ITEM 1: The Huffington Post carries a piece by Evan Wolfson, Executive Director of Freedom to Marry. He writes about the recent California Supreme Court hearings on Prop H8TE and the coming decision:
"Unlike right-wing opponents of equality, who denounce and seek to punish courts for doing their job, I criticize only when they flinch or fail to do it. If the Court, and if this Chief Justice, vote to uphold Prop 8's damaging blow to American constitutional principles, it will be a terrible mistake, failing their obligation under and to the California Constitution. If in so doing, they compound that mistake by selling short, or sidling away from, the truths set forth so powerfully in Chief Justice George's 2008 ruling — the fundamental nature of the freedom to marry, the way in which exclusion from marriage itself denies equality and imposes the stigma of second-class citizenship — they will do a powerful disservice to the people, to the Constitution, and to history, which for the moment still ranks them alongside the judges who struck down race discrimination and the subordination of women in marriage in the face of the passions of the moment, and were vindicated. Failure of judgment and duty now will tarnish their own legacy, wreak real harm on gay people and their loved ones, and shatter the faith of millions in the courts and their legitimate and crucial role in our constitutional system."
ITEM 2: A Dunnellon High School student was sent home for trying to raise awareness about gender identity, gay students and freedom of expression. The junior Justin Reynolds came to class in drag but his efforts sparked a debate on First Amendment rights.
Ocala.com reports: "The 16-year-old student, who is gay, said he first ran the idea by his teacher a day beforehand. She discouraged it but gave him the opportunity to address his classmates that morning. 'A lot of people responded to it well. I didn't think I was causing that much of a disruption,' Reynolds said, recalling the cheers and high-fives that greeted him, especially after he spoke in tribute to Gwen Araujo, a transgender California teen brutally murdered in October 2002. In a brief conference held with the school's principal and assistant principal shortly thereafter, Reynolds was asked to leave school for the day...'He and I had a conversation about what reaction he would get from peers,' said Principal Michelle Lewis. 'A decision was made that it would be best for him to go home. This was a group decision after healthy conversation. There was no kind of animosity. Discipline wasn't the tone of the conversation.' Reynolds recalls how school officials seemed especially uncomfortable with his wearing a bra stuffed with padding underneath his shirt. He remembers how one administrator could barely look him in the eye. And he waives any notion that his attire was a mere stunt to get kicked out of school. 'I was ready to stay the entire day. I was prepared to stay the whole day,' he said."
ITEM 3: In West Virginia, religious conservatives are trying to get the state to pass a bill defining marriage as between one man and a cunt, but when pressed to vote on that bill, the House of Delegates voted along party lines to keep the measure from ever reaching voters:
West Virginia's House of Delegates voted along party lines Monday to end this session's chances for a proposed constitutional amendment on marriage.
An evangelical group has pressed lawmakers this session to have marriage defined as between one woman and one man.
But the resolution needed to put the issue before voters has stalled in committee. That prompted Monday's move by Republican delegates to force it to the full House.
Delegates voted 67-30 to reject the attempt. All 29 House Republicans voted to move the measure out of committee, as did Delegate Tom Louisos, D-Fayette.
And in a moment of "Remember When":
House Republicans similarly sought to force a vote on an anti-gay marriage measure in 2006. It became fodder for a failed election advertising campaign meant to increase the GOP ranks in that chamber.
The Family Policy Council of West Virginia has pushed for this session's resolution, citing a poll it says shows clear support for an amendment. It recently bombarded the revision committee's chairwoman and the head of the House Judiciary Committee with sometimes abusive phone calls demanding action, and targeted Gov. Joe Manchin with a postcard campaign. [queerty]
An evangelical group has pressed lawmakers this session to have marriage defined as between one woman and one man.
But the resolution needed to put the issue before voters has stalled in committee. That prompted Monday's move by Republican delegates to force it to the full House.
Delegates voted 67-30 to reject the attempt. All 29 House Republicans voted to move the measure out of committee, as did Delegate Tom Louisos, D-Fayette.
And in a moment of "Remember When":
House Republicans similarly sought to force a vote on an anti-gay marriage measure in 2006. It became fodder for a failed election advertising campaign meant to increase the GOP ranks in that chamber.
The Family Policy Council of West Virginia has pushed for this session's resolution, citing a poll it says shows clear support for an amendment. It recently bombarded the revision committee's chairwoman and the head of the House Judiciary Committee with sometimes abusive phone calls demanding action, and targeted Gov. Joe Manchin with a postcard campaign. [queerty]
ITEM 4:
The General Assembly's Judiciary Committee on Monday afternoon voted 30-10 to codify last October's landmark state Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage. If approved by the Senate, then the House and signed into law by the governor, the legislation would create a transition period for those same-sex couples who joined together in civil unions. Couples could either end those existing unions or automatically become married under state law. The bill would also delete references in existing state law to marriage being solely a relationship between a man and a woman." [CT Post]
ITEM 5: Why we don't want a universal gay bill:
It's 2012 and Congress is debating a new bill titled "The Equality & Religious Freedom Act." It's scope is wide reaching: It requires the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages, civil unions and domestic partnerships legalized by states, it turns Employment Nondiscrimination Act into an amendment to the 1964 Civil Rights Act and adds to it protections from housing, public accommodation and credit discrimination, it overturns Don't Ask- Don't Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act, it enacts the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act and protects foreign-born partners of same-sex couples, granting them citizenship the same way straight couples do.
