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.

National Coming Out Day: MadProfessah is on BoingBoing!

Today is National Coming Out Day and BoingBoing.net, the blog of wonderful things, is celebrating by featuring the stories of scientists and engineers who are out in their fields.

MadProfessah's alter ego Professor Ron Buckmire provides one of the featured stories, which they entitled "Race, Sexual Orientation, Academia--Bringing It All Together."

Go check me out!

Scalia Claims Sex and Sexual Orientation Bias Not Banned By Constitution

Adm Golub / The Chronicle

Antonin Scalia, the 74-year-old Associate Justice of the Supreme Court gave a speech at University of California Hastings on the 24th anniversary of his unanimous approval by the United States Senate on Friday.
Scalia, the notoriously homophobic head of the conservative wing of the Court told the audience that he is convinced that the United States Constitution's 14th Amendment's declaration of "equal protection of the laws" does not apply to women or gays and lesbians.

"If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, you have legislatures," Scalia said during a 90-minute question-and-answer session with a professor at UC Hastings College of the Law. He said the same was true of discrimination against gays and lesbians.

[...]

The court has ruled since the early 1970s that the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection of the laws applies to sex discrimination, requiring a strong justification for any law that treated the genders differently. That interpretation, Scalia declared Friday, was not intended by the authors of the amendment that was ratified in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War.

"Nobody thought it was directed against sex discrimination," he said. Although gender bias "shouldn't exist," he said, the idea that it is constitutionally forbidden is "a modern invention."

The court has not applied the same exacting standard to discrimination based on sexual orientation, an issue it could reach in several cases now in lower courts, including the dispute over California's ban on same-sex marriage.

But when the justices overturned laws against gay sex in 2003 as a violation of personal autonomy and due process, Scalia dissented vehemently. He compared the anti-sodomy laws to statutes against incest and bestiality and said many Americans view bans on homosexual conduct as protections for themselves and their families against "a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive."

It's interesting that Scalia will say in public that "gender bias 'shouldn't exist'" but he is on record in a published opinion of the Court declaring the homosexual "lifestyle" to be "immoral and destructive."

Perhaps he should recuse himself from future cases involving sex discrimination or sexual orientation discrimination before the Court?

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.

AD-43: Shock! Nayiri Wins Stonewall Dems Nod

Nahabedian	Gatto

In a shock to most political insiders, Nayiri Nahabedian, Glendale School board members and AD-43 candidate, won the endorsement of the Stonewall Democratic Club, one of the oldest and most prominent LGBT democratic clubs in the country, despite the fact that her main opponent Mike Gatto, has been a longtime paid member of the club for well over a decade and a strong LGBT ally.

MadProfessah is a Stonewall Democratic Club board member (technically, elected Steering Committee member) of Stonewall, and although I have participated in other endorsement panel hearings, I was not on the committee that recommended an endorsement for Gatto by a vote of 4-3. However, at the meeting of the membership on Monday March 22nd, the vote was 23-10 to endorse Nahabedian, which observers chalked up to an impassioned speech by former Assemblyperson Jackie Goldberg, who is openly lesbian and best well-known for the primary author of AB 205, California's Comprehensive Domestic Partnership Act. Stonewall does not allow candidates to speak at a club meeting in which their race is being considered by the membership, but allows 3 people to speak in favor and in opposition to motions on the floor.

Gatto has been endorsed by yours truly, but more importantly he has been endorsed by the California Democratic Party. This surprising result at the Stonewall Democratic Club is the second time that Nahabedian has mobilized (some would say "packed") a Democratic club meeting to overturn the recommendation of a club's endorsement committee for Gatto. DPSFV (Democratic Party of San Fernando Valley) had recommended Gatto but the endorsement was changed to open endorsement by a vote of the membership.

The special primary election will be help on April 13th to see who will replace Paul Krekorian and then on June 8th the Democratic primary will be held for who gets the nomination for the November election to represent the 43rd Assembly district in January 2011.

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!

REMINDER: Williams Institute LGBT Law Update Today

MadProfessah will be spending most of the day at UCLA Law School today, attending their Annual Update on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy. I may have some pictures up later tonight or tomorrow (or perhaps even live from the proceedings!)

