Leave a Comment Jacob Combs
This week in antidiscrimination measures
April 13, 2012
Community/Meta Transgender Rights
By Scottie Thomaston
Activists who have been pushing for a federal ban on anti-LGBT discrimination by contractors were informed this week that the order isn’t going to be signed by the president, despite reports that it has already been approved by the Labor and Justice departments, and despite the enormous coalition working to stress the need for it in the midst of the president’s so-called “We Can’t Wait” campaign targeting legislative inaction with administrative fixes. No one is happy, the anger is growing more intense, and White House press secretary Jay Carney faced a barrage of intense questions at the briefing yesterday. More pressure is expected in the coming months.
Meanwhile, some states and cities are progressing on the antidiscrimination front, even in strongly conservative areas in the South.
In Tennessee this week, Knoxville Mayor Madeline Rogero announced that she is introducing a non-discrimination ordinance in the city to protect city government employees from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. The ordinance is up for its first reading on April 17 and a second one later before its passage.
This is a huge win for equality in any conservative state, but it’s even more thrilling in Tennessee. People in the state who are LGBT have been dealing with a huge amount of terribly offensive legislation specifically designed to attack members of the community in a mean-spirited, nasty way. Tennessee’s General Assembly has proposed everything from a bill to restrict teaching about gays and lesbians (Don’t Say Gay) which is still on the calendar, while other bills like the anti-transgender “bathroom bill” was withdrawn quickly due to immediate national outrage. Just in the past few days, the state senate has approved a bill suggesting that hand holding is a gateway sexual activity.
And of course, while the ordinance appears to be fairly limited – it only affects city government employees – it’s only so limited because of the law passed last year stripping antidiscrimination protections from cities and localities – which applies to everyone except city government employees. That law, called HB600, got national attention when, after state LGBT organizations had fought hard to keep the bill from being passed, national LGBT bloggers noticed and launched campaigns to stop it and later to punish its supporters. It earned a recent repeal attempt by state senator Jim Kyle, but unfortunately that bill failed to make it out of committee. Still, the fact that cities in Tennessee are still making efforts to fight anti-LGBT discrimination and state legislators are fighting so hard to repeal HB600 is a testament to how hard organizations promoting LGBT equality in southern states are willing to work to protect our LGBT brothers and sisters.
In Maryland, a non-discrimination ordinance was approved in Baltimore earlier this year, to add protections for people who are transgender. An attempt was made to get the law repealed by the voters, but it’s being reported that the attempt failed. Signatures of three per cent of voters in the county were unable to be obtained, paving the way for the ordinance to become law, and it did on April 9.
The struggles in southern or red states can be much different and much more limited than the ones in other states. Typically we’re playing defense, fighting a marriage amendment or another odious law that is supported by many state legislators even when its only purpose is to target and hurt people and families and children who are LGBT. Victories like this don’t come often and we mostly lose more than we gain in the reddest areas. But even though we have to fight much harder and over a long period of time we’re in this to win equality and so we keep on.
Having technical problems? E-mail equalityontrial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!
23 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
HexColor | April 13, 2012 at 7:15 pm
The same stuff we went through in Maine with our equality aw it's time to demand equality and justice all around the nation organize and protest the Goverment !
2.
Kate | April 14, 2012 at 8:07 am
I need some clarification. Did the HRC really do something illegal? I know the NOM tax reports are public documents, and I know that NOM was ordered by 3 courts to disclose their donors, but since the HRC has since removed the documents from their site, it starts to look a bit fishy. I don't want that to be the case. Input?
3.
Bob | April 14, 2012 at 11:02 am
Homosexuality is found in over 450 species.
Homophobia is found in only one.
Which one seems unnatural now?
4.
Gregory in SLC | April 14, 2012 at 4:43 pm
Why Obama (probably) won’t endorse gay marriage this year
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/…
5.
Gregory in SLC | April 14, 2012 at 4:44 pm
Isn't that the truth!
6.
Reformed | April 15, 2012 at 2:02 am
Does it seem likely that NOM's website, facebook page, and twitter account were all hacked simultaneously? Seriously, were they all protected by the same password? More likely just NOM theatrics to deflect attention from their recently exposed internal strategy documents.
Who leaked the IRS documents to HRC? Probably Brian Brown.
Did HRC do something illegal? Evidently they didn't think so. There are other ways to disseminate documents without posting them on their website. But if they did make a mistake, I dont think NOM will succeed in reviving the inquisition over it.
7.
HonestPerson | April 15, 2012 at 8:08 am
"Did the HRC really do something illegal?"
The answer is an unequivocal YES.
According to the Huffington Post: "Nor did NOM's public 990 form. In fact, record of the payment was only uncovered Friday when the pro-gay rights Human Rights Campaign was sent a private IRS filing from NOM via a whistleblower. The Human Rights Campaign shared the filing with The Huffington Post."
Someone's going to JAIL.
8.
AnonyGrl | April 15, 2012 at 9:22 am
HRC received a document from a whistleblower. How is that illegal, exactly?
9.
Reformed | April 15, 2012 at 11:01 am
Boy, I'd hate to find you guarding the pearly gates. So why bother with an investigation? Just suspend due process and go right for the strip search!
10.
