Showing posts with label ENDA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ENDA. Show all posts

Thursday, June 25, 2009

National News: Kameny, ENDA, EHDLA

What a fabulous day it was yesterday for LGBTQ equality. Well, sort of, if only we can get the Matthew Shepard Act to move... or only if we could get rid of Don't Ask, Don't Tell... or only if... blah blah blah. You get the point.

  • Frank Kameny is no longer unfit for unemployment by the Federal Government. Kameny is, truly, one of the pioneers for queer rights in this country having taken his firing from the Civil Service Commission over 50 years ago and challenging it, loudly, proudly, and without apology. HE would go on to coin the phrase "gay is good" (as a response to the "black is beautiful" movement). Today, the Office of Personnell Management, formerly the CSC, officially honored him. Neat.
  • ENDA -- the Employment Non-Discrimination Act -- was introduced in the House of Representatives! Unlike in years past, ENDA is gender inclusive in its language. In 2007, some of you remember, the language was stricken at the suggestion of Barney Frank (D-MA) and the new bill -- only protecting sexual orientation -- was then endorsed by the HRC, which could probably be chalked up as one of the worst PR moves of all time. It passed the House, died in the Senate, and then-President Bush said he would veto it. Hrm. Already, HR 2981 has 10 cosponsors. Also, if you check out the Wikipedia article on ENDA, it has a great timeline that summarizes the history of the bill well (seriously, what was life like before Wikipedia?). In related news, Bil at Bilerico is -- justifiably -- aghast at Indiana Equality's decision not to support ENDA because: "ENDA doesn't make us equal - rather, it creates a new form of segregation. It does not provide protections in housing and public accommodations. There are no protections for LGBT children in the public schools where administrators continue to turn a blind eye to harassment and brutality. With ENDA, we are only marginally protected in the workplace." You know, it's a good point, actually. But, really, we're already pissed about everything else, why be pissed about progress? Of course, that's what I said in 2007 about a non-gender inclusive ENDA. Hrm.
  • The Ending Health Disparities for LGBT Americans Act (EHDLA) was introduced by Tammy Baldwin! This bill is a bit of a sleeper and one I didn't even realize was being tossed around. 365gay.com reports the bill will do the following: "In addition to investing in data collection and research, the bill establishes non-discrimination policies for all federal health programs, provides funding for cultural competence training for health care providers, extends Medicare benefits to same-sex domestic partners, creates a new office of LGBT Health within in the Department of Health and Human Services, and provides funding for community health centers who serve the LGBT community." In short: it will start protecting the health interests of LGBTQ Americans. Fabulous. It is HR 3001 and currently has 7 cosponsors.

Isn't this fun, now, kids? Stuff is getting done, and quickly again. Apparently yelling and screaming worked, although I have a suspicion the ongoing drama over LGBTQ individuals pulling out of the DNC fundraiser in protest of inaction had more to do with it. A friend of mine -- was it JereKeys? yea, I believe so -- suggested that the reason going is so slow on a lot of these is because, so long as there is more to do, then the Democrats can continue to dangle the metaphorical carrot of equal rights and raise some serious cash.

They understand, I think, that the Republicans, if all other things were equal, would likely be the party of establishment queers if the GOP was better on our issues.

Thursday, June 11, 2009

2009 U.S. Conference of Mayors

June 12-16th will mark the 77th United States Conference of Mayors Annual Meeting, a conference designed to set and propose and discuss urban and suburban policy amongst many other goals. Mayors from around the country will meet and discuss/vote on over 100 proposals ranging from public transit to green energy and, for the first time (I believe), marriage equality.

Meet Resolution #46, as proposed by Mayors Sam Adams (Portland), David Cicilline (Providence), and Christopher Cabaldon (West Sacramento) (full proposal list here -- warning: big file and PDF format!):

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that The U.S. Conference of Mayors endorses the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, the Uniting American Families Act, and the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that The U.S. Conference of Mayors supports marriage equality for same-sex couples, and the recognition and extension of full equal rights to such unions, including family and medical leave, tax equity, and insurance and retirement benefits, and opposes the enshrinement of discrimination in the federal or state constitutions.
It is a strongly wordy pro-LGBTQ proposal from some (maybe not so unexpected) friends from around the country. Now, these proposals, if passed, are not binding and do not require anybody to act on them. Rather, they are just political posturing and statements meant to influence national change. Most of the proposals, in fact, are easy "duh's" -- it's hard to vote against greening streets, improving education, and reducing crime. Very few are really groundbreaking, in fact, which is why this one slipped in is such a surprise, to my mind.