Annual Update on Sexual Orientation Law Fri Feb 19 at UCLA

Friday February 19th at UCLA Law School, the Williams Institute will hold its 9th Annual Update on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy. Entitled "Sexuality and Gender Law: Assessing the Field, Envisioning the Future," the day-long event will feature appearances by some of the most prominent LGBT legal minds in the country, such as (just to name a few that I am looking forward to meeting and seeing again) NYU Law Professor Kenji Yohsino, University of Chicago Law Professor Mary Anne Case, Columbia Law Professor (and former Vice-Dean) Katherine Franke, American University Law Professor Nancy Polikoff, Obama appointee to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Chai Feldblum, Georgetown Law Professor (and blogger!) Nan Hunter, and Yale Law Professor Bill Eskridge.

There'll be a whole lotta "mad professahs" in the house!

Here's the schedule at a glance (see full schedule here):

Friday, February 19

9:00-10:20am – The Difference a Field Makes: The Impact of Sexuality and Gender Law Scholarship on the Law and Legal Scholarship

10:40-12:00pm – Theories Behind Multidimensional Advocacy

1:00-2:30pm – The Impact Sexuality and Gender Law and Policy Scholarship on LGBT Rights

3:00-4:30pm – Intersectionality

5:00-6:30pm – Final Round, 6th Annual Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Moot Court Competition

6:30-8:30pm – Annual Gala Reception and Awards Ceremony: Honoring Richard Taylor and Announcing Williams Institute National Moot Court Winners
*Click here for tickets.

Saturday, February 20

9:00-10:15am – Sexuality in a Global Culture

10:30-11:45pm – The Many Meanings of Gender

12:00-1:00pm – Next Steps: The Future of Sexuality and Gender Law and Scholarship

Just a few weeks ago I was a guest judge in the early rounds of the 6th Annual National Moot Court Competition on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Law. It is a very interesting case which pits religious freedom under the first amendment against equal protection interests based on gender identity in a hypothetical in which national health care has become law but includes a rider which allows a "conscience clause" allowing doctor's to not treat transgender people.

Exemption Protecting Religious Freedoms of Medical Personnel:
No physician, nurse, or other medical personnel shall be required under this or
any other law of the United States to provide hormone therapy, surgery, or any
other medical care to transgender patients that is related to their transgender
status, gender identity, or gender expression if the provision of such care violates
the sincerely held religious beliefs of the physician, nurse, or other medical
personnel requested to provide such service. This provision shall not apply in
situations in which the transgender person’s medical condition is life threatening.

This year's Moot Court problem allows students to go into the details of the Lemon test in Supreme Court jurisprudence for improper governmental establishment of religion as well as the parameters of equal protection analysis involving suspect classes and the evolving nature of rational basis review.

The finals will be judged this year by two sitting members of State Supreme Courts: Justice Carol A. Beier (Kansas Supreme Court) and Justice Joette Katz (Connecticut Supreme Court) and is always a highlight of the entire day.

Meet The Wileys: Not All Black Pastors Oppose Marriage Equality

The above video shows Reverend Dennis W. Wiley and Christine Y. Wiley articulating the reasons why they support marriage equality for same-sex couples.

In Saturday's Washington Post the Wileys published an incisive editorial which explains for a wider audience some of the roots of black cultural opposition to same-sex marriage and race-based homophobia in general.

We are sometimes asked what accounts for the homophobia within the African
American community. This question seems to assume that the community is
disproportionately homophobic compared with other racial and ethnic groups.
We are not aware of any credible study that has conclusively proved this
assumption. However, our first-hand experience has convinced us that
homophobia within the black church and the wider community is real. And the
factors that have nurtured these beliefs over the years are complex.

When issues of gay rights and gay marriage come up, the first question many
black people ask is, "What does the Bible have to say about it?" This
seemingly innocent question doesn't acknowledge that when we approach the
Bible, our perspective has been shaped by where we were born, by whom we
were raised, what Grandma taught us, where we went to school and what our
pastor preached in church -- usually conservative ideas on matters such as
homosexuality. Therefore, we tend to interpret the Bible not objectively,
but through the lens of our cultural and historical context.

The conservative strand of black religion is evident in what Harvard
professor Peter Gomes calls "bibliolatry" -- the practice of worshiping the
Bible rather than worshiping God. It is also found in a "literal"
interpretation of the Bible that focuses more on the letter of the text than
on its spirit, and concentrates on passages about domination, oppression,
hierarchy, elitism and exclusion rather than on the major themes of love,
justice, freedom, equality and inclusion that run throughout the Bible.