Sagesse | April 15, 2012 at 11:19 am
What would Obama do if the Democratic party puts support for marriage equality in its platform at the Convention? Hmmmm…
It would give him cover to change his position.
11.
Bob | April 15, 2012 at 11:38 am
that was a good article Gregory,,,, I been thinking,,, if the democracts put it in the campaign platform,,, then Romney gets to make big steam with it,,, saying Obama supports SSM etc,, you know how they'll spin it,,,
If they don't,,, then Obama has the opportunity to field questions when confronted by Romney,,, he then gets to make his point,,, that he stands for Equality,, for All, as gauranteed under the constitution,,, and also makes the emphasis that Romney, stands for discirmination,,, I don't know if I'm saying it right,, but I think Obama would have a better come back to the question,,, than trying to correct the fear and lies,,, the republicans circulate about marriage equality,,,,
12.
Str8Grandmother | April 15, 2012 at 12:54 pm
Well speaking of Maine here is a little update for you that might put a smile on your face.
In the State of Maine for the ballot initiative that removed same gender marriage in 2009 there was a complaint filed against NOM (I think it is the Fred Karger compaint) that they were acting as a Ballot Question Committee and they hadn’t registered. The Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices (Ethics Commission) opened an investigation and requested NOM give Testimony and Records to see if they were acting as a Ballot Question Committee or not. NOM refused to answer the subpoenas and in 2010 initiated a State Court Case in Kennebec County Superior Court
Case # AP-10-12
National Organization for Marriage vs. Maine Commission
They also started another Federal Court Case and said that the Election Disclosure Laws in Maine were unConstitutional, they lost that court case and it has recently finished with the Supreme Court refused to hear it, so the lower Courts Rulings stood.
The Judge’s decision in this court case is about forcing NOM to obey the Subpoenas, they need to show up and give testimony and bring the requested records to the Ethics Commission. If the Ethics Commission determines that NOM was acting as a Ballot Question Committee then they will have to provide reports, and these reports will include who the donors to NOM are. If NOM looses this Superior Court Case they can appeal to the Supreme Court in Maine. There is no interim Court between the Superior Court and the Supreme Court. The Judge has not asked for Oral Arguments so she will just take the briefs and rule. The State of Maine and NOM both have until this Friday to submit supplemental briefs.
The best guess is that there will be a decision by the end of June at the latest and probably sooner.
Since the leak of NOM's 2008 donors this might be kind of anti-climactic but I suppose we would find out who their 2009 donors up until election day were.
13.
Str8Grandmother | April 15, 2012 at 12:57 pm
Maybe I should also add that NOM's horrible strategy document that was recently unsealed and plastered all over the internet, was unsealed do to NOM loosing that second Court Case where the Supreme Court denied Cert.
14.
MightyAcorn | April 15, 2012 at 1:14 pm
Libel is also illegal. Might want to remove your comment.
15.
Lynn E | April 15, 2012 at 3:04 pm
Ask Bradley Manning. The donor list as contained in the 990B filings is an internal listing, and is not required to be made public. Whistleblowing is used to uncover illegal activity, not simply to expose a falsehood. I don't think anything about Mr. Romney's hidden contribution could be considered illegal (at least until it is found to be illegal in a Court of Law). I can certainly understand why NOM is upset over this leak, how would you feel if your Federal Return was posted on the internet?
16.
Rich | April 15, 2012 at 3:38 pm
Thanks Str8Grandmother, I am waiting to see the actual financial investment of the Catholic Diocese in NOM's shenanigans.
17.
AnonyGrl | April 15, 2012 at 5:15 pm
I wouldn't really care about mine.
18.
Reformed | April 15, 2012 at 11:15 pm
I think there is a difference between "probably" and "is" or an implied "is" (which isn't found here) when it comes to libel. (in case you comment is directed at mine). But then i dont think pro equality activists are prone to immagininging themselves judge, jury, and executioner as the pro discrimination commenters apparantly do. (See how that works – "apparently" – take a lession).
So, if you are just doing a drive by to "poke us with a stick", well, I can sympathize, that's always fun . . . especially on that dull, intellectually dead, Nom blog.
19.
AnonyGrl | April 16, 2012 at 5:51 am
MightyAcorn is one of us, Reformed… and I am guessing the comment was aimed at HonestPerson, who appears to be the one doing the drive by.
I think.
20.
AnonyGrl | April 16, 2012 at 5:53 am
I love the idea. I am guessing that some of the reverse might be the case… that he is holding off on changing his position at the recommendation of the Democratic party leadership.
Just a guess.
21.
Sagesse | April 16, 2012 at 7:36 am
I agree. This is what they call a 'dog whistle'. The Republican base hear it and get all riled up. The DNC is deciding if they want to blow that particular dog whistle.
22.
Reformed | April 16, 2012 at 8:21 am
Ahhh . . . that was a little hard to follow. Sorry Mighty Acorn!
23.
MightyAcorn | April 20, 2012 at 10:54 am
Yes @ Anonygirl, and no problem Reformed. I've been called worse than a NOM sympathizer…oh wait, no I haven't!!! You bastard!!!
Besides, my bad for not directing the comment properly. Sorrryyyyy…..
Leave a Comment
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.