I think it's probably a little more divisive than 95% of those on the list, and I'm curious to know just how many -- and which ones -- will sign on.

And I think it's important to send Mayor Mallory our request that he vote for this proposal, don't you? Considering that this weekend is Cincinnati's Pride, I think it would be especially poignant to have a ringing endorsement of both LGBTQ national policies and marriage equality (though it would have been nice to separate them, as more could sign onto ENDA, I think, than marriage... especially through the South).

Don't know how to get ahold of Mayor Mallory? Simple. Just email him -- mark dot mallory at cincinnati-oh dot gov. (If you can't read anti-spam email addy's, just click here to see it... or say it outloud, it should make sense.)

Thursday, March 26, 2009

HRC's Position on an Inclusive ENDA

Photobucket

Thanks to PamsHouseBlend...

HRC has changed its policy on supporting an inclusive ENDA -- one that protects gender identity and expression for the whole country. 

Their new policy:
It's the policy of HRC that the organization will only support an inclusive ENDA. In 2007 House leadership informed us that there were insufficient votes to pass an inclusive bill, so they decided to vote on a sexual orientation only bill. We made a one time exception to our policy in 2007 because we strongly believed that supporting this vote would do more to advance inclusive legislation. We will not support such a strategy again. We look forward to Congress sending President Obama a fully inclusive ENDA for his signature.
I've oscillated on this point; my initial statements drew a lot of criticism. I was one of the "support it slowly" argument-makers -- you know, "let's get this now and work on other things later." Right. I have since changed my mind, clearly. I am now a inclusive-only ENDA supporter.

I'll let you read Pam's above linked article and make decisions for yourself on the situation and the change in policy.

Tuesday, March 3, 2009

And so it begins...

Three very significant developments this week in the fight for equality:

  • The Supreme Court fight has begun: Eight couples, and three gay widowers, have brought suit against the federal government for recognition of their marriages. Even though it is only coming out of Massachusetts, the implications are fascinating. If the Supreme Court says that the federal government has to recognize marriages as defined by a state, then that essentially knocks down the 1996 Federal DOMA. The question, of course: is it time?
  • Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) has introduced a bill to the US House of Representatives repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell, stating that it is ineffective and has impeded military readinness. On her bill, the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, she says: "This bill will once and for all end the discriminatory practices of the Department of Defense and men and women who have been administratively discharged would be allowed to have the opportunity to serve again if they want. There is no evidence to support a continued ban on open service, and every reason to allow lesbian and gay Americans to serve our country." President Obama is currently meeting with the Department of Defense on how to best deal with a possible repeal.
  • And the right is gearing up to fight "David's Law," which is expansion of hate crimes protections to cover sexual orientation, as well.

Things to watch for...

Oh, and via JMG, Pelosi is promising the passage of a trans-inclusive ENDA. Thank jeebus.

I just realized how expansive this post is... lot of good stuff :-).

Sunday, February 1, 2009

When Drag Queens Attack -- a response

I got an interesting response to this post, and so I'll repost the comment in toto and then attempt to respond as best I know how:

Who these people truly were or why they were so mad is a based on 1/2 of the participants of the fight.

Isn't it possible that the crew of the McDonald's who hurled hateful epaulets at transgender woman?

That wouldn't be a show for you to laugh at would it? unbelievable. Yeas it is slanderous and highly inconsiderate of the "allied" community to laugh at us and hate us. WHO ARE YOU AND DO YOU CARE ABOUT US or are we just a token for you to get readers?

I would feel better if planetransgender's post's did not appear on this blog.You can acomidate that request by removing planetransgender from your blog list.

At their request, I have not linked the blog. But you can back read and figure it out.

I have written and rewritten this post, each time trying to take on a different attitude towards their response. I've written the shocked post, I've written the apologetic post, the angry post, the blah blah blah. Each one was longer and more boring than the one before. Let me, instead, try to condense and go over why I feel each bit:

First, anger (at them): It is absurd and a failing on your part to attack me on my gender street cred. The writer of the above comment states to have read my blog for a while, and to know me somewhat. Honestly, if you do not know my utter support, love, adoration, and respect for trans-identified persons, then you clearly haven't been paying attention. And do not assume that because I do not identify as trans myself does not mean that I have not been the subject of stereotyping, stigma, and discrimination based on my gender expression.