A more complicated element of black homophobia is the lingering influence of sexual stereotypes that originated during slavery. According to theologian Kelly Brown Douglas, the myth of "over-sexualized" black bodies portrayed
black men as violent "bucks" who posed an ever-present threat to white
women, and black women as "Jezebels" who seduced white men.

These stereotypes served to justify the whipping, lynching and castration of
black men, and to excuse the sexual violation of black women by white men.
They were just one element of what blacks had to struggle against to gain
acceptance and respectability in white society, especially during the late
19th century and the first half of the 20th. On this matter, religion has
often been a vehicle of suppression, accommodation and control. While the
church was a refuge from the horrors of racism and played an empowering role
in African American history, it also taught black people to repress
behaviors -- especially sexual behaviors -- that might attract unwanted
attention, appear uncouth or seem threatening to white people.

A final piece that shapes black attitudes toward same-sex marriage is the
preoccupation with racism in the black community. This obsession, although
justifiable, has led to a failure to appreciate how racism is inextricably
connected to all other forms of oppression. Those who fail to see this
connection may resent the comparison of gay rights with civil rights. But as
Martin Luther King Jr. once said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice
everywhere."

Last week, two black D.C. Council members voted against the same-sex
marriage bill. But five black council members voted for it. Our black mayor
signed it on Friday, and our black congressional representative has promised
to defend it on Capitol Hill. Although the bill faces the possibility of
intervention by Congress, something revolutionary is happening in this city
to debunk the notion that the black community's homophobia is entrenched.

Wow! Read those paragraphs again. They really do an excellent job of detailing the reasons for some Black homophobia while expertly dismantling them.

MAP Report on LGBT Right Progress 2000-2009

There's an interesting report out this week called "A Decade of Progress on LGBT Rights" written by one of the smartest (and least well-known) LGBT organizations, the Movement Advancement Project, (with funding from the Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr Fund) which puts where the LGBT community is now in a useful historical context.

* Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation: The number of states outlawing discrimination based on sexual orientation increased 83 percent, from 12 to 22, between 2000 and 2009. The percentage of the U.S. population living in states banning discrimination based on sexual orientation soared from 24.5 percent to 44.1 percent, an 80 percent increase. In other words, today 134 million Americans are now living in states where discrimination based on sexual orientation has been outlawed, an increase of 65 million over the decade. (When local nondiscrimination laws passed by cities without statewide protections are included, the figure is over 50 percent of the U.S. population.) Fortune 500 companies that protect workers based on sexual orientation grew from 51 percent to 88 percent.

* Discrimination Based on Gender Identity: There was an even more remarkable increase in states outlawing discrimination based on gender identity and expression, which rose from just 1 state in the year 2000 to 14 states representing nearly 30 percent of the population in 2009. The percentage of Fortune 500 companies that protect workers based on gender identity jumped even more, from just 0.6 percent to 35 percent.

* Relationship Recognition: Similarly exceptional gains were made in the area of family recognition. In 2000, no state extended the freedom to marry to same-sex couples; one state gave broad recognition to same-sex relationships and one offered limited recognition. Now in 2009, five states extend marriage to same-sex couples (with New Jersey and the District of Columbia pending at press time), six offer broad recognition, and seven offer more limited recognition. Overall, the number of Americans living in a state that offers some protections to same-sex couples nearly tripled, from 12.7 percent to 37.2 percent.

* Protection from Violence: The 2009 Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act is the first federal law to specifically protect LGBT people.

* LGBT Elected Officials: The number of openly LGBT elected officials in America rose 73 percent between 2000 and 2009, from 257 to 445.

* Public Opinion: The percentage of the public supporting the right of openly gay and lesbian people to serve in the military grew from 62 percent to 75 percent. Support for marriage equality has grown from 35 percent in 2000 to 39 percent today; there has been an even larger increase in support for relationship recognition that involves many of the rights of marriage, from 45 to 57 percent.

* Safer Schools: In 2000, only one state had a safe school law that specifically cited sexual orientation *and* gender identity/expression for protection; by 2009 that rose to 13 states. The number of Gay-Straight Alliance Clubs in high schools grew from 700 to 4,700, a nearly six-fold increase.