Sounds pretty good, right? Well, a Florida based group called eQualityGiving.org is trying to make it a reality. You can read the proposed bill as PDF here. Here's why an omnibus gay rights bill is a terrible idea.
“We feel the less you ask for, the less you get.” says Juan Ahonen-Jover of Miami, a gay philanthropist and co-founder of eQualityGiving.org. The group retained Karen Doering, an LGBT rights lawyer and former staff attorney for the National Center for Lesbian Rights to draft the proposed legislation, which would put all the various gay rights issues that have been fought separately into one big package.
The idea isn't entirely without merit and as a thought experiment, the idea of a sweeping omnibus bill is appealing, if only because it forces a discussion about why such a bill is impractical. On one hand, much of the recent success the gay community has had in raising its profile is by demanding political action and forcing politicians to make clear their support for or against gay rights. This, "storm the gates" strategy has yet to result in any actual change in legislation or policy, but it has enormous value in making the case for gay rights to the larger public. A gay omnibus bill, were it able to escape from committee, would undoubtedly incite a national debate on our rights and just why, exactly, gays and lesbians are treated as second-class citizens.
The problem, of course, is that Congress, even with its current Democratic bent, is as likely to pass a bill like this as it is to pass a bill guaranteeing each and every American their own personal panda bear. The Human Rights Campaign, through spokesperson Trevor Thomas, said of the idea:
"The underlying objective of this proposed approach is laudable. There is a long list of legislative priorities that need to be achieved, but packaging all of these ideas together will not make passage easier. In fact, re-packaging this legislation would require us to rebuild the support that the existing bills have garnered over the years from civil rights, labor, and business groups. What we need is a lot of hard grassroots work and all hands on deck.”
The tension between idealism and strategy is nothing new for the gay rights community, with many lambasting Rep. Barney Frank's decision to bring a version of ENDA to the House last year that did not include trans rights. It's an interesting dilemma. HRC is continually criticized for its "wait and see" approach to gay rights legislation and yet, does anyone think that "The Equality & Religious Freedom Act", which includes everything but the kitchen sink could possibly be a viable piece of legislation? If you do, I'd like to sell you a condo in the new gay rights mecca of Wichita.
At the risk of being accused of betraying our principles, we think a gay rights omnibus bill is at best, a distraction. There are many worthy pieces of legislation, particularly ENDA and the Matthew Shepherd Hate Crimes Act, which are within striking distance of passing. Grand gestures have their place, but with gay Americans still lacking basic federal protection from discrimination, we'll take the practical over the poetic, the achievable over the inspiring. When it comes to demanding our equality, we should stand on principle. When it comes to making it happen, we ought to be pragmatic.
Sounds pretty good, right? Well, a Florida based group called eQualityGiving.org is trying to make it a reality. You can read the proposed bill as PDF here. Here's why an omnibus gay rights bill is a terrible idea.
“We feel the less you ask for, the less you get.” says Juan Ahonen-Jover of Miami, a gay philanthropist and co-founder of eQualityGiving.org. The group retained Karen Doering, an LGBT rights lawyer and former staff attorney for the National Center for Lesbian Rights to draft the proposed legislation, which would put all the various gay rights issues that have been fought separately into one big package.
The idea isn't entirely without merit and as a thought experiment, the idea of a sweeping omnibus bill is appealing, if only because it forces a discussion about why such a bill is impractical. On one hand, much of the recent success the gay community has had in raising its profile is by demanding political action and forcing politicians to make clear their support for or against gay rights. This, "storm the gates" strategy has yet to result in any actual change in legislation or policy, but it has enormous value in making the case for gay rights to the larger public. A gay omnibus bill, were it able to escape from committee, would undoubtedly incite a national debate on our rights and just why, exactly, gays and lesbians are treated as second-class citizens.
The problem, of course, is that Congress, even with its current Democratic bent, is as likely to pass a bill like this as it is to pass a bill guaranteeing each and every American their own personal panda bear. The Human Rights Campaign, through spokesperson Trevor Thomas, said of the idea:
"The underlying objective of this proposed approach is laudable. There is a long list of legislative priorities that need to be achieved, but packaging all of these ideas together will not make passage easier. In fact, re-packaging this legislation would require us to rebuild the support that the existing bills have garnered over the years from civil rights, labor, and business groups. What we need is a lot of hard grassroots work and all hands on deck.”
The tension between idealism and strategy is nothing new for the gay rights community, with many lambasting Rep. Barney Frank's decision to bring a version of ENDA to the House last year that did not include trans rights. It's an interesting dilemma. HRC is continually criticized for its "wait and see" approach to gay rights legislation and yet, does anyone think that "The Equality & Religious Freedom Act", which includes everything but the kitchen sink could possibly be a viable piece of legislation? If you do, I'd like to sell you a condo in the new gay rights mecca of Wichita.
At the risk of being accused of betraying our principles, we think a gay rights omnibus bill is at best, a distraction. There are many worthy pieces of legislation, particularly ENDA and the Matthew Shepherd Hate Crimes Act, which are within striking distance of passing. Grand gestures have their place, but with gay Americans still lacking basic federal protection from discrimination, we'll take the practical over the poetic, the achievable over the inspiring. When it comes to demanding our equality, we should stand on principle. When it comes to making it happen, we ought to be pragmatic.
Read more of my blog by clicking the title or subject listings on the right.
Email friends of my postings with the EMAIL icon at the bottom of each post.
And as always, feel free to comment.
Member of the Boxxet Network of Blogs, Videos and Photos
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment