiscrimination. The set-up looks like an attempt to create some space between Cuccinelli's move as attorney general and his own administration. But it does no such thing. To the extent it mentions sexual orientation, it is simply a basic restatement of federal constitutional law. It fails to mention gender identity or expression at all. 

[...]

The law, by the governor's own words, is the same on March 11 as it was on March 9. There is no protection provided by the Commonwealth of Virginia or Gov. McDonnell to LGBT people other than the slight protection already provided to them by the U.S. Constitution. And McDonnell has taken no action to ask the legislature to do more.

[...]

In the days since Cuccinelli's letter, people across Virginia have been asking McDonnell to tell them the truth about his commitment to nondiscrimination. On Wednesday, like the Sun's editor, McDonnell gave a saccharine response aimed more at providing pleasant words than it did providing a real answer. McDonnell's directive, unfortunately, purports to give comfort to LGBT people in the state about something that is not really there.

We're not falling for your ****, Bob McDonnell, no matter how square your jaw is!

People Believe Gays Face More Discriminaton

The Pew Research Center has been doing a lot of public opinion research about Americans feelings about religion and other minorities. They have released a chart showing that more people feel that gays and lesbians face discrimination than Muslims, Hispanics and Blacks.

The only group that Americans perceive as subject to more discrimination than Muslims is homosexuals; nearly two-thirds of adults (64%) say gays and lesbians face a lot of discrimination. About half say blacks (49%) and Hispanics (52%) suffer from a lot of discrimination, and more than a third (37%) say there is a lot of discrimination against women in the U.S. today.

Interesting.

Trans-Inclusive ENDA Introduced in U.S. House Today

Nancy Zirkin, executive vice president of LCCR flanked by

openly gay U.S. Reps Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) and Jared Polis (D-Col.)

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), H.R. 2981, which would prohibit employment discrimination in the United States based upon sexual orientation or gender identity, was introduced in the United States House of Representatives on Friday, but publicized in a press conference today attended by all three openly gay Congressmembers Barney Frank, Tammy Baldwin, Jared Polis and several representatives from civil rights organizations.

Rea Carey of The Task Force said:

“Today marks a critical milestone for our community and our country. Introduction of this important legislation signals the beginning of the end of a long-fought battle. For decades, a majority of people in this country have supported protecting their friends, family and neighbors from discrimination. Congress must act, at long last, this year.
“Passage of this critical legislation would help ensure that people are allowed to participate on a level-playing field in the workplace. ENDA reflects our country’s core values of fairness and equality. It is immoral to deny lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people the ability to earn a livelihood and provide for their families. People should not have to fear losing their job simply because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
“We are pleased that President Obama has expressed support for this legislation and expect the administration to play a role in assisting with its passage in both the House and Senate.”

Senate Judiciary Hearing on Immgration Equality Wed

Immigration Equality sent out an announcement about the Senate Judiciary hearing being held on Wednesday June 3rd on the Uniting American Familes Act (UAFA).

On Wednesday morning, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold the first-ever Congressional hearing on obstacles faced by lesbian and gay couples under U.S. immigration law. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), chairman of the committee, has scheduled a 10 a.m. hearing on the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA). The bill, sponsored by Leahy in the Senate and Congressman Jerold Nadler (D-NY) in the House, would modify immigration policy to end discrimination against lesbian and gay Americans who want to sponsor their permanent partners for residency in the United States. Such couples are often separated, or torn apart, because current U.S. law does not allow for the same sponsorship rights for lesbian and gay citizens as for heterosexuals.

"Every day, an estimated 36,000 binational couples, nearly half of whom are raising children, are facing separation, or already living separately, because our country refuses to treat them equally under the law," said Rachel B. Tiven, executive director of Immigration Equality. "These loving, committed families are faced with an untenable choice between the person they love and the country they love. Many are forced to uproot their lives and leave their extended families, jobs and communities behind. It is long past time that Congress fixed our broken immigration system, including this pervasive discrimination against so many families. Senator Leahy's hearing, coming just as President Obama and Congress prepare to address comprehensive immigration reform, is a step in the right direction."