The report also includes data on areas with mixed or negative results.

· Marriage Opposition: In 2000, 5 states had blocked marriage equality through a statewide vote; today, 31 have done so, including 29 states amending their constitutions to prohibit the recognition of same-sex marriages.

· Homophobia in schools: The percentage of LGBT students reporting hearing homophobic remarks in school has remained above 99 percent and LGBT students who report experiencing harassment in school edged up (up from 83.2 percent to 86.2 percent.)

· HIV/AIDS: New HIV infections among adolescent and adult men who have sex with men grew 10 percent, from 28,000 to 30,800, as did the percentage of new HIV infections overall that occurred among men who have sex with men, which rose from 51 percent to 53 percent.

· Military Service Ban: In spite of overwhelming public support for the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the U.S. military continued to discharge hundreds of gay and lesbian service members, with the cumulative number of discharges under the 1993 policy nearly doubling during the past decade. The only "positive" note was that the number of annual discharges decreased from 1,241 in 2000 to 619 in 2008 (the most recent year for which data are available), apparently because of the urgent need for soldiers to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2002.

I hope that some of the people who have been screaming obscenities at our friends in power take a sobering look at how far we have come, and think about where we want to be in 2019.

Federal DP Bill Advances To US Senate Floor

According to HRC Backstory, the United States Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee passed the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act, S.1102, (also known as DPBO) by a vote of 10-6 (8-1 official in-person vote) to the Senate floor, with five Republicans and Democrat David Pryor of Arkansas voting against the bill and Chairman Joe Lieberman ("Independent") and Ranking Member Susan Collins (Republican of Maine) voting in favor along with all the other Democrats on the committee.

The companion bill in the House which is sponsored by lesbian Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin (Democrat of Wisconsin), H.R. 2517, is also pending on the floor of that body after having passed the House Committee on Oversight and Government Management on November 18th.

HRC sent out a press release lauding the Senate Committee action:

“Today’s markup in the Senate is an important step toward guaranteeing equal compensation for lesbian and gay workers serving our government at home and abroad,” said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. “DPBO recognizes that equal pay for equal work is a value fundamental to American opportunity. We thank Chairman Lieberman for his leadership in ushering this important legislation through Congress.”

The Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act (DPBO) was introduced in the 111th Congress by Chairman Lieberman and Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) in the Senate and by Congresswomen Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) in the House. DPBO would provide the same family benefits to lesbian and gay federal civilian employees as are already provided to employees with different-sex spouses. To receive benefits, employees would have to submit an affidavit of eligibility for benefits with the Office of Personnel Management, certifying that the employee and domestic partner meet necessary criteria, as provided in the Act.

DPBO would bring employment practices in the federal government in line with those of America’s largest and most successful corporations. Nearly 60% of Fortune 500 companies provide domestic partner benefits to their employees. In addition, 23 states, the District of Columbia, and over 150 local governments make benefits available to public employees and their same-sex partners. A May 2000 poll conducted by the Associated Press found that a majority of Americans favor the extension of health insurance coverage to same-sex partners. In addition, this legislation has been endorsed by the American Federation of Government Employees, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Harvard University, National Treasury Employees Union and United Church of Christ.

Looks like DPBO will make it to the President's desk before ENDA. Oh my bad, I forgot, there's been no progress on LGBT rights in the Obama Administration because Barack Obama hates "teh gays." STFU!

LGBT Orgs Disappointed BY ENDA Delay

In light of continuing delays in the House of Representatives, we must state clearly and unequivocally: Passing basic job protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people must happen now. At a time when our government is deeply focused on the critical issue of employment, it is inexcusable to delay action on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). Each and every job lost to prejudice based on sexual orientation and gender identity needlessly compounds the unemployment challenges facing our nation. We call on Congress for the immediate passage of ENDA.

For decades now, we have called upon Congress to pass legislation to address the basic right of LGBT people to work free from discrimination at our jobs, and now Congress tells us we must wait another year. In 29 states, it remains legal to fire people based on sexual orientation and in 38 states, discrimination based on gender identity remains legal. In failing to take swift action to pass ENDA, our government allows unfettered bigotry to go unchecked, leading to the loss of jobs, fear in the workplace, economic instability, and personal hardship, while allowing employers to lose competent experienced workers. ENDA is urgently needed by our communities.