Second, anger (at myself): I was an idiot not to better preface that post. I assumed that people would, naturally, pick up on that the like provocation for the fight was transphobic slurs and nastiness on the part of (clearly) idiotic McDonald's employees. I should have written more and assumed less... for someone as loquacious as I can be, I certainly kept my mouth shut. And I am one for making sure your opinion is known and heard.

Third, apologetic: I'm sorry it was offensive, and perhaps it was not the best of posts in the world. I'm sorry it offended, and I'm sorry I did not do more in terms of deconstructing the news reports. Instead, I just threw it up there without concern for how people would feel about it. And for that, I am deeply sorry.

Fourth, apologetic (addendum): Please note that I am not sorry for posting it.

Fifth, shock: I am amazed that, after everything this community has been through for the last year, and after my giant turnaround on ENDA (from supporting a trans-noninclusive bill to lambasting the HRC for their support of it), that we are still fighting silly fights over non-issues (Rick Warren anyone?). More importantly, that anyone would turn on an ally -- and someone who is, truly, an ally -- for a sheer minor affront. Additionally, that the writer of the comments missed the implication of my words: that I was actually praising these women. Do it, girls, fight back. Don't let homophobic and transphobic assholes get away with it. Now, maybe violence was not the best answer, but they did something. And, for that, they should be applauded.

Sixth, disappointment: Despite the ongoing debate over the word "tranny," I'm disappointed that trans-identified persons have not made the attempt to reclaim the word, much like I have taken on the moniker of "queer," or the black community has for the term "nigger." The author of the blog is a smart person... I would think that this would be a priority. Take the power away from hate. Also, for all the things in the world to get angry over, a bit of humor -- and you have to admit that it was funny for a lot of reasons, whether the "haha, silly trannies" or "haha, terrible news reporting" or "haha, get it girls!" funny -- should not be one of them. Don't come after me, your supporter and your ally. Go throw malatov cocktails into the halls of injustice. Go sledge hammer the walls of division and difference. Go run a truck through the windows of... yadda yadda yadda. (This blog does not support violence in any form. And, if it did, it would come with a blueprint for action, not just vague suggestions.) UPDATE: Also disappointed that an activist would not take the opportunity to educate rather than fight. Rather than think, "this guy is ideologically on my side, he's just a little off on his message, maybe I should help him understand." Rather, I get yelled at. That's disappointing.

Seventh, confused: Of all the things that someone would take offense to on my blog ... this is what you choose? Please. My prolific use of the work "fuck" is more anger-worthy. Fuck.

Finally, proud: Thank you for saying your piece. Thank you for speaking out and calling me out. Thank you for keeping me in check. I owe you all the respect in the world for that. Not enough people do that.

Anyways, that's all. I hope that better clarifies my position.

Update: My response in the comments has been deleted.

Thursday, November 6, 2008

POLITICS: PREDICTIONS: Gay Rights

Few people probably remember the random blogs I did on political issues, because I have mainly been talking about the Election. So, now that that's over, let's make some suggestions and offer some predictions of what will happen in the next two years...
  • ...Don't Ask, Don't Tell will be repealed... this will be pushed by Hillary Clinton.
  • ...ENDA will pass without gender identity and expression included (and we will all hate HRC a little more). 
  • ...Connecticut will start officially offering gay marriage, as will New York State (which will mean David Paterson will probably lose the governorship, and likely Rudy Giuliani will try to take the mansion) and probably one more (Vermont? Maryland? Illinois? Rhode Island? Oregon? which one are yall betting on???)
  • ...the tide of anti-gay marriage amendments will start turning and we will start defeating them as often as we are losing.
If the Dems retain Congress in 2010, then...
  • ....the 1996 Federal DOMA will be repealed.
  • ...ENDA will be amended to add gender identity and expression.
If Barack wins again a second term, by 2016, we will have...
  • ...full civil unions in the country and a legal marriage challenge.
What do you think? Bridges too far, or right on?

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

GAY STUFF: Radical Homosexual Agenda


from the RHA website

There is this group -- called the Radical Homosexual Agenda (RHA) -- who recently protested an HRC fundraiser due to its support of a trans-exclusive ENDA. It seems that they are calling on something a little unusual, says their activist Allen Roskoff:

Jim Owles is asking members of Congress not to support ENDA in any form. We should revert to the effort originated by Bella Abzug and Ed Koch to amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include protections for sexual orientation and gender identity and expression.



(from the above story)

Why does this news story bore me so much? I mean I like their idea, and, I agree, the Civil Rights Act should be amended to include sexual orientation and gender identity/expression, rather than a specific law that, clearly, does not protect everyone and does not protect everyone FROM everything.