Wednesday's hearing will feature Shirley Tan, a Filipina mother of 12-year-old twins from Pacifica, Calif., who is facing deportation despite having been with her partner for 23 years. Though Tan's children and partner are American citizens, she cannot be sponsored for residency because her partner is female. Unless Congress takes action to pass UAFA, Tan will be forced to return to the Philippines.

Joining Tan as a witness will also be Gordon Stewart, a native of Vermont who was forced to sell his family's farm and relocate to London to be with his partner, who is Brazilian. Stewart, who transferred his job with Pfizer Pharmaceuticals to the United Kingdom, has been welcomed in that country, where his partner received a visa to be with him. Under U.S. immigration law, his partner was unable to join him in the United States, and Stewart was forced to leave his family behind to be with the person he loves. Other witnesses include Julian Bond, chairman of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and attorney Christopher Nugent, who will represent the American Bar Association (ABA).

"The cost of discriminating against lesbian and gay families is staggering and personal," Tiven noted. "Children are being separated from their mothers. Companies are forced to relocate employees or lose their talent altogether. In many cases, Americans must live on separate continents, thousands of miles from their immediate and extended families. All the while, this blatant discrimination could be fixed, and families could be brought together, simply by passing UAFA."

President Obama has said he supports the legislation. In a statement issued in March, the White House noted, "The president thinks Americans with partners from other countries should not be faced with a painful choice between staying with their partner or staying in their country. We will work closely with Congress to craft comprehensive immigration reform legislation."

"No reform can be truly called comprehensive," Tiven agreed, "unless it includes our families, too."

The entire witness list of the hearing, which starts at 10am EDT, can be viewed here:

Witness List

Hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee

on

“The Uniting American Families Act: Addressing Inequality in Federal Immigration Law”

Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Dirksen Office Building Room 226
10:00 a.m.

Shirley Tan
Pacifica, CA

Gordon Stewart
London, England

Julian Bond
Chairman
National Board of Directors
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
Washington, DC

Christopher Nugent
Co-Chair
Committee on the Rights of Immigrants
Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities
American Bar Association
Washington, DC

Roy Beck
President
NumbersUSA Education & Research Foundation
Arlington, VA

Jessica M. Vaughan
Director, Policy Studies
Center for Immigration Studies
Franklin, MA

You can also apparently view a webcast of this hearing online.

Text Of "Religious Freedom Amendment" To HB 436

Here is the text of the language Governor John Lynch (D-NH) has insisted must be included into that state's marriage equality bill in order for him to sign it into law:

I. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a religious organization, association, or society, or any individual who is managed, directed, or supervised by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association or society, or any nonprofit institution or organization operated, supervised or controlled by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association or society, shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges to an individual if such request for such services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges is related to the solemnization of a marriage, the celebration of a marriage, or the promotion of marriage through religious counseling, programs, courses, retreats, or housing designated for married individuals, and such solemnization, celebration, or promotion of marriage is in violation of their religious beliefs and faith. Any refusal to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges in accordance with this section shall not create any civil claim or cause of action or result in any state action to penalize or withhold benefits from such religious organization, association or society, or any individual who is managed, directed, or supervised by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association or society, or any nonprofit institution or organization operated, supervised or controlled by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association or society.

II. The marriage laws of this state shall not be construed to affect the ability of a fraternal benefit society to determine the admission of members pursuant to RSA 418:5, and shall not require a fraternal benefit society that has been established and is operating for charitable and educational purposes and which is operated, supervised or controlled by or in connection with a religious organization to provide insurance benefits to any person if to do so would violate the fraternal benefit society's free exercise of religion as guaranteed by the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States and part 1, article 5 of the Constitution of New Hampshire.

III. Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed or construed to limit the protections and exemptions provided to religious organizations under RSA § 354-A:18.

IV. Repeal. RSA 457-A, relative to civil unions, is repealed effective January 1, 2011, except that no new civil unions shall be established after January 1, 2010.

I would like a reiteration that nothing in this statute allows discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation but, barring that, perhaps a severability clause if one part of the bill is struck down, the rest of the statute remains law.