The majority of Americans consistently state their support for employment protections and voters have affirmed similar state and local measures. There is absolutely no reason for Congress to continue to delay this non-controversial bill or drop LGBT issues to the bottom of their agenda. We will not be denied basic rights any longer. Nothing is more important than protecting peoples' jobs so ENDA must pass now. Further delays are absolutely unacceptable.


Matthew Coles & James Esseks, Co-Directors,

American Civil Liberties Union LGBT Project

Terry Stone, Executive Director,

CenterLink: The Community of LGBT Centers

Toni Broaddus, Executive Director, Equality Federation
Jennifer Chrisler, Executive Director, Family Equality Council
Lee Swislow, Executive Director, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders
Jarrett Tomás Barrios, President,

Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation

Joe Solmonese, President, Human Rights Campaign
Rachel T. Niven, Executive Director, Immigration Equality
Earl Fowlkes, President/CEO, International Federation of Black Prides, Inc.
Kevin Cathcart, Executive Director, Lambda Legal
Christian Berle, Director, Log Cabin Republicans National Office
Sharon J. Lettman, Executive Director/CEO, National Black Justice Coalition
Kate Kendell, Executive Director, National Center for Lesbian Rights
Mara Keisling, Executive Director, National Center for Transgender Equality
Rebecca Fox, Executive Director, National Coalition for LGBT Health
Rea Carey, Executive Director,

National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Action Fund

Michael Mitchell, Executive Director, National Stonewall Democrats
Gregory Varnum, Executive Director, National Youth Advocacy Coalition
Selisse Berry, Founding Executive Director, Out & Equal Workplace Advocates
Jody Huckaby, Executive Director, Parents, Families and Friends

of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) National

Jo Kenny, Interim Director, Pride at Work AFL-CIO
Masen Davis, Executive Director, Transgender Law Center

Joint Statement from 32 LGBT Groups on Hate Crimes Act

A joint statement was released last week on the occasion of President Barack Obama signing hate crimes legislation into law:

History in the Making

It took much too long, more than a decade. And it came at too great a price: the brutal killings of Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. are just two among the thousands of crimes motivated by hate and bigotry.

But this week, the president put pen to paper and fulfilled a campaign promise, the signing of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, extending the federal hate crimes statute to include sexual orientation and gender identity along with race, religion, gender, national origin and disability. Our deepest hope and strong belief is that this new law will save lives. Now, lawmakers and the president have made an imperative statement to the country and the world: Our nation will no longer tolerate hate-motivated violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people.

We have worked long and hard for this and its passage is historic.

According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program, there are nearly 8,000 hate crime-related incidents annually, and more than 1,200 of those incidents involve violence based on sexual orientation or gender identity. And even more alarming, while the overall occurrence of hate crimes is declining nationally, hate crimes against LGBT people have been increasing. This year alone, we saw hate crimes trials in the brutal killings of two transgender women, Angie Zapata and Lateisha Green.

As a result of this legislation, if local jurisdictions are unable or unwilling to investigate or prosecute hate crimes based on sexual orientation or gender identity, the Justice Department can now step in. And that’s why the LGBT community never stopped working for this historic day.

This legislation not only has practical value, but is a symbol of our progress. It is the first time in the nation’s history that Congress has passed explicit protections on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. We could not have reached this moment without the powerful support of our allies who stood with us every step of the way. We are deeply grateful to civil rights, civic, faith and disability rights groups, as well as law enforcement and district attorney organizations that worked side by side with the LGBT advocates. We are equally thankful to Congress, President Obama and members of his administration for passing and signing this bill into law.

While today we celebrate this marker of progress, we must recognize it as only one of the building blocks to full equality and demand that it be just a first step toward equal treatment under federal law in all areas of our lives. And we must focus on the next step.

The passage of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act provides us with an opportunity. We must use this moment to educate and keep the momentum going so that we can continue to make progress on the local, state and federal levels. Yes, legislation takes a long time — often years of work. Yet, our community is on the cusp of passing much-needed protections.

This week, we call upon lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, families and allies to take this opportunity of increased media and public attention on hate crimes to educate co-workers, classmates, neighbors, family members and friends about our lives, and about why we need not only their friendship and love, but their vocal support for a more just and equal America for LGBT people. If your members of Congress voted in support of hate crimes legislation, call them and thank them. Then ask them to be there for us again when the vote turns to workplace nondiscrimination, military service and partnership rights.

With your help and our collective pressure, equality is within reach.

When talking about the need for hate crimes legislation, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said: “The time for debate is over.”

She was right.

Just as the time has finally come for stronger hate crime protections, it is also time to pass an inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act, repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, and ensure that health care, economic policy and immigration reform incorporate the needs of LGBT people.

The time for debate is over.

Signed by:

Jo Kenny, AFL-CIO Pride at Work
Terry Stone, Centerlink: The Community of LGBT Centers
Gabe Javier & Debbie Bazarsky, Consortium of Higher Education LGBT Resource Professionals
Marianne Duddy-Burke, DignityUSA
Toni Broaddus, Equality Federation
Jennifer Chrisler, Family Equality Council
Evan Wolfson, Freedom to Marry
Lee Swislow, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders
Jarrett Barrios, Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation
Rebecca Allison, M.D., Gay & Lesbian Medical Association
Eliza Byard, Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network
Chuck Wolfe, Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund
Marjorie Hill, Gay Men’s Health Crisis
Joe Solmonese, Human Rights Campaign
Rachel Tiven, Immigration Equality
Earl Fowlkes, International Federation of Black Prides
Kevin M. Cathcart, Lambda Legal
Leslie Calman, Mautner Project: The National Lesbian Health Organization
Sharon Lettman, National Black Justice Coalition
Kate Kendell, National Center for Lesbian Rights
Mara Keisling, National Center for Transgender Equality
Sharon Stapel, National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs
Rebecca Fox, National Coalition for LGBT Health
Justin Nelson, National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce
Rea Carey, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
Paul Kawata, National Minority AIDS Council
Kyle Bailey, National Stonewall Democrats
Greg Varnum, National Youth Advocacy Coalition
Selisse Berry, Out & Equal Workplace Advocates
Jody Michael Huckaby, PFLAG National
Michael Adams, Services and Advocacy for GLBT Elders (SAGE)
Aubrey Sarvis, Servicemembers Legal Defense Network
Lisbeth Melendez Rivera, UNID@S

–30–

Obama Signs Hate Crimes Act Into Law

President Obama with Judy Shepard, mother of Mathew Shepard,
in the Oval Office in June 2009

Here are the President's Remarks on the signing of the Defense Reauthorization Act (which included the Mathew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr Hate Crimes Prevention Act) today white the White House emailed to its Press List:

Now, speaking of that, there is one more long-awaited change contained within this legislation that I'll be talking about a little more later today. After more than a decade of opposition and delay, we've passed inclusive hate crimes legislation to help protect our citizens from violence based on what they look like, who they love, how they pray, or who they are. (Applause.)

I promised Judy Shepard, when she saw me in the Oval Office, that this day would come, and I'm glad that she and her husband Dennis could join us for this event. I'm also honored to have the family of the late Senator Ted Kennedy, who fought so hard for this legislation. And Vicki and Patrick, Kara, everybody who's here, I just want you all to know how proud we are of the work that Ted did to help this day -- make this day possible. So -- and thank you for joining us here today. (Applause.)

The haters are already complaining that Obama didn't use the word gay in his remarks, although he did have aseparate reception later with invited representatives of the LGBT community. No word on whether the White House will also release those remarks.

Pam's House Blend has a summary of reactions from LGBT organizations.

Obama To Sign Federal Hate Crimes Bill Wed

President Barack Obama will sign the federal hate crimes bill into law on Wednesday and deliver remarks at a reception to which members of the LGBT community are invited.

The president plans to pen his name to the fiscal year 2010 defense authorization bill, which includes a provision known as the Matthew Shepard & James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act. The measure would make illegal hate crimes based on actual or perceived sexual orientation and gender identity, among other categories, and would allow the Justice Department to assist in the prosecution of such crimes.

The legislation has languished in Congress for 12 years, and with strong support this congressional session, lawmakers put the finishing touches on the bill this month.

The House on Oct. 8 voted in favor of the defense conference report with the hate crimes measure, 281-146, and the Senate on Thursday approved the same report, 68-29.

I wonder how long the (white) LGBT community will give Obama credit for signing the first piece of federal legislaation ever to include civil rights protection based on gender identity as well as enacting a bill which has been on "the Gay Agenda" for over a decade. Don't hold your breath!