Maybe it bores me because the RHA is all lesbians...


(from the RHA website)

Although...


(from the RHA website)

My desire to be an activist is suddenly rising...

Friday, February 15, 2008

POLITICS/GAY STUFF: ENDA: A brief history

This information is coming from Govtrack.us -- the specific website here -- which tracks the activity of Congress.

April 24, 2007
HR 2015 -- proposed by Rep Barney Frank (D-MA) -- it seems to have just evaporated, but includes the protections for gender-identity and expression. It died in committed.

September 27, 2007
HR 3685 -- proposed by Rep. Frank, and cosponsored by Rep. Andrews (D-NJ), Rep. Cohen (D-TN), Rep Filner (D-CA), Rep. Harman (D-CA), Rep. Miller (D-CA), Rep. Pryce (D-OH), Rep. Shays (R-CT), Rep. Schultz (D-FL), Rep. Woolsey (D-CA) -- it was proposed and put into committee.

November 7, 2007
House Amendments 882 & 883 -- accepted, allowing for exemptions for religious institutions and clarifying some language, specifically in regards to the term "marriage."

House Amendment 884 -- by Rep Baldwin (D-WI), the so-called "Baldwin Amendment" -- that was withdrawn the same day.

ENDA PASSES THE HOUSE by a roll call vote of 235-184-14(absent/NV)

Where are we now?
It is in the Senate. Not voted on. Please remember, any additional amendments are going to have to be sent back to the House (I think). We can either leave it the way it is and get it passed or cause a roadblock and stop it from passing. Please remember, the first time this bill was proposed was in 1974 -- the so-called "Gay Rights Bill" -- and we've been trying to pass it ever since.

This is the closest its been in 34 years. We need to let it get through. It will make future changes -- including the addition of gender-identity and expression easier in the future.

So, if you want to do anything, we need to start doing something.

Your Challenge
If you choose to accept it...

1) Call you Senators and urge them to vote for it. For information on how to contact your Senator -- go here to Project VoteSmart (I've been using this website for almost 9 years -- it really is fantastic). And make sure you urge them to vote on ENDA. Clarify that, though you support the original language that has protections for gender-identity and -expression, you still want to see ENDA go through.

1a) While you're at Project VoteSmart, check out to see if your Representative voted yay on ENDA. (Mine did not, btw, Steve Chabot voted NAY.)

2) Go to NoSubstitutes.org, a project of the National Stonewall Democrats, and fill in the form to say that you support the original language of the bill.

3) Call your state governor and urge them to lobby your Senator -- and the President -- to pass ENDA, though you wish there was still gender-identity and -expression protections in the bill. Hell, even call the president. All of the numbers can be easily accessed through Project VoteSmart or any other public information website.

4) Post your progress in the comments section of this blog.

What do you think folks?

Wednesday, February 13, 2008

POLITICS/GAY STUFF: LGB -T-?

OK, so the following opinion piece was written by Jon Winklemen and published in the Nov. 16 2007 NY Blade -- which I have appropriated off of Facebook.

My response to the people shouting to cut off ENDA because it does not include trans-protections is this: IT'S A FREAKING START. A brilliant idea: let's stop a good bill from going through because it does not include everyone in the community. Alright, a fine argument, but, at the moment, there are no protections for anyone.

I will say this now, if they leave out the G in LGBT and just tried to pass an LBT protections bill -- GO AHEAD! Because, guess what, the G will probably come soon.

If you don't believe that things are getting better and the addition of "T" won't be easier in 3, 4, or 5 years, or under a Dem-Congress + Dem-Pres, then you're not paying attention. ENDA as it is is a START. It isn't even the end of the freaking movement. It's not like we're picking a presidential candidate here -- "Here's what you got, now run with it." No, laws build off each other. And one law enacted helps to enact further, related laws.

So, LET ENDA PASS! Yes, I would love to have the T in there, and I prefer that it would be in there, and I think there should be honest, fully heart felt attempts to add it onto the bill... but, don't go as far as to try to BLOCK the bill as it is now.

ADD TO, DON'T TAKE AWAY.

-----
And here's the original post that got me riled up:
----

$30 Million Lies: Joe Must Go!
HRC should be accountable for ENDA betrayal.

The Human Rights Campaign proudly positions itself as the largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender organization in the country. Indeed, with an annual budget of more than $30 million, HRC is responsible for managing the largest share of our community’s investment in securing equality for all Americans.