Federal hate crimes legislation passes U.S.House

The federal hate crimes act passed the U.S. House Thursday by a vote of 281-146 and goes to a final ratification by the U.S. Senate early next week. October 12 will be the 10th anniversary of the death of Matthew Shepard, for whom the act is named.

From The New York Times:

The hate-crime provision had passed both the House and Senate in previous years as a separate bill, but the bill could never clear its final hurdles. Speaker Nancy Pelosi said it was fitting that Congress was acting now because Monday is the 11th anniversary of Mr. Shepard’s death. The legislation is known as the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Hate Crimes Prevention Act, for Mr. Shephard and a black man who was killed in a race-based attack in Texas the same year.

“When I came to Congress 22 years ago, hate-crimes legislation was one of the items on my agenda,” Ms. Pelosi said.

The hate-crimes legislation allocates $5 million a year to the Justice Department to provide assistance to local communities in investigating such crimes, a process that can sometimes strain local police resources. It allows the Justice Department to assist in the investigation and prosecution of such crimes if asked to do so by local authorities.

Of course, now the Republicans are claiming the hate crimes bill is unconstitutional if Obama signs the DOD Authorization into law next week, as expected. I guess they are hoping the Roberts court will revisit the unanimous precedent set in Wisconsin v. Mitchell in 1993? Bring. It. On.

U.S. House Committee Hearing on ENDA Wednesday

There will be a hearing in the United States House of Representatives Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, H.R. 3017 , on Wednesday September 23rd at 10am.

Full Committee Hearing
10:00 AM, September 23, 2009
2175 Rayburn H.O.B
Washington, DC

U.S. Rep. George Miller (D-CA), chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, today announced that on Wednesday, September 23, he will hold the first full committee hearing in the House of Representatives on legislation to prohibit employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (H.R. 3017), introduced by Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), would prohibit employment discrimination, preferential treatment, and retaliation on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity by employers with 15 or more employees. Currently, it is legal to discriminate in the workplace based on sexual orientation in 29 states and in 38 states based on gender identity.

Witnesses:
U.S. Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)

U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA)

Hon. Stuart J. Ishimaru
Acting Chairman
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

William Eskridge
John A. Garver Professor of Jurisprudence
Yale Law School

Vandy Beth Glenn
fired from her Georgia state legislative job when she told her supervisor she was transitioning from male to female

Camille Olson
Partner
Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Craig Parshall
Senior Vice President and General Counsel
National Religious Broadcasters Association

Rabbi David Saperstein
Director
The Religious Action Center

Brad Sears
Executive Director
Williams Institute
UCLA School of Law

Additional witnesses TBA

Pam Spaulding over at The Blend has posted a great fact sheet on what ENDA does and does not do:

WHAT THE BILL DOES

* Federal employment laws currently prevent job discrimination on the basis of race, religion, gender, national origin, age and disability. ENDA would extend this to cover sexual orientation and gender identity, covering all LGBT Americans.

* Although some states have laws to prevent such discrimination, in 29 states it is legal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and in 38 states it is legal to discriminate on the basis of gender identity.

* The bill covers both the public and private sectors.

* The bill has more than 170 cosponsors, including Democrats and Republicans. The current list of original cosponsors will be available after the press conference.
WHAT THE BILL DOES NOT DO

* The legislation does not afford "special rights" to any group.
*
* The legislation specifically prohibits preferential treatment on the basis of quotas.

* The legislation does not apply to members of the Armed Services, veterans' service groups, and religious organizations.

* The legislation does not require employers to provide benefits to domestic partners.

* The legislation does not apply to organizations with less than 15 employees.

* The legislation does not prevent businesses from enforcing dress codes

In 2007 a version of ENDA without gender identity protections (which MadProfessah and others called 'fake ENDA' or "SPLENDA") passed the U.S. House in the 110th Congress but died in the Senate. In the current, 111th Congress, with a larger Democratic majority a version of ENDA with gender identity was introduced this summer and is widely expected to pass the U.S. House again and possibly the Senate, where President Barack Obama would eagerly sign it into law.

The 111th Congress has already passed the federal hate crimes act in April 2009 but it has not been taken up in the Senate, leading some to worry about ENDA's chances in the upper legislative body.

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.