What does that $30 million buy the LGBT Community? $30 million certainly buys us mugs, baseball caps, necklaces and blue and gold teddy bears with a logo that was appropriated from another organization without permission or credit. $30 million buys exclusive black-tie dinners, boxes of non-descript bumper stickers and a concert tour with Cyndi Lauper. I believe it is time for our community to be demanding a much larger return on our money.

In the recent debate over the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, HRC failed to take a principled position to oppose a stripped-down version of the legislation out of fear that the organization would lose its “special relationships” on Capitol Hill. HRC President Joe Solmonese routinely cited this as the chief excuse for their inaction. It was then that HRC showed its true colors and what our $30 million was actually buying.

LET US BE CLEAR. HRC had previously committed itself to the passage of an ENDA, which provided protections on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender identity. Yet, it has become clear that HRC told our community that they maintained a strategy to ensure the passage of this legislation when they clearly did not and never had any intention of doing so.

HRC has devoted a large amount of time during the past month to forwarding the argument that the debate over ENDA was about incremental tactics, which get us something, versus moral absolutes, which achieve nothing. This was a false argument, and as stewards of our community’s treasure, we shouldn’t let the leadership of HRC get away with this. Promoting this lie might have suited the nuanced position of HRC but it did not serve its members or the community it claims to represent. $30 million should buy strategy and strength
not subterfuge and spin.

Although HRC continued to tell its membership that the organization was feverishly working for an inclusive ENDA during the past month, it was not. The public statement of HRC did not neatly match its aggressive private push for a non-inclusive bill. As constituents, it is time we demand that our $30 million buys accountability.

I do believe that HRC used our hard earned money to build a power base on Capitol Hill, yet it refused to use that power when our community was at stake. Political insiders consent that HRC’s public opposition could have stopped a bad bill from moving forward. Instead, HRC chose to preserve its “special relationships” by failing to demonstrate its strength. Our community deserves a power player, not an over-eager intern just happy to take notes in dictatorial meetings. $30 million should advance the protections of our most vulnerable members rather than the careers and connection of a few elite insiders.

IT IS TIME THAT our community demands accountability and answers from the leadership at the Human Rights Campaign. HRC should publicly declare that it will oppose any future efforts to strip gender identity from non-discrimination bills.

The organization should use its congressional scorecard to reward the seven Members of Congress who opposed the substitute ENDA out of pro-LGBT principals and not give them anything less than a perfect score on the ENDA vote. And HRC should demonstrate what efforts it will now undertake to truly educate Congress on issues of gender identity (again, it has been asking for our money under the assumption that it already has).

As part of that, HRC should set a numerical goal of 10 percent transgender representation on its national boards and all local steering committees. $30 million should buy a commitment from HRC to actually do the job we are paying HRC to do.

Furthermore, HRC holds its own staff accountable for actions that contradict the policy of its Board of Directors. For more than a month, HRC privately lobbied for a non-inclusive ENDA while telling its members that they were doing everything they could to build support for gender identity protections. This was not only a public lie, but also a betrayal of their own organizational policy—and a fireable offense at most organizations. HRC should dismiss any strategist or staff member who is guilty. $30 million dollars should buy institutional integrity.

Privately, many LGBT organizations, their leaders and other community activists are saying they can no longer trust the word of Joe Solmonese and others in HRC’s staff that acted with deceit and duplicity on ENDA. However, HRC is a $30 million juggernaut that also acts as the conduit between donors and smaller grassroots organizations. They fear dissent will be punished and their organizations will lose vital funding. $30 million should buy trust, partnership and respect for others. It should not buy fear, smear or the threat of retaliation.

HRC is supposed to act as our guardian. Perhaps it is time for Joe Solmonese to resign his position so HRC can rebuild the credibility and trust it has lost. The Roman poet Juvenal wrote “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” colloquially translated as “Who watches the watchers?” At the very least, it is time for our community to demand our largest organization become more accountable and effective with the $30 millions we give to it. It is time we demand “JOE MUST GO!”

Jon Winkleman has been a local community activist on LGBT, HIV, reproductive choice and labor issues for more than two decades with many different grassroots organizations, though the views represented here do not necessarily reflect those organizations.

The JOE MUST GO coalition will rally on the National Transgender Day of Remembrance, 6-8 p.m. Tuesday Nov. 20, in Sheridan Square at Christopher Street. The rally honors the transgender heroes who participated in the Stonewall Rebellion and also protests HRC’s betrayal of the transgender community, as HRC will be hosting a networking event at the Stonewall Bar across the street.
© 2007 The New York Blade A Window Media Publication